Mar 7, '36 tk ring

[Wagriff]

Just my initial reaction when looking at this ring, but I'm not wild about it. It has most of the proper "fingerprints" so to speak that you generally look for off the bat, but to start, the appearance of the engraving doesn't look to match that well with the condition of the outside of the ring. The runes around the band all seem to be fairly clear and in decent condition, but the Inside of the band looks to be scratched and worn in an odd fashion, and, frankly, I can't imagine what would cause such wear Inside a ring. Over the years, I've had 3 different rings of this kind, and every one exhibited a shiny mirror surface inside with crisp deep engraving of the names and inscriptions. This ring looks "Older" some how Inside than it does Outside. The only rune that seems to show any wear at all is the rune opposite the skull itself- with the lightning bolts, and the runes on the Sides where finger wear contact Should be seen are quite sharp and good. Even on the many Other rings that I've come across and been offered or shown that Did have worn inscriptions in them from long-time being worn on a finger, the appearances in them Still did not match this one's and, although the writings in them were getting weaker, the mirror surfaces of the band itself were still there and obvious. By the point where the inner engravings were showing considerable deterioration, the Outside of the band was Markedly worn and becoming obscured to Match. I've seen these rings worn to the extent of almost being blurred away to nothing, and yet the 2 side runes on this ring are in the best condition of them all. And, yes, I am, of course, well aware that there were several varieties of these rings made-not just one generic basic form, but I honestly do not like this ring and I would have to pass on it if it were to have been offered to me. I'm sorry, but I do Not believe that this is, indeed, an original Honor Ring. Naturally, I would be quite happy to be wrong here and wish you the best of luck in your investigation of it!

[vady]

walk' and green - these pix are at waf now. the 'upside-downiness' is a rare but perfectly ok variant, according to the gottlieb book.

wagriff - thanks for your time and effort; very thoughtful. however, tho they haven't held it, ss expert robert hassler and ring experts craig gottlieb and waf member 'torsten' amongst others, like it; herr gottlieb and several more between this forum and waf liked it enough to add an exclamation mark ('!'). I find this somewhat encouraging..... others please also chime in. I'm planning to research REISCHENBECK im depth starting this week. interested parties might find the waf thread illuminating from several points of view. glad the fotos were appreciated. david

[Glenn66]

That internal scuffing is weird, even if the owner had his hand in soil all the time the ring should be reasonably shiny on the inside. My dad was a motorcycle mechanic and I remember when his wedding ring finally wore in 1/2 from the outside that the inside was still shiny and I KNOW he had his hands filthy all day, every day. Just my 2 cents.

[vady]

thanks for the input glenn. think I'll go with the ring experts, however. gottlieb alone has examined over 200 and wrote a book about them. he's more than a little informed, you might say. but then again, you mightn't.

[Glenn66]

No i wouldn't actually.

When deciding between pure common sense and observation V the declarations of questionable experts who are tainted with the brush of 'gilding the lily' when it comes to declaring their own wares as original I'll go with common sense thanks. Crooks write books too you know.

Having said that, I do hope your ring proves to be 100% genuine, I really do.

[vady]

thanks for the addl. comments, glenn. I really appreciate them and the 'need for caution' thinking behind them! If my own logic and gut instincts are shot to hell and I was skrew'd, well life goes on.

it is worth noting though that this ring is not on gottlieb's sale or auction 'site hence he has no dog in this fight, i.e., no vested interest for putting forth a view good or bad. and just in case you were wondering, tho I published a review of gottlieb's book and know him a little, I carry not so much as an eyedropper's worth of water for him or anyone else who has so far given the ring a thumb's up. actually, I'm as grateful to them as I am to the 'it's fake' guys for taking time time write.

finally, I think we'd all like to know if you're saying (as you seem to be) that gottlieb is a crook, and if so on what evidence. and kindly explain who if not gottlieb is 'gilding the lily' and what you mean by this term. after all, since collectors already know there are bad guys out there, there's a clear need to know who - precisely - to watch for. help us out here with facts, please. that would be a real service to the collecting community. innuendo isn't too useful. thanks again for the thoughtful reax and good hunting.

[Wagriff]

Vady/inimucus, I found your response interesting.

Unfortunately, authenticating an Honor Ring is not as simple as one person or 2 looking at it like a badge and saying "good or not good". When dealing with a 10K plus item that is extremely easily faked, things are quite different. Now, as you've stated, you also posted this ring on the WAF-where I am Also a member-and I did take a look at your thread. In it, you said that "Torsten and Gottleib" both gave it a passing grade, but all to say definitively if an Honor Ring is authentic requires more than an anonymous member saying ,and I quote, "Pics are ... - ring is good" and Craig Gottleib saying "Ring appears good, but to be 100% sure, one would have to have it in-hand." Now, I have no clue who the anonymous "Thorsten B." is, but I Do know Craig Gottleib and his one line statement does not authenticate anything anywhere that I can see.
Your ring has a number of serious flags to it ad I'll list them below so that you can atually Ask Gottleib about them specifically. Or, if you would rather, I can contact him Myself-whichever works best for you, of course.

First, the Green Flags, of which this rings does have some:
1.The design is genuine and as it should be

2.The skull is applied separately

3.The engraving font and wording appear to be correct

Yellow Flags are:
1.The engraving is upside down-this is not Entirely unheard of, but is Extremely uncommon and difficult to explain

2.The Seam is off-center and to the obvious left of where it should be. These rings were made in sized molds and flat strip produced, and then wrapped around a cylinder to make the ring shape and soldered. Just How a seam could be off centered, I do not know. Being made as they were, it's hard to visualize how one "end of the strip" could be longer than the other, to result in an offset seam, but I am including it in the yellow flags, as there may Possible be a explanation for it.

3. Your research seems to indicate that this ring belonged to a man who served in Auschwitz and subsequently served time as a war criminal. It would, naturally, be simple to manufacture a ring with a real researched name in it, but to have a notorious one is always suspect.

The Red Flags, being the more serious, of course, are:

1.The Unusual Wear to the Inside The engraving is quite weak and the surface of the inside of the band is rough, where as it should be mirror smooth. When worn on a finger long enough to produce wear to the engraving itself, it should not be possible to make such crude and roughness to the band itself inside. If anything, it should be even smoother.

2.The Wear on the Outside of the band is not possible from normal wear. The 9 o clock and 3 o clock runes show virtually No wear. From contact with the fingers 24/7 on either side, these 2 runes are generally the first to show wear to the soft silver, but on This ring, the only rune to show wear is the 6 o clock rune which faces the palm of the hand. This particular rune on most rings shows contact marks from holding or grasping things, but does not come into contact long enough to cause Wear, but Your ring shows no damage but wear to it. In fact, it is the only significant wear anywhere on this ring, unless you take into account the odd Inside wear to the band. Which is the next Red Flag.

3.The Inside of the ring shows roughness and heavy wear. The Engraving is weak and the ring band Surface shows roughness. These rings all have a mirror-like finish appearance to the insides of them, and when worn for any length of time, the shininess is actually increased. Your ring, on the other hand, is rough and the engraving is looking weak. From the rest of the ring alone, this should not be possible. Look at the other rings-ones with wear-on Gottleib's site. None of them exhibit any resemblance to your rings condition.

The way you've presented this ring both here and on WAF does not smack well here. Again, I do Not believe that this ring is genuine, but is quite likely to have been deliberately manufactured and artificially aged to make a ready-made rarity to deceive unwitting collectors.

[vady]

T e s t

[vady]

C.g. Now says ring is real. And research by mike constandy shows it was not wilhelm's but his (apparently) non-notorious brother ewald's. Thanks again to all for the thoughtful analyses input and attention. David

[Wagriff]

Hello David, Just curious, but did Gottlieb ever explain the unusual wear pattern to the palm side rune with none on the side runes? And what did he make of the oddly rough interior surfaces? Congrads on an apparently newly found Honour ring!