I think this looks textbook, opinions welcome.
I think this looks textbook, opinions welcome.
certainly looks ok to me.
Looks fine with correct RZM tag. Black light test is not conclusive proof on clothe IMO. I have seen the odd one that was good with some glow under UV light. I have always thought it might be how they were cleaned that caused a glow.
Steve
I think it's a nice armband with correct B RZM tag for cotton
Steve is right - black light tests are no longer conclusive (a genuine exemple if washed may glow and a fake may not - fakers always find ways to deceive)
100% classic period original armband
BOB
LIFE'S LOSERS NEVER LEARN FROM THE ERROR OF THEIR WAYS.
nice piece,.i like these armbands,.this one'sin great condition
One of the aspects of enthusiasts offering advice that always tickles me is when they say that something is real or fake upon some evidence that an item shown differs very marginally from another example. The youth population in Nazi Germany was apparently around 8.7 MILLION with an estimated 98% in the Hitler Jugend organisation. It is true that the web is full of fake HJ armbands BUT can anyone say all those made in all those numbers were all identical to each other? That would be impossible.
Reason why I'm saying this is that I've just added a new post showing a HJ armband that has been in my possession for FIFTY YEARS . . . yet my pix show some minor changes to the detailing from the above yet NO deviance from the specification.
Suspect some purists out there will now be foaming at the mouth but I know mine is no fake, I would love to see somebody present a cast-iron argument for there being a UK industry make Nazi fakes in Wales, UK during the 1960's? Maybe they went on to fake the moon landings?
Very good point Bob, a truly pertinent one too. I hope nobody takes offence at my comment, in no way was I attempting to say others HJ armbands were real or reconstruction. Does seem to me at times though that, especially with the use of today's "smart phones" and "txt spk", the transfer of knowledge is becoming under danger of being marginalised.
For around ten years I was one of a team whose practicable expertise allowed national museums to display accurate replicas so that their fragile originals remained in climate controlled storage. We worked under scrutiny from hugely successful academics and we had to get it right. In our research we used the trialled and tested method of "Primary evidence - Secondary evidence". We learned to be pessimistic yet, as creators of physical replicas, we also went by our own skills and feelings as to how something was made.
Today far too many collectors and enthusiasts believe "Primary evidence" is finding an article on Wikipedia, finding "Secondary evidence" is looking it up on Google! Let's put that into true context, let's say we want proof of Caesar's invasions of the British Isles. "Primary evidence" is archaeologists digging up accurately dated artefacts, "Secondary evidence" is reading about the campaign in Tacitus!
If I seem to have strayed from the thread Dear Reader now read back over this and other threads and take into account my words? See? Just how do you PROVE an original even when it's less than 100 years old.
Similar Threads
Bookmarks