SS Skull

[stuka f]

Nice treath, again!!
But could some one explain me how the difference in the pebbling got there??

[bwanek1]

Nice treath, again!!
But could some one explain me how the difference in the pebbling got there??

The faker simply got lazy and didn't think this detail was important. He probably figured that few would know enough or look closely enough to see the differences in the pebbling if he got the skull close enough to the original (though it has slight differences too, by the way).

The devil is always in the details!

[cysior]

No, the 1194/39 on the left is original; the 1194/40 on the right is a fake. I simply didn't have an 1194/40 original to use for the photo to compare with the fake. However, as both the 1194/39 and 1194/40 originals have the same front design, the comparison is still good for showing the differences, especially in the pebbling.

Because low resolution of picture, I can't see pebbling, but i'm pretty sure there is a difference when you have it in your hand.
Thanks again

[stuka f]

The faker simply got lazy and didn't think this detail was important. He probably figured that few would know enough or look closely enough to see the differences in the pebbling if he got the skull close enough to the original (though it has slight differences too, by the way).

The devil is always in the details!

Sorry , but thise is not the way it works!
You can not give more attention or less to thise or that detail when copying what ever it is.
To me thise "faults" are made deliberated, and believe me it takes more work to make a different copy then to make a exact copy.

[bwanek1]

Sorry , but thise is not the way it works!
You can not give more attention or less to thise or that detail when copying what ever it is.
To me thise "faults" are made deliberated, and believe me it takes more work to make a different copy then to make a exact copy.

Really? Then why has no faker ever been successful in making an exact copy of any piece of metal SS insignia if it is so easy?! Most are absurdly bad and get nowhere near the originals. A few get close in many respects, yet miss other details entirely.

I believe you are confusing creating a casting from from an original with creating a die-struck reproduction. A casting will produce a faithful replica of the original from which the cast was made, but it will lose some of the fineness in detail seen on the original. Plus castings usually display other telltale signs of a being castings. A die-struck reproduction will have very fine detail, but to create the die requires considerable effort. The effort is greater for each detail, which is faithfully duplicated. The latter process is where fakers always stop short of the "perfect" fake.

[stuka f]

Really? Then why has no faker ever been successful in making an exact copy of any piece of metal SS insignia if it is so easy?! .

Beat me??

Most are absurdly bad and get nowhere near the originals. A few get close in many respects, yet miss other details entirely.

I have noticed that.

I believe you are confusing creating a casting from from an original with creating a die-struck reproduction. .

I do not ! I know very well the difference between them.
I do castings for a living for over 12 years now, and owned one of greatest Flemisch factorys (when thise stopt in the '90 ties)for the making of insignas and army buttons.

A casting will produce a faithful replica of the original from which the cast was made, but it will lose some of the fineness in detail seen on the original.

That is a urban legend, I am ready to prove that any way you want!
I do not have any shrink or detail loss with the materials I use.
When a eye lash would fall accidentely on the piece I am casting, that eye lash will been seen on the copyed model.
Have a look at the pickelhaube I recently showed, it has the hair cracks in the leather just like the original.

Plus castings usually display other telltale signs of a being castings. .

If done by a amateur, yes!

A die-struck reproduction will have very fine detail, but to create the die requires considerable effort. .

I agree on thise one

The effort is greater for each detail, which is faithfully duplicated.

The effort is equal for any detail.

The latter process is where fakers always stop short of the "perfect" fake.

That is where I think it is done on purpose!

[stuka f]

[QUOTE=PHILBROWN;40847]a damn good reply brad, QUOTE]
I tought we where friends!!

,if its been made once ,it can be made again,,, and

Of course.

and stuka,, i think this may be a challenge, ive seen your work,, can you ,maybe have a go at trying to copy a TK that could pass muster????

That is possible, just need a sponsor; considering that such a die would fetch between 2.500 and 3.500 €!

[stuka f]

Things like thise are a challenge, and I am speaking about the complexity of making a mould of such a kind of objects.

[stuka f]

In a casted one, I could.
But the struck one would lead me to far in work and costs.
If you provide me the button, I can have done in one week!

[bwanek1]

What our good friend here fails to recognize or acknowledge is that ALL of the pieces of the puzzle must fit for a fake to be truly convincing. Visually, a high-quality casting may, in fact, capture [nearly] all of the detail, but it will fail careful inspection in one of the other areas. The basic material will be wrong or the construction will be wrong or the markings will be wrong or the hardware will be wrong or...

To duplicate ALL of the important details, which the trained eye knows to look for in determining originality, is essentially impossible. Even if, notionally, one had access to all of the materials and technology necessary to attempt such a feat, the cost of doing so would be entirely prohibitive. That is why all fakers accept less than perfection--not because it is "intentional" in the sense that they want flaws, but in the sense that they are forced to accept them. It is, in the end, a business decision. They attempt to reach the correct balance of being good enough to fool enough and being cheap enough to be profitable enough.