Become our sponsor and display your banner here
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5678910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 91

A few more skull rings

Article about: Hi all! I really appreciated the feedback on my earlier posting of my rings, I found a few more that I would like to show. I tried to get close up shots of the backs but they did not come ou

  1. #81

    Default

    In this hobby and others , people agree to disagree on certain items . That's what has happened In this case .

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    P
    Many
     

  3. #82

    Default

    It's hard for even knowledgeable people to make definitive decisions from low resolution photos. What looks bad under poor conditions may look totally different in hand. And if the piece in question is of a style or design for which they've not seen before, it's even more difficult. It's easy to make snap decisions but not always the right ones.
    William

    "Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."

  4. #83

    Default

    Always the same argument on rings...one person's 'casting flaws' are another person's 'die flaws'. Too often what is seen as low detail is explainable by die wear and reduction by general wear and tear.

    For me, William's ring looks good (now there's something I never thought I'd be saying on the internet) The wear to the teeth looks natural, the 2 lumps on either side of the skull must surely be part of the design (what faker would ever leave those 'casting marks' intact without polishing or removing them from the cast itself) and the other mentioned cast marks I just don't see.

    Observe the wear to the teeth and distorted nose on one of my skull rings here, yet no-one ever claimed this ring to be cast, unless they want to change their minds now?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	SS 2nd type 2.jpg 
Views:	10 
Size:	69.2 KB 
ID:	924407

    As Sergey says above, if the owner is happy with his ring then so be it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder etc etc.

  5. #84

    Default

    Sergey, I forgot to add, seeing as how the question was facetiously asked about who dug it and where, etc. This ring was purchased something like a half a decade ago from Maxim Naidenov who dug it in Karelia himself and did, indeed, make mention of it in his Karelia thread. If any further details of it's recovery are needed, perhaps you could contact Maxim and ask him himself.
    William

    "Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."

  6. #85
    ?

    Default

    Quote by Triggerself View Post
    If you are happy with this ring - this is great! If you believe that this ring is stamped you are wrong, because there is clearly seen cast defects.

    Attachment 924190
    Of course this ring is cast...without any doubts.

  7. #86
    ?

    Default

    Quote by Eike41 View Post
    Hi all,

    I recieved an explanation from Maxim about the rings. It seems that the rings were gold plated after they were found. This is how they looked original and cleaned I am told.
    After seeing this pics i come back to part of my first statement about this gold plated skulls:

    "..maybe hard worn, corroded ring, restaurated and later plated"

  8. #87

    Default

    Quote by Wagriff View Post
    Sergey-I didn't see your reply as to how many years you've been studying and collecting rings?
    Why you interested? My years of collecting ring gives to you nothing. I have enough expirience to recognize cheap obvious fake.

    Odal also confirmed that this ring is casted ring. He's collecting rings for many years and have very impressive different type rings collection. If you don't want to listen to me, listen Odal opinion

  9. #88

    Default

    Quote by Triggerself View Post
    My years of collecting ring gives to you nothing. I have enough expirience to recognize cheap obvious fake.
    Actually Sergey it is a relevant question. Only a year ago you were asking my advice on things, now a year later it is you imparting 'expert' opinion.

    William's ring was dug by non other than your friend Maxim, are you now happy to say that Maxim has sold William a 'cheap, obvious fake'?

    Is it not also true that some rings of the period were cast? If so, could William's ring not be a true relic ring of the TR era in your eyes? Or are you of the opinion that everything cast is fake?

    Oops...almost forgot your condescending trademark... ... There you go.

  10. #89

    Default

    Quote by Glenn66 View Post
    Actually Sergey it is a relevant question. Only a year ago you were asking my advice on things, now a year later it is you imparting 'expert' opinion.

    William's ring was dug by non other than your friend Maxim, are you now happy to say that Maxim has sold William a 'cheap, obvious fake'?

    Is it not also true that some rings of the period were cast? If so, could William's ring not be a true relic ring of the TR era in your eyes? Or are you of the opinion that everything cast is fake?

    Oops...almost forgot your condescending trademark... ... There you go.
    I'm never called myself as expert. About what I'm asked your advice I don't remeber?

    I don't care where the ring was dug and by who, this doesn't make this ring original. Why you ignore Odal opinion? He's well know ring collector with huge ring collection and more skilled than me.

    I don't have an idea about casted rings, but such rings never will be in my collection, even all will shout that this is original. I'm belive in standarts like die struct, sharp details etc. Also can be my own exclusions.

    Please show me one or two please original period casted ring, just curious

  11. #90

    Default

    I ignore Odal's opinion, because Odal is Wrong in this case. He's looked at 2 low resolution fuzzy photos and made a definitive conclusion from it. A conclusion that I know for a Fact is Wrong.

    A noted Silversmith in Virgia-one of the best in the US-who has had this ring in Hand gave the statement that it was stamped and not cast. A person on the internet looks at 2 fuzzy low resolution photographs and instantly says "cast-without any doubt". Now which one would You give credence to? Because Odal is too arrogant or stubborn to admit that he made a premature and erroneous statement, his pronouncement should still be adhered to with Biblical accuracy? Nonsense. You Can Not make such a judgement on low resolution photos!
    Last edited by Wagriff; 01-15-2016 at 05:31 AM.
    William

    "Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5678910 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Skull rings

    In Third Reich rings
    12-13-2015, 11:03 AM
  2. More Rings

    In Third Reich rings
    04-26-2015, 10:27 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •