Flakkampfabzeichen der Luftwaffe-marked wiedmann

[bacilko30]

hi guys. what do you think? for me a good one but there are some collectors they dont like it. maybe its not often to see. thanks. Jan

[FALLSCHIRMJAGER]

Hi, it is certainly based on a Wiedmann award but I do not like it. Compared to mine(albeit mine has no finish) the details are either poor or not there at all in several places and I also do not like the deep ridge in the reverse. The hardware is of the correct type but again I do not like the look of it. Leon.

[harryamb2]

not for me either,a great lack of detail.

[big ned]

For me it's original. The problem here is either a very weak die strike that has caused the obverse detail to be poor and the base material to not be pressed into the die fully, as can be seen on the reverse, or it may be that the badge was injection molded (as some types were) and not enough base material went into the mold. I just don't know exactly which process Weidmann used to be sure, but I think that the badges problem is due to one of these processes going wrong.

The rear set up is 100% correct for Weidmann, being known as the "Classic Set Up" of the lily pad hinge and flatwire catch on a large circular base. The finish is correct too, as is the maker mark. I think this just got past the QC section unnoticed but is a genuine piece, albeit being an unusual one that could easily frighten some collectors.

An interesting badge, thanks for showing it!

Regards, Ned.

[bacilko30]

Thanks for your comments guys the badge is on its way so when it comes ill make some more pictures. But i have feeling that its a good one. Die flaws are commonly seen on quite many genuine awards. Auxilarry,anti partisan etc. Wiedmann has very strong and nice finishes on awards which are still shiny after many years. Look for example on ,,19,, east medals....

[Stewy S]

For me it's original. The problem here is either a very weak die strike that has caused the obverse detail to be poor and the base material to not be pressed into the die fully, as can be seen on the reverse, or it may be that the badge was injection molded (as some types were) and not enough base material went into the mold. I just don't know exactly which process Weidmann used to be sure, but I think that the badges problem is due to one of these processes going wrong.

The rear set up is 100% correct for Weidmann, being known as the "Classic Set Up" of the lily pad hinge and flatwire catch on a large circular base. The finish is correct too, as is the maker mark. I think this just got past the QC section unnoticed but is a genuine piece, albeit being an unusual one that could easily frighten some collectors.

An interesting badge, thanks for showing it!

Regards, Ned.

An original award for me too. Ned, just to play devils advocate now. Could it be a worn die? Although you'd think they would wear more evenly (obverse & reverse) that is. Just thought I'd ask your thoughts. Stewy

[big ned]

An original award for me too. Ned, just to play devils advocate now. Could it be a worn die? Although you'd think they would wear more evenly (obverse & reverse) that is. Just thought I'd ask your thoughts. Stewy

Hi Mate,

I think it may be more to do with the material not being up to temperature as it is forced under pressure in the die and this has caused the obverse centre of the badge to "sink" as an air pocket or vacuum point has been formed on the reverse side. Note the "creasing" away from the void travelling up the barrel, I think this may show that the material was not hot enough to "flow" whilst under pressure, and this caused the fault.

These "creases" can be found on other Weidmann Luft Flak badges, but i've not seen one this bad before. Here's an example of what i'm referring to, a slight crease visible, but the material "flowed" more easily. I imagine there could have been a vent in the die to allow gas/air to escape, but perhaps this was not possible if the material wasn't up to temperature, or possibly it was blocked by crud. Please bear in mind that this is mainly just as I see it and may be completely wrong.

Regards, Ned.

[rbminis]

I agree with Ned's analogy!
And since it didn't adversely effect the obverse very much, they put hardware on it and moved it on.
Ralph.

[Gwar]

This is a perfect example of why I am a contributing member !! Great job !! G

[FALLSCHIRMJAGER]

Hi guys, thanks Ned for that detailed explanation as to all the flaws, I would not have gone near it myself looking at that obverse! I am glad that it has turned out to be original but as it is not a "variation" as such, just a badly produced piece I personally would still pass on it. Leon.