What do you think of this

[matthew]

I got a feeling that if the 'most knowledgeable enamel badge collector' was to call someone a dick, there would be someone arguing that he merely mistook that person for his friend Richard.

I thank you for the pic you attached, Greenhorn. I presume you included it in your post to show there are original pins with bigger hardware out there. Please excuse me if I am wrong here but it would appear that the first pin that started this thread or rather its hardware is nowhere near the size of the pin you compare it against. Allow me to merge the pins side by side: while the pin you show indeed features bigger hardware, the verso set up on the one that started this thread seem to be even bigger- so much so that the reverse loop on the needle is situated almost entirely outside of the perimeter of the badge itself.
That of course could be another way of constructing period pins back then but I can't say I recall seeing any with the same features so I have to ask for help: Would you able to show us any documented period original pins with their hardware so big as to protrude outside of the badge as this one does?
By documented I don't mean 'approved by Jo'. Not to sh*t on the guy but lets face it, after 8 years and tens of thousands spend on 'research', he still did not know what cupal was.

cheers

Matt

[CBH]

Here is mine , with small pin and RZM mark , can't really comment about the first pin posted .

[StuG III]

As far as I am aware a sympathizer badge should not be sporting a RZM marking.

Tom

[CBH]

As far as I am aware a sympathizer badge should not be sporting a RZM marking.

Tom

I'll start a tread with that question .

[Walkwolf]

Indeed Tom, and the pin looks suspiciously like
the type seen in the late 70's.........

[Wagriff]

Okey...I've been watching this ill-starred thread for some time now, and just thought that it might be of interest to point out some of the reasons that I did not feel this pin was good. So...
A. What is going on with the metal in this and the immediately surrounding areas to it? It is extremely coarse and discolored.
B. Why is the edge uneven and wavy?
C. What is this curved line circling beneath the pin plate and why is the metal gritty in appearance?
D. Notice the sparkly bright bits to this portion of the pin. This pin is cheap Brass and is over 70 years old and has, presumably, been inserted into and worn much more than a few times in it's lifetime-why is it still shiny and bright golden?
E. What is going on with this section of the edge and it's enamel overlay?
F.& G. Again, question "D" applies.
I won't even address the abnormally oversized pin, as it's been discussed aplenty in the preceding posts. And as to why the reverse side edges look sharp and rough despite being worn against clothing for a number of years is anyone's theory. Could this badge's pin have been lost and a large inappropriate pin been attached to make it wearable again? Unlikely but Possible. Is the damage to the reverse side the result of it being heated to resolder the new huge pin in place? Again, possible, but who can say when or if this would have taken place. 1938 or 1998? So, are there All period parts to this pin? Some? None? Has it been tinkered with and by who and When? Needless to say, there are enough questions in My eyes and mind about it that negate any merit it might have. I didn't like it initially, and after delving deeper into it, I Still do not care for it. Legitimate concerns? Or "nonsense"? I guess that's up to Paul to decide.

[Greenhorn]

I got a feeling that if the 'most knowledgeable enamel badge collector' was to call someone a dick, there would be someone arguing that he merely mistook that person for his friend Richard.

I thank you for the pic you attached, Greenhorn. I presume you included it in your post to show there are original pins with bigger hardware out there. Please excuse me if I am wrong here but it would appear that the first pin that started this thread or rather its hardware is nowhere near the size of the pin you compare it against. Allow me to merge the pins side by side: while the pin you show indeed features bigger hardware, the verso set up on the one that started this thread seem to be even bigger- so much so that the reverse loop on the needle is situated almost entirely outside of the perimeter of the badge itself.
That of course could be another way of constructing period pins back then but I can't say I recall seeing any with the same features so I have to ask for help: Would you able to show us any documented period original pins with their hardware so big as to protrude outside of the badge as this one does?
By documented I don't mean 'approved by Jo'. Not to sh*t on the guy but lets face it, after 8 years and tens of thousands spend on 'research', he still did not know what cupal was.

cheers

Matt

Matt

You are correct, I added the photo to illustrate the size of the attachment pin. Here are other pin attachments of various sorts that are more bizarre than shown in this OP's badge and yet we wouldn't call the badges fakes due to it. The attachment pin has no bearing on the authenticity of the badge. It's probably a replacement from February, 2015, as William eluded to. The badge itself has a brass base and has been battered, mistreated, stored next to the dog's food bowl and has taken on hues realized by the Pride Parade. lol. None of this changes the fact that it's a good badge that's been mistreated and probably has a replaced pin (although it looks original to these myopic eyes).

I don't know if there's period proof of such details as the pin round part? It's a matter of perspective as you can see in the same badge obverse below showing the protruding pin, albeit the other end of the pin. I just think it's insignificant to focus on the slightly larger size pin and we can agree that it's probably a replacement anyways.

Jo knows what Jo knows. What he knows and doesn't know about Cupal is his business and the fact that he's knowledgeable does not change. How he conducts himself is also his business. I am friends with the man and choose to concentrate on his good qualities, not fallacies. We all have those, afterall.

[Greenhorn]

Okey...I've been watching this ill-starred thread for some time now, and just thought that it might be of interest to point out some of the reasons that I did not feel this pin was good. So...
A. What is going on with the metal in this and the immediately surrounding areas to it? It is extremely coarse and discolored.
B. Why is the edge uneven and wavy?
C. What is this curved line circling beneath the pin plate and why is the metal gritty in appearance?
D. Notice the sparkly bright bits to this portion of the pin. This pin is cheap Brass and is over 70 years old and has, presumably, been inserted into and worn much more than a few times in it's lifetime-why is it still shiny and bright golden?
E. What is going on with this section of the edge and it's enamel overlay?
F.& G. Again, question "D" applies.
I won't even address the abnormally oversized pin, as it's been discussed aplenty in the preceding posts. And as to why the reverse side edges look sharp and rough despite being worn against clothing for a number of years is anyone's theory. Could this badge's pin have been lost and a large inappropriate pin been attached to make it wearable again? Unlikely but Possible. Is the damage to the reverse side the result of it being heated to resolder the new huge pin in place? Again, possible, but who can say when or if this would have taken place. 1938 or 1998? So, are there All period parts to this pin? Some? None? Has it been tinkered with and by who and When? Needless to say, there are enough questions in My eyes and mind about it that negate any merit it might have. I didn't like it initially, and after delving deeper into it, I Still do not care for it. Legitimate concerns? Or "nonsense"? I guess that's up to Paul to decide.

Hi William, I hope you are well.

Variety of opinions is the spice of life And I wouldn't try to change yours or we would only need one person to post all replies, right?

You make some keen observations in your post. I can only reply to the obverse having a crack in the enamel in your photo mark E, which is conclusive with photo mark B. Clearly, this badge took a whack on the edge by something. The shiny parts on the pin in photo marks E and F are probably from flash photography or a reflection from the photo lighting source(s).

A big problem with the photos is the quality and you know I always harp about that!

My observations of the badge are: the even(ness)/ smoothness of the red enamel mating to the borders of the perfectly formed outer edge. Just have not seen the fakes duplicate this, to this level of quality. The pin is negligible to me, although it's large it still passes the muster.

There, now we have two opinions that are constructive and informative and the buyer can decide. If he passes, for the right price, I'd gladly buy it and post proper pics of it.

Here is an observation I will make though, William. Notice when an SS helm get a review by someone in the know, like Doug or some other well versed collectors and the helm is given a quick One-looker reply? Notice when you or Ned or other good SS ring evaluators look at the countless fakes and "Instantly" spot the good ring? Why and how you guys come to those quick conclusions is beyond some of us but you guys are almost always correct! (rarely wrong, but we're human) Well, this badge speaks to me like the many items speak to you. After countless hours of looking at and comparing badges, you get the makeup of what they are about. Can I be wrong, ever, of course, just ask my wife. Can my respected friend, William, be wrong also, yes. We can agree to disagree on the maybe replaced hardware. We should agree that better pics should always be provided before a stand is made for the item but this one is a one-looker based on the pics.

[Wagriff]

Greetings Mark!, Absolutely, the photos are atrocious! Whoever took them might as well have used a Brownie box camera. Even I could have done better, and that's saying alot! As for the badge? I'm still leaning towards this piece having taken a pretty good hit somewhere and sometime in it's history. Did it rip off the pin in the process? I think it's quite likely that it did, but if and when this happened is anyone's guess. This would certainly account for all the screwed up metal and damage to it. Perhaps the pin was beyond saving or lost altogether and it was replaced with a period style pin but just not a perfect size replacement? God only knows what or where the fixer got it off of. So, the bottom line would be that the badge itself looks to be likely good. No longer in it's "birth condition", but chances are it's good in any case. The pin? Well...as you said, we can disagree and there's no loss or foul there! (I Still wouldn't buy it myself, but then again, I dislike damaged things. For example, some guys love dug relics-me? Not my cup of tea. Some look for battle damaged pieces, liking the drama and the history to them, but for me, if it's dug, I'd rather they be pretty much intact. Everybody's different and that's just fine! It makes the hobby endlessly interesting!)

[slados28]

I don't see anything really wrong with this sympathizer badge --- replaced pin? I personally do not think so. And there are so many variations to the pin setups, as Mark has pointed out, that I can't say I'd damn the badge because the needle protrudes somewhat... these were made by all sorts of makers with no regulations to adhere to. Discoloration to the reverse is common.... who knows how, when or why - it's been a few years since these were produced, after all. Point E might be a shallow enamel chip... poor photo, hard to tell.

To my eyes this is just another mass produced unofficial supporter badge, nothing mysterious or really out of the ordinary.