Verwundetenabzeichen 20 Juli 1944 in Schwarz

[Adrian Stevenson]

Hi Guys, this is something which is seldom seen.

Few collectors have any real experience of these. So I would ask for informed comments only please.

This badge came into work the other week. It was purchased by the current owner around the year 2000 from a UK militaria dealer for a substantial sum. The buyer was told to whom it MAY have originally been owned. (Buy the item not the story applied here as ever). This badge requires very close inspection and we are talking, as usual, comparing die flaws to known originals to prove originality.

I have my own thoughts about it, but in this case I would prefer to keep them private rather than colour anyone else's thoughts. If it is determined to be original, it will be up for auction.

Cheers, Ade.

[Brumbar]

Ade:
I don't know enough about these badges so I will give you an uneducated opinion.
At first glance it's a beautiful looking badge. Nice detail. However the thing that I would question first is the Marker mark. I have not seen a "Junker" wound badge marked with "2".
Sorry I could not be more help, but as you say you have your own thoughts. I'm interested to see if anyone is going to comment further.
Regards
Detlef

[big ned]

One answer to a 5 day old thread that's been viewed over a 120 times? Come on fella's let's have some more input on this one! Any comments and points would surely be welcomed by our dear leader for one, and me for another.

[Saladin]

Okay,
I am going to venture my opinion.
If this is supposed to be an award piece that was presented by Hitler to the recipients it doesn't look like the one or two that I believe to be original.

I've pictured a matching fake below


All the best
Doug

[big ned]

Okay,
I am going to venture my opinion.
If this is supposed to be an award piece that was presented by Hitler to the recipients it doesn't look like the one or two that I believe to be original.

All the best
Doug

Hi Doug,

Would you care to extrapolate on your concerns regarding the badge? What are the precise points that really make you lairy of this piece?

Afterall, anyone can say "It's bad" or "Fake!" or even just "" without giving a cogent opinion that enlightens others to why. Failure to do so just leaves everyone non the wiser and is frankly a waste of time.

No offence meant, but a bit more would really help.

Regards, Ned.

[Stewy S]

Right here I go. I'm no expert on these rare awards. It doesn't appear to have the die flaws of known examples, pommel on the left hand dagger (as we look at it), Swaz seems to have less than straight arms. The depth of the '44 doesn't look enough & the catch appears to be a little too thick. Hopefully I'm way off, but I thought I'd join in. Stewy

[Saladin]

U

Hi Doug,

Would you care to extrapolate on your concerns regarding the badge? What are the precise points that really make you lairy of this piece?

Afterall, anyone can say "It's bad" or "Fake!" or even just "" without giving a cogent opinion that enlightens others to why. Failure to do so just leaves everyone non the wiser and is frankly a waste of time.

No offence meant, but a bit more would really help.

Regards, Ned.

Hello Ned......absolutely no offence taken and I appreciate your comments
I don't have my research data available here so I will expand on my comments tomorrow
You will note that the picture of the known fake (museum quality ) reproduction picture that I posted above is s perfect match to the one that Adrian posted

Doug

[Danmark]

I am going to weigh in with a calculated comment hopefully based on sound observation ........ there you go, now I've done it now!!

Firstly I would look at a nice frosted EK2 ( a Schinkel or W&L ) or a B.H. Mayer EK1 and compare the crispness of the frosting and the coining of the frame to the "roughness" of this specimen of such a prestigious award.

Second would be - I thought ONLY Juncker made these and they were stamped L/12 .... whats with the '2'???

Regards, Dan

[Wagriff]

I don’t care for it at all. The crispness of the wreath leaves is not there-these leaves have soft edges and muted veins. The pebbling around the Hitler signature looks flawed-especially so around the first half of the name. Casting flaw between the lower swastika arm and the right hand grip of the sword shows marked smoothness and lack of definition. Comparing it to a known example presented to General Hans Erich Voss, Voss’s has it’s reverse side stampings lower-towards the catch, rather than higher up as this one has. Voss’s badge also carries a larger catch hook than this specimen has. The date on this one features a wide tail on the “9”. As far as I’ve ever seen, only the Gold versions had these features and the Black had a straight tail on the “9”. On the reverse side, looking at the maker mark, the “2” looks to have a wide base whereas it should have a Flat straight base and no hook to the upper curl tip. Both the maker's mark and the silver content are not deeply or prominently stamped in either, as authenticated originals have.

A Museum copy? A so-called Jeweler's wearing copy? Or an outright high-end fraudulent badge? Whatever it is, it's definitely nothing that I would consider investing 5 figures into.

Dan-according to one source, "Up until 1943, Juncker used the Lieferungs number of the Ordens Gemeinschaeft which was L/12 and
after that, the Presidial Chancellery number of ‘2’ was used. Because these were hand cast and finished,
either maker mark could be used and known
originals have both."

[MAP]

They were marked with either L/2 or just 2 according to Maerz/Hartmann. I really have nothing to add otherwise really.....But while nothing to do with anything as technical as die flaws and such, shouldn't the raised lettering be in black? Maybe it's just wear and tear. Also the base of the 9 looks a bit flared compared to examples I've seen in Maerz book. But again, it could just the paint that is distorting the 9 in his book.