As has been noted before, the straight-band V1 (with variations in symbol design and whatnot) is perhaps the most-seen version during that Silver Age/early Bronze Age run from 1959-1976. Literally just a simple ring-band with a signet disc (of varying sizes, but usually BIG) stuck on top.
But, the devil is in the details, and so I’ve come back to refining it yet again. Time and again in this thread, I’ve shown how difficult it has been to get the right balance and proportions for such a simple design. Also, the actual attachment point where the disc meets the band has been a big question mark. As has been demonstrated, the art was inconsistent, to say the least. Sometimes a solid ring with the disc stuck on top, and sometimes a “U” band, with the ends attached to the bottom of the disc. In studying real-world rings of this type, I’ve come across both styles. Kane himself drew both styles, athough the the full-band with the disc on top generally seems more prominent in his work…but is not necessarily something which translates well to a real ring.
That being said, going the latter route really does seem a bit too clunky, to my eye. The result is a much higher profile, and a huge undercut between the top of the band and the bottom of the disc. And a goal with this project is to find a balance between sleek and comic-accurate.
As it stands, I’m getting closer. This latest iteration has a thinner band (about 8mm wide, rather than the previous 10mm), and a thinner (3.25mm) disc. The disc size is currently back to 25mm, but I have smaller variants, too. I think the “U” band versions pictured below provide that sleeker and more integrated look, compared to the full-band with the disc sitting on top. This current version also has the slightly “D” shaped/rounded band, rather than being flat-sided.
Now, I’m playing with just how high the disc should sit in relation to the band, with (from left to right) low, medium, and fully on top. There are other variables to be questions, too, such as the thickness of the ring and the depth of the signet engraving, although those seem pretty spot-on. We’ll see.
What do y’all think?