Announcement

**Reichskanzler** · 07-16-2019, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by Antonio Scapini View Post

2 questions:
1) if this ring is not a multiple piece construction, can you explain how can it be possible to obtain a ring like that (see the missing top of most of the leaves and round runic panel, not due to wearing!) with a die struck process?
Absolutely impossible.

2) And can you show me a ring with these flaws (see second picture)? If it is die struck it would be very easy. But being cast I'm 200% sure you'll never find another matching... (already explained here the difference between die struck and cast rings: click! Posts 19 and 20)

BTW: this ring perfectly shows not only the multiple parts (actually not 3...

) as Vince pointed out, but also the proper casting flaws, the proper differences between metals and the proper "mistakes", unique of each ring (all this is enough to dismiss the fantasy die struck theory).

Hi Antonio,
Regarding question #2, I agree with you that those rings could very possibly be die cast, and most likely they are die cast contrary to popular belief. The evidence you showed strongly supports the possibility of a die casting process in the production of those rings by the Gahr company.

Regarding question #1, I have strong reasons to disagree with the 3-piece theory. Sorry I will not discuss those reasons on here to avoid the back and forth heated discussions that happened in the past. This is my personal opinion.

Hugo

**Antonio Scapini** · 07-16-2019, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Reichskanzler View Post

Hi Antonio,
Regarding question #2, I agree with you that those rings could very possibly be die cast, and most likely they are die cast contrary to popular belief. The evidence you showed strongly supports the possibility of a die casting process in the production of those rings by the Gahr company.

Regarding question #1, I have strong reasons to disagree with the 3-piece theory. Sorry I will not discuss those reasons on here to avoid the back and forth heated discussions that happened in the past. This is my personal opinion.

Hugo

Thanks Hugo for your reply. Appreciated.
2 things: popular belief is changed, most ring collectors are also badge (or other metal items) collectors, and they followed the discussions and the data showed during these last years. Their opinion is TK rings are cast. Otherwise no one can show a single evidence on die struck theory.

Anyway, about question #1 you disagree on multiple parts. Ok, no problem.
We have several evidences here: SEM analysys, and also XRF analysys. All scientifical proofs confirm the multiple parts construction. What don't you believe in a XRF or SEM analysys?
Furthermore on some rings is well visible the "step" (and some rings have parts of the inner band detached... see picture below

), and not only it. Check the leaves and all the external designs, compare some rings and you'll get you answer...
I have many other pictures and proofs I never showed here, but if you use logic you'll reach the right conclusion.

Do you know when I started making deep research in TK ring field? When I started searching proofs to support the die struck theory and I realized all what I found was totally wrong! Funny. But this is the best part of this hobby: research and never stop.

Attached Files

Kos_4_O_piece_1.jpg (186.5 KB, 109 views)

**Reichskanzler** · 07-16-2019, 09:59 AM

Thanks Antonio. At least we do agree on the die cast theory. I too used to be a big supporter of the die struck theory but the evidence now clearly shows the contrary.

Regarding the 3-piece theory, is it possible that some rings had it and some rings did not? How about the earliest rings of 1933 and 1934? I’ve owned a few very worn out 1934 rings and there was no evidence of a 3-piece construction.

Regards,
Hugo

Attached Files

**JK53** · 07-16-2019, 10:19 AM

So if rings have the exact same die flaws would that suggest reproducion from the same maker ?

**Ric Ferrari** · 07-16-2019, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Reichskanzler View Post

Thanks Antonio. At least we do agree on the die cast theory. I too used to be a big supporter of the die struck theory but the evidence now clearly shows the contrary...…...

Regards,
Hugo

So far I didn't see any evidences SSHr were made by die casting, just a lot of microscope pics to support a theory.

May be one day the truth will pop up…….

Ric

**Antonio Scapini** · 07-16-2019, 11:06 AM

Period publication shows the multiple parts, exactly the way I found.
I didn't tell all the "truth", some informations are never completely shared, and this because it would take too much time to explain everything. If you want to understand more just write me an email as many did.

Anyway the answer is yes. All the rings are multiple parts. I tested several early rings and all them showed the same characteristics of the multiple parts construction.
But, the more a ring is worn, the less you can see, even with a micoscope (same happens for the seam behind the skull for example). If you try a XRF (or SEM) you'll see a difference between the inner band, the ring body, the skull...
The ring body of each ring has many little dimples; and the reason is to give better grip to the cast band...

Furthermore we have to understand that we are talking of metals that have a close composition in % of silver, Cu, etc etc, so it is not easy to see. If it was easy to see we would have discovered it many years ago!

But sometimes there are missing parts, and other details that are important and explicative.

**Antonio Scapini** · 07-16-2019, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Ric Ferrari View Post

So far I didn't see any evidences SSHr were made by die casting, just a lot of microscope pics to support a theory.

May be one day the truth will pop up…….

Ric

Have you ever show a proof supporting your fake, false 2 pieces, die struck flat band theory? No.
Can you explain a single question of the many I asked you? No. That's enough.

I showed several scientifical reports, if you are blind, or not able to read them, that's not my fault:

Multiple parts with XRF (have you read that?)
Multiple parts with SEM (have you read that?)
X-Ray (have you seen that?)
SEM reports with "CAST" word repeated... (have you read that?)
Period publication (have you seen that?)

So please, stop telling lies. Stop force us to believe your nonsenses. You are not believable anymore.

Attached Files

Sommario_CAST.jpg (123.9 KB, 102 views)

**Antonio Scapini** · 07-16-2019, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by JK53 View Post

So if rings have the exact same die flaws would that suggest reproducion from the same maker ?

Already explained, you can see here: click (posts 19 and 20)

Anyway it is IMPOSSIBLE to make 2 perfectly matching TK rings. You can do them matching if they are die struck.
Even the fakes made from the same die, if they are cast, are not matching. It's a matter of melting and solidification. You will have the "big" flaws matching, but the little ones not. Never.

**Antonio Scapini** · 07-16-2019, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Ric Ferrari View Post

just a lot of microscope pics to support a theory.

Ric

Micro what?!?!?

Your are not able not to read, not to watch!

Poor Ric, worse day by day.

PS: you can explain what you see in these pictures, tell us how can it be explained with a die struck (false) theory, how can you explain the XRF and the SEM data... or ask all the "experts" (you never told us WHO they are!) you named to support you with some real evidences instead your usual, useless, boring blah blah...
But we know you'll never explain anything, you'll never show any proof. We know you.

Attached Files

**Ric Ferrari** · 07-16-2019, 11:44 AM

Sure...and here's flaws by another well known "cast" ring

Ric

Attached Files

SSHrbycasting.jpg (127.8 KB, 93 views)

**Antonio Scapini** · 07-16-2019, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Ric Ferrari View Post

Sure...and here's flaws by another well known "cast" ring

Ric

I would say this is the best you can do.
Don't worry, we love you anyway Mr. die struck, flat band, rounded, 2 pieces!

So, now, can you explain something more about your theory? Do you still have one? Since you changed mind many times... Do you want I show you all the nonsenses you posted?!? Last one about the early TK ring silver %?

Can you answer to only one question I made? Can you tell what you read in scientifical reports? Of course no.

I can stop posting pictures, I no need them. I have scientifical data. They are enough, they are the truth.
Nobody should believe me. Every one should test as I did! I could be a liar. Scientifical data not.
You told us many nonsenses, and go on with them. Scientifical data not.
I already told you: you are burned.
But surely, if I ver decide to publish all the data, I will credit all your statements... Just for laugh!

So you can go back sleeping. Your blah blah worths nothing like your false theory.

Another time, maybe you missed it: real scientifical data, see picture below. Don't you see any confirm?

Attached Files

Sommario_CAST.jpg (123.9 KB, 88 views)

**Ric Ferrari** · 07-16-2019, 12:34 PM

I could post tons of pics taken by private purchase rings showing "supposed" cast flaws……..althought they are all 100 % die struck (like the one by pic #25) , just to prove your theory worth nothing because based only on microscope pics.

But I have no time to waste in this nonsense endless polemic

Ric

**Antonio Scapini** · 07-17-2019, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Ric Ferrari View Post

I could post tons of pics taken by private purchase rings showing "supposed" cast flaws……..althought they are all 100 % die struck (like the one by pic #25) , just to prove your theory worth nothing because based only on microscope pics.

But I have no time to waste in this nonsense endless polemic

Ric

I think you really have some logic and common sense problems. Big ones.

1) if you post a single picture it is useless (this is what you never understood, and will never understand...). If I show you an off fucus close up of a buckle you'll never understand if that buckle is cast or struck.
But seems this is too hard for your mind to understand. And this is why the poor trick you think is winning is the most big fail you did.
But you did so many that everyone here laugh at you, seems your childish approach is always the same.

2) It is not MY THEORY, is what scientifical data say.
On the other side you have nothing to say because you have nothing to show. You can't dismiss a single scientifical data, you never posted anything, you only have your famous/useless blah blah. Too bad that's the truth.

Originally posted by Ric Ferrari View Post

based only on microscope pics.

Ric

My pictures are SUPPORTED by XRF and SEM professional analysys. You can ignore all the pictures, that the result will not change. So your word "ONLY", proves that you are not only blind, but also that you ignore all what dismiss your false theory without any logic.

You were humiliated so many times, and your frustration is well visible. I'm sorry, this is what your arrogance deserves.

Since you have never answered to any question (just for example see here: click!

) answer these questions:

1) What do you think of the scientifical data like XRF and SEM analysys? Are those professional tests, accredited worldwide, useless for you? They (NOT I!!!) say "CAST" and "MULTIPLE PARTS". What your scientifical tests (or proofs) say?
(We have here: Ric revealed truth vs international accredited labs reports. Which one is the more believable?)

Originally posted by Ric Ferrari View Post

SSHr were made flat, engraved flat, by two pieces
Ric

2) Which is for you a definitive proof? And we expect you have for your theory too... Right?

Attached Files

Announcement

Schimana ring

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread