Take a look at his web site. I was an advocate of the die struck, engraved and rolled theory because it made scense (sp). Me thinks he is right on this one, Just like the grip thing a few years ago.

Thank you for the comment. While I respect people's right to disagree on this subject, I believe that my research has merit and is the best way to explain the manufacturing process. Already, many people like you who were believers of "die striking" or "die casting" methods have come around to my point of view, based upon the research presented.

I must say from reading these articles,I have to agree with torinojo2 as well...the info by Peter J. Shemonsky was very good.

I never thought I'd say this but, "Great Job Craig"

Sepp

GDC 0292 Gold

I would have to disagree.

Brian

Hello BDE...Can you explain why you disagree. I won't write here why I am NOT a CG fan and never will be,but the articles he has on his site sure make sense. Peter Shemonsky sure sounds like he knows what he's talking about.

Thanks Sepp

GDC 0292 Gold

I'll tell you why,,because Craig has made a elementary mistake when trying to do research.. I had also made the same mistake.

A few years ago I took some rings to a few famous old jewelry spots in NYC.. I asked how they were made. They studied them and said basically what the Antiques Roadshow guy said.. I could have walked away with the same type document the guy provided Craig.
BUT,, when I took out a working die, and a master die to one of the actual rings that were made off it, I had in hand, they all said the same thing,,,'Oh'..
Then proceeded to tell me how the Mens military themed rings, mass produced finger rings, that were made to be sold in a retail store back then were made..
They ALL said the same thing.. So it all depends what you bring them and what who you ask..
I've showed a period die here, no one seemed impressed,what do they think it was?!,also period photo of rings that were made in the flat. I have several hundred rings in my collection. Some relic,,some mint in their original box. Been collecting since 1976,,also have a few relatives in the business for many years..
I own dies, other pieces of tooling, the rings made off them, tools,. rings with their label still on them, interviews from WW 2 period jewelers,, interviews from the former curator of the German jewelry museum,,period documentation etc..

Please don't mis understand me,,I'm not saying rings were not investment cast back then. I'm saying mass produced Mens military themed rings weren't,,and with a few thousand HRs made I'd say they were mens, military and mass produced.

I have a few emails where Don and I talk about the discrepancies from Craigs friends article and from his book on the 'Production' section on why the HR is not investment cast.

Don wishes to be silent for now. My project is on private purchase rings and should be done soon. Maybe when everything gets done Craig, myself, and Don can have an open debate about it all.. No mall jewelers, no Roadshow guys,,just facts, examples, period documentation etc...

Gaspare...Thanks for the response as always...

Peter Shemonsky wrote:

It will also be noted that all examples exhibited some or all evidence of porosity, casting flash and gas bubbles (appearing as small granules of silver adhered to the model). It was the Schmutzler ring that exhibited the largest degree of casting flash, porosity and gas bubbles.

I have only held a few examples of different HRs Don has showed me at a few shows,but never have looked at them using a loop or a Dental scope like people use now on daggers and such,but on the ORIGINAL RINGS you have, or have looked at have you found any such "flashing and porosity" as Peter did in the rings he checked for gottlieb?

Thanks again

Sepp

GDC 0292 Gold

quote:

Originally posted by Gaspare:
.....I'm not saying rings were not investment cast back then. I'm saying mass produced Mens military themed rings weren't,,and with a few thousand HRs made I'd say they were mens, military and mass produced.

I couldn't agree more !

Ric

I agree with Gaspare on his salient points in regards to canteen rings and other generics. Although I respectfully disagree when it comes to the construction of HRs . I think "Old school " craftmanship was intended . Otherwise Schwartz whould have reclaimed the silver he gave to Gahr for that specific purpose. They returned the picture frames because they looked generic.

When anyone can explain what the advantages are for casting over a stamping method, I may agree. But you CAN'T. That's because there IS NO advantage. Casting mass produced silver rings would not only be much more time consuming, but would also have far less predictable results. As for gaseous bubbles, that's just a fart being born. The silver had to be melted at one time to make the blanks for stamping. No - this is just another lame attempt to discredit Don Boyle, who says they were stamped, NOT cast. There is a reason that people generally will not even consider buying a totenkopfring without Mr. Boyle's COA. That's because Don has forgotten more about totenkopfrings than the proponent of this casting nonsense ever knew. (With all due respect)

I have seen a Don Boyle COA that notes a CASTING flaw. Also who is or would ever try to discredit Mr. Boyle ? Have you read the articles mentioned above, read both books, seen, held or owned any HRs , studied Wiligut? Are you just venting ? Perhaps they are hot air bubbles then.

I understand the theory of "old-school", as the Nazi culture was based on traditionalism. However, I don't believe that die-stamping was exactly a new science. The economy-minded SS would have used the most PRACTICAL method in terms of cost and quality. Most early tinnies were struck, and they have very fine detail. Casting takes longer, requires MANY steps, and sometimes has unpredictable results. Stamping is IMMEDIATE, requires few steps, and has VERY PREDICTABLE results. Sounds like a no-brainer to me. Besides, would you pay some guy you never met in Pennsylvania $250 for a piece of paper in hopes he says your ring is OK .......
and THEN, when he tells you how the rings were made, you tell him he's wrong???

It is entirely possible that Mr. Boyle originally believed they were cast. He wasn't BORN with his knowledge. It was acquired over many years. He may have even used the wrong word. Ask him. Everyone knows his e-mail. If you're so sure they were cast, then explain why they chose a method that has ZERO advantages over the other. In fact, the opposite.

OK - Let's talk air bubbles. If a silver blank was fed into a die-stamp machine, that blank was originally formed by molten silver, so the silver blank has already been melted. And what does studying Wiligut have to do with metallurgy?

QUOTES FROM THE SHERMONSKY ANALYSIS: "The original metal model would have been the only means by which to achieve the high degree of detail found in the surface of the ring in combination with the low relief profile of the ring.".........(This is absolute nonsense, as VERY detailed rings are possible from wax models. This is a well-known fact. Second, the totenkopfring has a HIGH relief profile , not low, especially for it's width.) If you want Shermonsky quotes, I've got more.

QUOTE: "The creation of original artwork from wax would not have produced and maintained the high level of detail and could not have withstood the process of casting and finishing of the original from wax,followed by the rubber molding," etc. ........(The rubber molds are NOT made from the original wax carving. The carving is cast "as is", into silver, and the molds would then have been made from this subsequent silver "master".)

Ironically in the last quote, he actually argues against his own position, stating how hard it is to cast them, because of the wax. But even if you start with a metal model, there has to be wax involved to make duplicates.........ANOTHER QUOTE: "The consistent positioning of these elements (runes), and lack of distortion would also indicate that the ring shanks were produced in a circular form.."......NOT TRUE. The first style rings exhibit runes that are distorted (The SS circle is an oval, etc.) This could have been from bending. This was apparently compensated for on the 2nd style ring).

My last post for the day - This will give you detectives out there time to digest what I provided. This isn't about trying to prove anyone wrong, just to find the truth. I find the article to be based mostly on assertions that are not supported. I was incorrect, the article DOES mention a metal model, but it still proves nothing. And the last time I looked, "flashing" is a seam, the result of where the rubber mold separates. MY CHALLENGE: SHOW US YOUR FLASHING AND SHOW US THE POROSITY. I WANT TO SEE THE EVIDENCE. PROVE THAT THE POROSITY WASN'T IN THE SILVER TO BEGIN WITH!!

*T2. , If your thinking "Old school " craftsmanship ,,then thinking investment cast is?? Then I'll disagree with you. Which is easier? investment cast or cutting a die? what required more skill?, high quality tools and machines. Were the best of German awards investment cast or from a die?

"It will also be noted that all examples exhibited some or all evidence of porosity, casting flash and gas bubbles (appearing as small granules of silver adhered to the model)".

*Sepp. Here's a direct quote from a member who has a large collection of HRs:

"None of my rings to include my most mint examples have any of this nonsense to include, ‘porosity or any flash and gas bubbles."

As for myself I had the chance to study in depth only HRs , in the more worn condition,, maybe 7 or 9.. No such flashing and porosity displayed itself on the ones I've seen. My buddy has a collection of over 10 HRs. I'll ask him after the MAX if I could take a look under extreme magnification and report back here.

,,,How about this for a quickie example on wax vs die pressed - The 'fault' on the left sig rune of the HR.
IF, IF the ring is investment cast why is it there? It's coming from a wax model. It would take 1 second to smooth that out! and if from a rubber mold why not make the metal model that makes the rubber mold a perfect one/ That's too easy, and that's why they are not from wax models.. A die is super expensive to have made. The master once made ,well, it is what it is! IF there is a fault its there to stay, and every working die will have it,,just like every HR made has it.. Please, we can go on and on with this,

The article I feel is wrong,,you could make it apply to anything, even an award. Take an award that you know is not from a mold and show it to today's craftspeople and hint towards that it is mass produced and what is the fasted easiest way and you'll hear it was investment cast. But they are not.. In the future I am sure there will be a good debate about all this so study up. ..

I have to agree with Josias' statments. However, he uses logic as a lot of his reasoning and logic alone doesnt always sufice as evidence of something.

As for the most cost effective method, remember Ghar was the only ones that made HR and they made other jewlery as well. so investing in machenery required to mass produce HR rings with the die stricking method would be more cost effective in the long run, because once the equipment is purchased it doesnt need to be repurchased.

But my main reason for believing that the were die struck is based on fakes. if the rings were cast, as almost all fakes are currntly made, there would be a lot more "super fakes" out there. but since the equipment to die stamp a ring would be more expensive and not practiacal for the purpose of making a fake ring, i think that explains why most fakes you see are incredibly poor copies.

QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE: "...as this is the section that was altered in order to size the ring for the wearer as is covered in Mr. Gottlieb's book on the Totenkopf Ring." WOW!! A completely non-partisan endorsement AND a plug for the book, all in one!!

Hi Josias do you remember me? I have not been able to communicate with you since your last mail some months ago. have you changed your e-mail address? My e-mail is silverioallocca@virgilio.it...... and thank you for the attention. silverioa

The "Zischka ring pictured in the last post is a FAKE - PERIOD!! So now we have someone using a "casting line" on a fake ring to prove that original rings were cast. This would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.

You'd think that would have been a conversation starter now wouldn,t you?

Well, it really wasn't very hard. It says "Replik" before the description. My analysis was due to the poor inside engraving. Nowhere close to an original.

A fake in that ad and yet one was "papered" as good at the MAX.....

I didn't see the one at the Max. Sometimes fakes are based on an original. But once you see the name on a fake, you better look darn close at any others with the same name. Unless, of course, the inscription is "Jones" or "Smith". These are the most common names encountered.

Make your own homework and trust your self, then look what is right for you and right for your earned money.