-
I just saw that Ade, too, and have no idea why I said that. Must of been deprived of sleep, as usual, or something of that nature.
It seems the Fpi. Nr. is accurate to the rest of the information which makes me believe the engraving was period done. It definitely wasn't done recently, and in-hand looks quite convincing. I will try to post better pictures.
This actually came along with several other authentic items that had never been in a collection. I guess the next step would be to research the name on the badge, but I'm currently involved in researching another item. However, when time does permits to do so, if I discover any new information I will surely post it.
Also, thank you very much, Ade, for the additional information. It is very helpful, and kind of you to post.
-
10-02-2013 09:54 AM
# ADS
Circuit advertisement
-
I have to say that I rather like this badge. The horridly crude repair to the wreath definitely looks like it was field done by a soldier. Even a drunken faker could have done a better looking bit of soldering, I would think. As for the markings, I doubt that there is any definitive reason why a field post number would be scratched on to a badge, but I've seen odder things than that on other pieces, so who can say? Maybe the thing actually Did have a history of dropping off of his tunic and he hoped that if anyone would find it they would get it back to him...? Some weird sentimental attachment to that particular badge? Who knows? lol
William
"Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."
-
A few more pictures, best I could do, of the engraving. Honesty, I, too, can not think of any logical reason, besides the one above, for a soldier to engrave a field-post number into his badge, but then again, why would a faker? You'd think a faker would use other, possibly even incorrect, information, such as they usually do.
Clicking on the image increases the size and quality, somewhat. On the last image, if you can zoom in, it appears the wear matches the age of the engraving.
-
by
KMMorris
As Adrian has said above there is very little reason for there to be a unit engraving on a flak badge, for this reason i think that the engraving is post war added. Possible a person who believed adding unit marks to a badge would up the price a bit. And I believe if a soldier lost his bade or medal and still held the document or if the company/battalion held the document he was able to receive another for a cost.
Morris
An award, IMO, can kinda be like a wedding ring; although it is replaceable, nothing can or will take the place of the first one, which could become symbolic of a special time while you where wearing it, such as the day you were married. The new example wasn't there, therefore, to some, not as important. Some just find such things more sentimental valuable than others.
Also, having to pay for it again, regardless of the price, would be quite frustrating. You must recall the period, which was a different time, too. Even if they had money, most likely wouldn't of spend it on fruitless things, such as modern times.
Admittedly, being cautious, especially with SS items, is always wise, but we must also remember they were human, and humans don't always follow the rules, the norm, or regulations.
I also can see no real reason a faker would engrave such a thing as a field post number, but anything is possible, of course. Just with everything matching, and how it appears in-hand, I find it likely it was period done.
Last edited by youthcollector1; 10-02-2013 at 10:28 PM.
-
-
by
all1knew
Youth,
Can you please try to take a photo of the hinge side like this for me, a lot of Juncker flak badges do not have alignment marks, does this one?
William Kramer
Again, as I've stated, there is nothing wrong with this example. It is correct in all aspects, including the flaw on the lower portion of the gun that's found on authentic examples of this variant. In another thread, Adrian, and several others have already deemed it as an original, too.
Also, I'm not going out of my way for someone who's unwilling to learn the correct information after many years of collecting, and who still post some of the worst, well-known reproductions, just so they can attempt to ridicule someone else's item, especially considering that seems to be the only time you comment on other members threads. With all due respect, thank you, but no thank you.
Add: I forgot to mention that this thread is only about the engraving, and the engraving only. It is in no way a request for authenticating the badge itself. That actually has been done elsewhere, therefore, there is no need for it here. Thanks
-
I don't know what you are talking about or why there's a personal attack here; I am not saying the badge is not original, I am looking for a trait of Juncker production. Can you post a link to the discussion thread, does it show the side of the hinge there?
William Kramer
-
If this thread, genuinely, is about the engraving, and only the engraving, then the simple thing to do would be to view it under magnification, as i explained a few days back - specifically relating to an article that i am working on pertaining to engraved, or embellished items. All you need to do, is the same as below on the following engraved small HJ shooter. If the engraving is very old, and if it was indeed worn in the regular fashion after it was engraved, if it looks honest, you will see this, with 100% certainty, and conclusively, under magnification. (whether you chose to disagree is of no importance to science) AFTER THAT, you will have a solid basis for a discussion on, depending on the results - whatever.
Well, that would be the way that these kind of engraved items need to be looked at before debating about why it could be, and why it couldn't be. Not IMHO, but just straight up.
-
by
youthcollector1
Again, as I've stated, there is nothing wrong with this example. It is correct in all aspects, including the flaw on the lower portion of the gun that's found on authentic examples of this variant. In another thread, Adrian, and several others have already deemed it as an original, too.
Also, I'm not going out of my way for someone who's unwilling to learn the correct information after many years of collecting, and who still post some of the worst, well-known reproductions, just so they can attempt to ridicule someone else's item, especially considering that seems to be the only time you comment on other members threads. With all due respect, thank you, but no thank you.
Add: I forgot to mention that this thread is only about the engraving, and the engraving only. It is in no way a request for authenticating the badge itself. That actually has been done elsewhere, therefore, there is no need for it here. Thanks
I have no idea what that was all about.
No-one is disputing the authenticity of the badge.
William has asked for a specific shot of a specific part of the badge for the purpose of seeing if it has alignment marks. It's not about 'real or fake', just about research and comparison to other Juncker produced badges.
Looking for LDO marked EK2s and items relating to U-406.....
-
Jo, I completely agree with science is quite the helpful tool that doesn't lie, much unlike people's opinions, but still, for me, there are other tools used that are at minimum worthy of discussion.
For example, when research shows that said person was actually in the marked Batterie, and Division, as well that it also matches to the correct Fpi Nr., IMO, that is worthy for discussion. The majority of the time, such added information is something the fakers don't research, thus causing it to be incorrect in some kind of aspect.
Also, although magnification is undoubtably a method which will yield better results, especially when judging engraving, even without it, in-hand the item can still be quite telling. To me that makes it, too, worthy of discussion even though, admittedly, it's only a opinion. I'd like to think using all learnt methods is the best way to determine information, not just the best one. I will, however, attempt to take photographs of the engraving under magnification, and upload them when time permits.
Add: Another helpful bit of information is that this award has never been in a collection besides mine. Doesn't prove much besides a collector probably didn't do this, but still useful to me. And yes, science for the most part doesn't lie, but it can, however, be inconclusive making the other tools valuable, too.
Adrian, I have my reasons.
.
Bookmarks