Nahkampfspange in bronze. F&BL

[militarymania]

would like to hear opinions and comments on this badge,,,these scare me!,,,thanks for all replies

[KSH]

Hi Robert,

Yes, these can be pretty scary! I am 99.9% sure this is a fake though. The obverse design is all wrong for this maker. They have done a better job on the reverse, but also here wrong. The side crimps to hold the back plate look like nothing I can see in my references regarding the F&BL CCCs. The reverse setup also looks just almost correct. When looking at the reverse as a whole I also notice that the entire outline of the close combat clasp is wrong for this maker. One of the biggest mistakes on this one is the makers mark. Original F&BL CCCs have an interesting feature and that is that the maker mark is upside down and that it sits ABOVE the catch and not under it according to my references. Not only that, the maker mark is also wrong in itself. The "F" on this one have equally long horizontal lines, while on originals the "F" has the lower horizontal line shorter than the top one. Furthermore the period between the "B" and the "L" should not be present either.

So in short it is my opinion that it is a reproduction.

UPDATE:

This is most definitely a reproduction, and it's called the "Butterknife-fake" by many collectors. Probably because of the dull point of the bayonet, which appears much pointier/sharper on original Funcke & Brüninghaus CCCs.


- Kenneth

[militarymania]

hi Kenneth,,,many thanks for your reply on this clasp,,,,what are your opinions on this silver one?

[Adrian]

Hi Robert,

Yes, these can be pretty scary! I am 99.9% sure this is a fake though. The obverse design is all wrong for this maker. They have done a better job on the reverse, but also here wrong. The side crimps to hold the back plate look like nothing I can see in my references regarding the F&BL CCCs. The reverse setup also looks just almost correct. When looking at the reverse as a whole I also notice that the entire outline of the close combat clasp is wrong for this maker. One of the biggest mistakes on this one is the makers mark. Original F&BL CCCs have an interesting feature and that is that the maker mark is upside down and that it sits ABOVE the catch and not under it according to my references. Not only that, the maker mark is also wrong in itself. The "F" on this one have equally long horizontal lines, while on originals the "F" has the lower horizontal line shorter than the top one. Furthermore the period between the "B" and the "L" should not be present either.

So in short it is my opinion that it is a reproduction.

UPDATE:

This is most definitely a reproduction, and it's called the "Butterknife-fake" by many collectors. Probably because of the dull point of the bayonet, which appears much pointier/sharper on original Funcke & Brüninghaus CCCs.


- Kenneth

Thank you Kenneth. This is a good, comprehensive summary and explanation of your thoughts. Very useful for everybody, including me on learning how to identify the good from the bad.

[Adrian]

I think the second (silver) one is OK Robert. My limited knowledge on these doesn't highlight any red flags but hopefully one of the other guys can confirm.

[KSH]

Thank you Kenneth. This is a good, comprehensive summary and explanation of your thoughts. Very useful for everybody, including me on learning how to identify the good from the bad.

This is an original F&BL close combat clasp:



It seems by looking at these good photos that maybe I was wrong to say that there is no period between the "B" and the "L". It seems that it is faintly present.

- Kenneth

[KSH]

I think the second (silver) one is OK Robert. My limited knowledge on these doesn't highlight any red flags but hopefully one of the other guys can confirm.

I beg to differ. I regard the Silver FLL as a fake. Details of the obverse are poor and not consistent with the FLL design, just look at the bayonet point again for instance. The crimps to the back plate is atypical at best for this maker. The setup is wrong, but quite similar to the original. One of the biggest clues is the maker mark. This example here completely lacks the curvature of the letters in "FLL" as seen on originals. The list goes on and on.

You can all probably see all that's wrong for yourselves if you compare with this original example here shown below:


ORIGINAL FLL 1.14.1 CLASP:


- Kenneth

[Adrian]

I will defer to you on these Kenneth and go back to studying them a little closer. Can you post some close ups of the makers mark please?

[KSH]

I will defer to you on these Kenneth and go back to studying them a little closer. Can you post some close ups of the makers mark please?

None of these clasps are mine Adrian, so I can't supply a closeup of this particular original. However, I have found a good replacement. Ade posted his FLL Nahkampfspange in Gold a while ago on this forum so I'm going to borrow a good pic from him for educational purposes This maker mark here is identical to the one on the 1.14.1 original I posted above:



Check out the curvature and shape of the letters.

And Adrian, don't defer to me on these please, I am just an amateur with these clasps as yourself. Access to good references is key you know.

- Kenneth

[Adrian]

None of these clasps are mine Adrian, so I can't supply a closeup of this particular original. However, I have found a good replacement. Ade posted his FLL Nahkampfspange in Gold a while ago on this forum so I'm going to borrow a good pic from him for educational purposes This maker mark here is identical to the one on the 1.14.1 original I posted above:


Check out the curvature and shape of the letters.

And Adrian, don't defer to me on these please, I am just an amateur with these clasps as yourself. Access to good references is key you know.

- Kenneth

Thanks Kenneth, I can see what you mean about the shape of the letters.

Ok, lets not use the word 'defer' - we can call it sloping shoulders instead..........