Opinion on SS 475/39 marked Eagle

**bwanek1** · 08-19-2009, 09:37 AM

by BOB COLEMAN

I do not believe I mentioned the items being discussed in this thread in my post. I was responding to the statement that eagles with the same maker marks have variations. The same production variations would be valid for medals and badges.

Well, how do reconcile that observation with the eagles in this thread? Here we have two eagles of the same material from the same maker in the same year, but from different dies. How does that fit logically with the insight you offered?

**Espenlaub Militaria** · 08-19-2009 09:37 AM

We also buy and trade your items and full collections!

**BOB COLEMAN** · 08-19-2009, 03:29 PM

by bwanek1

Well, how do reconcile that observation with the eagles in this thread? Here we have two eagles of the same material from the same maker in the same year, but from different dies. How does that fit logically with the insight you offered?

I understand that logic can some time punch holes in neatly thought out theories. Possibly, you have access to the manufacturer's records detailing how many dies they had, when same dies were used and when they were replaced. Please reread my post as your answer is there
Maybe we should next discuss the theory of how many angels can perch on the head of a pin.

**bwanek1** · 08-19-2009, 08:40 PM

by BOB COLEMAN

I understand that logic can some time punch holes in neatly thought out theories. Possibly, you have access to the manufacturer's records detailing how many dies they had, when same dies were used and when they were replaced. Please reread my post as your answer is there
Maybe we should next discuss the theory of how many angels can perch on the head of a pin.

Damn, Bob, don't get your panties in a bunch! I am just trying to make sense of your comments. What does your insightful analysis about the need for the use of different dies to accommodate different materials have to do with any argument for or against the potential use of different dies to produce eagles made of the same material?

**Bob Hritz** · 08-19-2009, 08:52 PM

We know Deschler used different dies as well as different styles of RZM code numbers. Why could other makers not have multiple dies?

Bob Hritz

**bwanek1** · 08-19-2009, 11:14 PM

by Bob Hritz

We know Deschler used different dies as well as different styles of RZM code numbers. Why could other makers not have multiple dies?

Bob Hritz

Sure, Bob, of course they could have gone through several sets of dies. As Bob C. rightly pointed out, dies wore out and were replaced with new ones, which often had slight differences. Unlike most of Deschler's styles, however, these are dated (and from the same year), which makes one question how often dies needed to be changed. Of course, that is a function of volume, not simple time. Also, it is quite possible that more than one set of dies was employed at the same time.

Bob C. was also correct that different styles of dies were needed for different materials due to their different properties (solid aluminum, for instance, needs to be thicker than CupAl to prevent cracking during the strike). My question of him was simply trying to understand what this latter point could have to do with these two eagles, since they are of the same material. Nothing more.

I also never said that the fact that the eagle in question came from a different die than the one which made mine and Ade's eagles meant that it was necessarily fake; I only pointed out that it was different. That fact alone certainly does not indicate that it is fake. My problem with this eagle is primarily the strange way that the feathers show through on the reverse in the areas I mentioned.

**BOB COLEMAN** · 08-20-2009, 12:16 AM

Once again, my post was not aimed just at these two eagles. My point was that we have no knowledge of how many dies the manufacturer had or how many were being used at the same time. For instance, a large supplier of insignia such as Deschler might have several machines producing aluminum insignia, all at the same time. The amount of pressure expended by each individual machine could vary producing different depths of design. Were the dies made in house or purchased from an outside source? Were the dies sharpened in house or sent out? Were the dies made by one hand or multiple individuals? Was all work produced in house or was some subcontracted? There are many aspects of judging an item that have never been considered. The questions are also based upon manufacturing techniques available in the era before lasers, computers and other advanced manufacturing techniques.
Much of the lore in collecting is oral tradition. Where does that oral tradition come from and what is the basis for it's validity? We must not always treat everyone who posts with instant negativity. The Forum should be a learning experience for both the advanced and begining collector. I am not alone knowing that items that have a long collection provenance or items that came from untouched historical groupings have been branded fake by the growing number of Internet "experts." Study must also be given to items with old provenance. Too often, I have seen people state, that is an old 1960's or 1970's fake. These form of comments usually eminate from an individual who was not collecting in that era and may have not even been more than a twinkle in their daddy's eye.
This post was meant to do nothing more than attempt to open up collector's eyes to the fact that there is much more than urban legend that must be considered in the quest for knowledge. It is not aimed at anyone. There is no hidden agenda and my shorts are not in a knot. I continually challenge what I know and hope others do the same.

**bwanek1** · 08-20-2009, 02:49 AM

by BOB COLEMAN

Once again, my post was not aimed just at these two eagles. My point was that we have no knowledge of how many dies the manufacturer had or how many were being used at the same time. For instance, a large supplier of insignia such as Deschler might have several machines producing aluminum insignia, all at the same time. The amount of pressure expended by each individual machine could vary producing different depths of design. Were the dies made in house or purchased from an outside source? Were the dies sharpened in house or sent out? Were the dies made by one hand or multiple individuals? Was all work produced in house or was some subcontracted? There are many aspects of judging an item that have never been considered. The questions are also based upon manufacturing techniques available in the era before lasers, computers and other advanced manufacturing techniques.
Much of the lore in collecting is oral tradition. Where does that oral tradition come from and what is the basis for it's validity? We must not always treat everyone who posts with instant negativity. The Forum should be a learning experience for both the advanced and begining collector. I am not alone knowing that items that have a long collection provenance or items that came from untouched historical groupings have been branded fake by the growing number of Internet "experts." Study must also be given to items with old provenance. Too often, I have seen people state, that is an old 1960's or 1970's fake. These form of comments usually eminate from an individual who was not collecting in that era and may have not even been more than a twinkle in their daddy's eye.
This post was meant to do nothing more than attempt to open up collector's eyes to the fact that there is much more than urban legend that must be considered in the quest for knowledge. It is not aimed at anyone. There is no hidden agenda and my shorts are not in a knot. I continually challenge what I know and hope others do the same.

Bob,

It sounds like you are advocating that novice collectors ignore the experience of veterans? [Not speaking in specific regard to this particular eagle] you seem to be encouraging people to accept insignia "variations" with no known history as original.

In this thread, some of us who have long studied these types of insignia have offered observations from our experience, which raise legitimate doubts about the authenticity of the piece in question (specific characteristics which differ from known originals). You, in turn, suggest that that our factual information and experience-based insight should be discarded, since, to paraphrase your argument, "no one really knows for sure." If new collectors follow that reasoning, they will ignore the wisdom we offer from decades of study and, instead, eagerly accept every new fake as a "previously unknown original variation."

**BOB COLEMAN** · 08-20-2009, 04:27 AM

No, it sounds that you are putting words in my mouth. My point is, well documented evidence is always trumps oral tradition that can not be traced to anything except "we all know that it is fake because it is." There are even those who still think that Deschler never made unmarked insignia. This is going no where and I have nothing further to add to this thread.

**Dok** · 08-20-2009, 04:36 AM

Brad,
This eagle not a forgery. It has a history. I wrote it.
In your opinion, only that eagle who is at you and Ade - are originals. All the others is copies. But you do not know history of their manufacture. As you can judge this fact. It not correct opinion.
We have got this eagle from 1942года and I will protect and defend it, despite your authorities.
Dok
P.S. Yes, if will leave in Russia, you can touch his hands. For your formation you of this area

**bwanek1** · 08-20-2009, 11:52 AM

by BOB COLEMAN

No, it sounds that you are putting words in my mouth. My point is, well documented evidence is always trumps oral tradition that can not be traced to anything except "we all know that it is fake because it is." There are even those who still think that Deschler never made unmarked insignia. This is going no where and I have nothing further to add to this thread.

Well, I would love to see your "well documented evidence" that Deschler ever made unmarked insignia...because they DIDN'T!