Verwundetenabzeichen 1939 in Gold 2x (one original, one fake)

[tempelhof]

this is my first submission, so please excuse me if i screw it up somehow.
also, apologies for the bad cellphone photos, but i thought i should start somewhere.

[tempelhof]

photo #1: fake reverse
photo #2: original reverse
photo #3: original pin catch
photo #4: in left to right order, reverse of both fake and original
photo #5: "L/54" mark (arched) of a type not found on originals with pitting in the area above and around the pin catch. (fake)
photo #6: in left to right order, fake and original

note the soft details in the left example.

the photos are not in the order i intended, but there you have it.

[Adrian]

Welcome to the forum and thank you for posting.
Are you sure the L/54 is a fake? The arched makers mark is typical for this maker. It was arched to be used in stamping ribbon rings.

[tempelhof]

i'm aware that it is used to stamp ribbon rings, but i am not aware of its use here, below the clasp in the GWB.

however, beyond this, in hand this GWB has several concerning features. There is a "softness" to the details. the sword handle to the left is completely smooth. the swords lack a central longitudinal ridge. the helmet has no "bolt" to the rear. this feature is missing. the leaves are devoid of detail. the back of the badge shows pitting as you would see in perhaps a medal that was cast. the swastika is rounded and soft on the edges.
if you can, blow up the picture of the clasp with the L-54 mark below. the "black" dots you see in the area of that clasp are distinct pits i've never seen in a WB. it's difficult to explain this. no good WB that i have seen shows this, especially on the reverse which, as you know, should be completely smooth. the very faint, concentric rings, are not visible. it is smooth and granular and pitted instead.

it has problems i am not used to seeing in these badges. it has been examined by others and the conclusion has been the same. it is a good looking badge on the surface, but i think when examined carefully it has too much lack of detail especially for a badge which appears to be in such pristine condition.

i would be very happy were it real, but right now i do not believe that to be the case.

perhaps someone can persuade me.

[tempelhof]

i wish i had better pictures to post. were you here, and able to examine it in hand, i think you might see the unusual lack of detail as more concerning.

[Franz1944]

Just to add about the finish, you can tell right is original for sure

[tempelhof]

this is true. i was going to mention that and forgot. the finish on the badge to the left is odd. it's grainy, somewhat dull, and unlike what is seen on original badges. the badge to the right has a typical finish. right next to each other, as i have shown them here, you can see this difference in finish more obviously.

i always have had the opportunity to return the fake badge. i did not do this because it's a very good fake and in spite of my concerns, i have kept it for reference. this bad badge, viewed alongside originals, is an interesting study for sure.

[tempelhof]

i've highlighted some areas which, when compared carefully to the original badge at the right, show some distinct lack of detail.

[Adrian]

Details vary between makers. Just because one badge doesn't match another by a different maker doesn't mean it's a fake.

[Franz1944]

I understand what you say adrain, just conmenting on the finish, i havnt seen a gold L/52 werwundetabzeichen, doesnt mean they dont exist.