According to Don Boyle, the totenkopfring was made with a metal roll press with a casted die on top to make the design.

Can you explain to us layman how that works?

Josias,, yeah I've heard the same or very similar.
I mentioned it on another topic and was shot down. I was answered to as if the person knew from fact. I've since learned he didn't..

The process to make the HR was not really a simple one.

*****


Edited for language and insults. Please read our code of conduct.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dave Hohaus,

quote:

The process to make the HR was not really a simple one.

Actually process is very simple. It just requires more high qualified workmanship at the beginning to make dies. Complicated it is for modern jewelers who can only do casting.

Gaspare - Yeah, I was also one of those who believed in the casting theme, vs. pressing. In fairness to Craig, he can't be blamed for the belief that they were cast, because among virtually all old-time jewelers, this seems to be the most logical theory.

G,
That's why your one of the best, your ahead of your time!

Mikee, thanks for the kind words. Not ahead but try and be through.. I believe mistakes have been made about certain things..

6 years ago I wanted to finally go ahead and start working on a book about private purchase rings. I had been gathering info etc. I decided to go to NYC and interview a few old time jewelers. I showed each one a 3rd Reich period ring. I asked them how this ring was made back in the late 30's/early 40's.. All said about the same thing, Carved model,,wax pieces put together,,'Investment cast',,made in the round, etc.etc..

I then pulled out this original master die for the ring. They quickly admitted they were wrong..
Now really they were not wrong. It was me. I didn't fully explain everything and that caused the mis-diagnosis..
Anyway,,,I do not believe for one second the HR was Investment Cast,nor rubber molds were used. And, although it could have been made semi circle I don't believe it was. I don't think it was just made, then hand finished and thats it. There were other steps involved that are not usually done for other rings......

I still firmly maintain my opinion that the Totenkopf Ring is cast "in-the-round" versus being cast or die-struck as a strip. Rumors to the contrary, I did NOT go to some discount jewelry mart and interview a 23 year old sales-clerk, to derive my opinion. Josias and I share a common belief (I think), based upon experience: "among virtually all old-time jewelers, [casting-in-the-round] seems to be the most logical theory."

I'm sorry Craig. I even have to jump ship. Don Boyle told me what he knew on Friday. As you know, I also believed they were cast. I didn't ask Don how he knew. He just said that's how they were made. Having said that, if you think about it, once the die was made, rolling blank silver stock with a press would be a breeze, compared to the fuss to cast each ring individually. I don't think myself, Craig, or anyone could be blamed for thinking they were cast, as that method has been so prevalent for so long. But the practicality of the Germans lends credence to this different approach.

Craig,, these are your words off WAF:

"There is an entire building in San Diego called "The Jewelry Exchange" and it is 8 floors filled with jewelry designers. I'm sure there is a similar "hub" in your city. I really did expect a variety of opinions, but down to the man (and woman) they all said the same thing." and - "By the way, my interviews took me to Munich"

You made the same mistake I made a few years ago. You asked a few got answers thought about it and left it at that..
I don't have your book and if there is more or some sort of period documentation, other examples I humbly apologize..


Almost every Tradesmen/Jeweler book from the 30s and 40s whther US or Europe show that commercially made for retail rings were made in the flat. And, thats what the HR is,,it is NOT a one off custom ring,,it was mass produced.

Gaspare: The San Diego Jeweler's Exchange (not Jewelry Exchange), which is ONE of many sources I interviewed, is not a hodge-podge of pimply-face 19 year olds selling jewelry produced in China. It's about 11 floors of established casters, engravers, watchmakers, gemologists, and other persons whose opinion does in fact count. That a few people including yourself have used the word "Jewelry Exchange" as a touchstone for their assault on my book, is a testimony to the weakness of their critique. You may feel free to disagree with my opinion about how Totenkopf Rings were produced, but if you actually take the time to READ my book, you will see that it is a well-formed opinion, that matches with testamonial interviews and physical evidence. Until we find the molds for the ring (or whatever was used to make them), we will not know for sure how they were made, and as I have stated IN THE BOOK if you READ THE BOOK, Gaspare, is that this was my opinion, but a well-reasoned one. Intelligent minds can disagree, and I expect you to honor and understand that. However, Gaspare, stating opinion as fact (like you have done) is one of the surest ways to expose the weakness of your argument. To say that "I made the same mistake you made" is frankly a bit on the arrogant side. I have made no mistake. I merely hold an opinion with which you disagree.

Gaspare: If you wish to discuss this matter further, you may call me or email me. I will not allow myself to become entertainment fodder for the tabloids. Back to the subject of this thread, lets talk about how Don Boyle knows that a roll-die was used? He may in fact be right, but I for one would like to know how he formed his opinion.

"I WILL NOT ALLOW MYSELF TO BECOME ENTERTAINMENT FODDER FOR THE TABLOIDS." - Craig, we KNOW you're famous but, you're starting to sound more like Paris Hilton every day.

Back to the subject!! Now that it has been established that this "pressing" or "cold rolled" method was more prevalent than thought, then it only makes sense that such a method was most likely used. Germans are not only metallurgy pioneers, but masters of the "pressing" arts. You only need to look at the wonderful detail on their tinnies. The problem is that many "experts" in the TKR field have probably been under the mistaken impression that casting was exclusively used for making thicker jewelry. Now imagine how much easier it would be to make rings by feeding a length of plain silver band into a machine, which then stamps the design into a straight band. (Had it been cast instead, it WOULD have been cast round) Imagine being able to crank ring after ring out as long as you kept feeding the silver into it!!! Press!! Snip!! Press!! Snip!! Ring after ring after ring!! Hallelujah!!!! NOW - Was the skull cast or pressed????

OK,so which is it?Pressing as you call it and cold rolling are two entirely different processes in metalurgical fabrication,using different equipment and feedstock.
Go pick up an ASTM handbook at your Library.
I had 17yrs plus in the "business" in General Management.
Seiler (yank in uk)

quote:

Originally posted by Josias:
Back to the subject!! Now that it has been established that this "pressing" or "cold rolled" method was more prevalent than thought, then it only makes sense that such a method was most likely used. Germans are not only metallurgy pioneers, but masters of the "pressing" arts. You only need to look at the wonderful detail on their tinnies. The problem is that many "experts" in the TKR field have probably been under the mistaken impression that casting was exclusively used for making thicker jewelry. Now imagine how much easier it would be to make rings by feeding a length of plain silver band into a machine, which then stamps the design into a straight band. (Had it been cast instead, it WOULD have been cast round) Imagine being able to crank ring after ring out as long as you kept feeding the silver into it!!! Press!! Snip!! Press!! Snip!! Ring after ring after ring!! Hallelujah!!!! NOW - Was the skull cast or pressed????

Your argument is convincing so far J..what do you think?
(Seems it would be pretty tricky sizing a cast ring? With cold rolled all that is needed is to center the skull with the appropriate length band, leave a void, and weld it.)

Don Boyle said it was a "metal roll press" or "cold rolled metal". That's all he said. The main point is that it wasn't investment cast.

We are beating around the bush here with the problem being everybody is an"Expert" in metal fabrication without comprehending what these
processes are OR the equipment at the time AND indeed STILL being used almost everywhere.
I have two genuine rings (WITH PROVENANCE)
I have ALWAYS been of the opinion the manufacturing process is the simple,cheap,low volume,uncomplicated method known as "Roll Forming Mill"Ideally suited to a relatively small fabricator and used in THE JEWELLERY Business.I was with a Company called General Plate in Attleboro Mass subsequently Texas Instruments Inc.Among many metallurgical exotic
materials produced,the Company was the biggest
supplier of jewellery materials to that Industry.
Attleboro and the surrounding area into Rhode Island was the Pfortzheim of the USA.There were
literally hundreds of Roll Forming Mills AND Jewellery Companies in the area..Robbins,Balfours et al.Your Class Rings
possibly came from there.Don IS essentially correct except for the "Fine tuning of the terminology"OK Schools out...
Seiler (yank in uk)

So was the skull cast? or "squished"
I'd like to be the one to find those die.

I would suspect a "Frugal" German Co.made a simple die,rough pressed a "form" from
the ends or tails of the original feedstock
and simply finished to shape/detail by a hand finisher.IMO
SEiler (yank in uk)
This ring was NOT fabricated by some fancy
investment casting process as purported by an
"Authority"on WAF AND eagerly supported by somebody selling books.

tsk tsk,,,

Those old die must be sitting in some forgotten Swiss safety deposit box?

I assume it is worthless as we all know how the TK rings where made, and the round shape is not a cast for my view. Anyhow why it would be cast when the skull is seperate on the ring and below is the seam line?

Anyhow the source and real info's are in Germany to find and not anywhere else. Trust me the differences for basics are way different around the globe, even for jewlery.

Craig,, You took what others told you as fact and used it to form an opinion/a theory on how the HR was made..That's always doesn't add up to fact or the correct sum.
I have no reason to read your book. I'm not interested in the ring..

Call you to discuss this?!? that's what we have this wonderful forum here for.
Please if you take this all as an 'assault' on you or your book then I really do apologize.. It's really not meant to be...

Yes, lets get back to business. Most mass produced commercially made for retail rings [lets add themed towards the military if you like] made during the period were NOT from a rubber mold nor were they made in the round. I've got my own interviews and findings to go by from the last 6 or 7 years, *and to back them up an amassed collection or period dies, photos and documentation....
*Now the Honor ring is a little different. It is a mass produced ring though!. Looking at it I'd think there was more than the one process on how the design is on the ring...

"lets talk about how Don Boyle knows that a roll-die was used? He may in fact be right, but I for one would like to know how he formed his opinion."

I would say he knows from his relationship with Mr.Piechel who most know was a employee at the Gahr firm... Don's a great guy. But he really ,for whatever the reason, doesn't want to let all the nuances about how the ring was produced known...

*Robert, Yes, the German had their own ways with certain things. I'd say with jewelry though its pretty much the same as the rest of the world at the time,,not politics,,just sharing in an art

I think in the near future the HR dies, or parts of them, will eventually surface....

No, Gaspare. I took verbal testimony and formed an opinion, that is all - I never claimed it as fact, and neither should anyone else, absent physical proof in the form of molds, dies, or whatever. You DO need to read the book, since you are on record on the forums as criticizing it. And for the record Robert: we all do NOT know how Totenkopf Rings were made . . . we can only form well-reasoned theories. It is fun to speculate, but it is presumptuous for anyone to claim opinion as fact - Robert, Don, myself, Gaspare - anybody. Until we come up with either the mold or the die, all judgements will be merely theories. And if dies surface, or molds surface, that would be great. I don't care if I'm right or wrong with my theory (which many people believe, incidentally). I would love someday to uncover the truth. By the way, does anybody know if Piechl spoke English?

- and for the record I'm not critiquing the book as I said, the ring is not my thing..
I saying mass produced commercially made for retail rings during the 3rd Reich period were not from a rubber mold ,,and very very few were made in the round,,that's all..

Craig,,Piechl was alive in 2002 as Don set up a deal right here on this forum for a member to buy one of his last reproduction rings. Either he,,or his rep must have spoke english as Don sure doesn't ,nor did the buyer...

Piechl's rings were most likely made using the same molding process I describe in my book, and Josias uses on his reproduction rings. Reason: the early Piechl rings show much greater detail than his later specimens. The likely scenario is that Piechl produced rings from only one mold, and it wore out as he used it.

Regarding Piechl, I assumed he didn't speak English, because all of the correspondence that I have seen from him, to collectors in the States, is in German.

Craig, why don't you just call Don Boyle and ask him how he knows that a roll-die was used.

I am sure he will tell you how he formed his opinion. He is a great guy,and always willing to help If asked..

All the times I have met him, and spoke to him he has always gone out of his way to help.


Sepp

GDC 0292 Gold

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sepp:
Craig, why don't you just call Don Boyle and ask him how he knows that a roll-die was used.

I am sure he will tell you how he formed his opinion. He is a great guy,and always willing to help If asked..

All the times I have met him, and spoke to him he has always gone out of his way to help.


I certainly agree with Sepp.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gaspare:
- and for the record I'm not critiquing the book as I said, the ring is not my thing..
I saying mass produced commercially made for retail rings during the 3rd Reich period were not from a rubber mold ,,and very very few were made in the round,,that's all..

WW2 era "rubber" left VERY much to be desired!
It's hard to believe they could cast with this?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion because we are unfortunately not in possession of production manuals or materials. Don has his opinion, I have mine, and there is legitimate disagreement on both sides of the coin. Both sides have made valid arguments, which can be seen by reviewing both GDC and WAF. It's up to observers to form their own conclusions from the arguments presented. However, I believe that to speak in language that suggests that one side is factually correct is not productive. This is the reason I presented my view as just that - one among several legitimate hypotheses.

With regard to the use of rubber or some other material to produce molds from a master - it's not really relevant exactly what material was used. The point is that lost wax-casting, and follow-on casting, has been used since ancient times, with excellent results. There is evidence that it has been used for detail production even in ancient civilizations. Google will provide references to my claim. To suggest that the Germans suddenly forgot what 2000 plus years of casters have known, does not make sense in my view.

But again, exactly how Totenkopf rings were produced is a subject that is open to debate, and I hope that my language has encouraged such conversation.