Deutsche Akademie für Luftfahrtforschung.

[matthew]

The description as posted elsewhere of the piece in question being and I quote "this is a PROVEN, very unique and a rare item" is misleading at best.
After the piece has been posted here and doubts about the authenticity have been raised, without a proof from the owner as to its originality, 'proven' is the last thing this piece should be called.
My first question would be: who, where and how has PROVEN the piece that started this thread to be original.
Since an everyday wear and tear was used as an excuse for the badges' 'differences' so to speak I would like to ask another one: how much everyday wear and tear does it take to erase the serrations form eagle's feet, especially the inside ones that are sitting just inside/below the arms of the swastika without as much as curving swastika's exposed sharp angled edges?
The leaves are missing one of the weaves on the fake as noted on the pic- years of wearing and passing by many hands? You be the judge.
I would appreciate a correction to the write up as not to confuse anyone looking to get one of the originals, using this as a benchmark for it. Or provide us with info as to why this piece is an original.Attachment 683093

[Richard Kimmel]

No but you have used Matthew's information and posted it with acknowledging where you obtained it.

It is a pet peeve of mine when I see others making use of information they have been provided in good faith and passing it off as their own. A note to acknowledge where you got your information from would have been the decent thing to do.

Before this blows into a misinterpretation and the me-toors chime in, let me apologize for making you a bit uncomfortable and to Matthew for this unintentional oversight.

[Richard Kimmel]

Extra Posting ... My error - please remove.

Thanks

[Richard Kimmel]

The description as posted elsewhere of the piece in question being and I quote "this is a PROVEN, very unique and a rare item" is misleading at best.
After the piece has been posted here and doubts about the authenticity have been raised, without a proof from the owner as to its originality, 'proven' is the last thing this piece should be called.
My first question would be: who, where and how has PROVEN the piece that started this thread to be original.
Since an everyday wear and tear was used as an excuse for the badges' 'differences' so to speak I would like to ask another one: how much everyday wear and tear does it take to erase the serrations form eagle's feet, especially the inside ones that are sitting just inside/below the arms of the swastika without as much as curving swastika's exposed sharp angled edges?
The leaves are missing one of the weaves on the fake as noted on the pic- years of wearing and passing by many hands? You be the judge.
I would appreciate a correction to the write up as not to confuse anyone looking to get one of the originals, using this as a benchmark for it. Or provide us with info as to why this piece is an original.Attachment 683093

I would simply appreciate if statements were made a bit clearer as to exactly who's posting this is being referenced. I know that where I am concerned I have only asked for information on this specimen.

I acknowledge that there will always be doubts raised, as this is the nature of the beast when presenting artifacts on any forum.

I would like to go on record not having made any claims either way as the the genuiness or not of my specimen. Reference my signature below: “He who asserts must also prove.” -- Aristotle

[Richard Kimmel]

Ouestion for Matthew ... Is the comparison photo that you have posted that of a specimen in your collection?

I realize that the photos I have posted are not the best and I am planning to have better quality ones to post in a few days, and showing all details. My specimen is of greater quality that my initial photographs present it as, and as I had initially stated that I was only seeking information and not authentication.

[matthew]

The specimen as referenced is one of the accepted originals, it matches known originals in detail. I have no idea who the current custodian of the piece is- it is not me and the piece never resided in my collection to the best of my knowledge. I currently do not own any of those awards. I had a chance to examine few in hand before which gives me a reasonable assurance that the piece as posted for comparison is an original one.

[Richard Kimmel]

The specimen as referenced is one of the accepted originals, it matches known originals in detail. I have no idea who the current custodian of the piece is- it is not me and the piece never resided in my collection to the best of my knowledge. I currently do not own any of those awards. I had a chance to examine few in hand before which gives me a reasonable assurance that the piece as posted for comparison is an original one.

Mathew, your response is a reasonable one ... thank you.

It has always been my consideration that logic must play a significant part within this collecting area and that very few, if any, have the true expertise to make qualified determinations. Logic and longevity will dictate that those who were directly involved in the production of this specimen, or for that matter any specimen are no longer with us to be able to verify authenticity. This is especially relevant when it comes to rare, high end pieces such as this. What many object to are the newbee collectors that never saw or held a specific artifact, and who voice their opinions. This is what feeds controversy resulting in arguments, not logic discussion.

I am going to make a logical statement that there were a specific number of the three grades of this decoration that were presented and serial numbered. I would logically conclude that more than just this amount was actually produced, and that the organization would not wait until they wished to take in another member before ordering a badge to be made in its entirety. If the organization had a supply of un-serial numbered decorations in stock or if the manufacturer had a small stock of these will never be known however, it would seem logical either way.

Also, one must keep in mind that most manufacturers’ stampings on the reverse of decorations were done by hand, not by machine, and where human hands are involved, human error is inevitable.

I am in no way attempting to justify the authenticity of my specimen, this will be judged by the individual collector over time. As I previously stated, that I will soon be posting complete detailed photographs of my specimen, including measurements.

[Richard Kimmel]

Research so far has indicated that production of the badges was stricktly controlled. They were the property of the Academy and had to be returned on death or other reasons for ending the membership.

There were 82 Gold awards, 18 were returned, leaving 64. The Bronze awards, 146, with 26 returned, leaving 120. There was I unique silver award. THIS WAS GIVEN TO THE ONLY SPONSOR OF THE ACADEMY. the Academy had a total of 218 members during its existence.

These figures give the rarity of the award. There was NO PRIVATE PURCHASE.

The following chart may also be of help.

[Adrian]

Logically speaking, it's very likely that as only a relatively small number of these badges were produced by a single maker, each award should be virtually identical and any pieces that err from the accepted and acknowledged originals should be treated as fakes.

[Wagriff]

"very few, if any, have the true expertise to make qualified determinations."

Then why have you come here? A tad bit on the derogatory,no?