Infanterie Sturmabzeichen - Opinions please

[StuG III]

Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. I'm not too sure whether I will go for this one, reasons as pointed out above.
Tom

[fischer]

As for the pin/catch....I dont know what people saw wrong with them, as this is typical hardware to see from Deumer. That is one reason it is attributed to this maker

Hello

Myself, the only thing I see wrong with the badge Tom posted are the blurry pics. The block hinge, half moon catch plate, pin and design of badge has been faked before and I am always leery of sellers who use blurry pics to represent their wares. Opinions were solicited and I gave mine.

As for the Deformed Leaf solid examples attributed to W. Deumer...IMO there is a good chance that these examples are Deumer but conclusive proof has yet to be presented.

That being said, I do not accept hardware alone as evidence for a maker. Design similarities and production evolution from early hollow tombak to late zinc material are much more important to determine a maker than the hardware set up.

Best Regards, fischer

[Bill T]

Hello

Myself, the only thing I see wrong with the badge Tom posted are the blurry pics. The block hinge, half moon catch plate, pin and design of badge has been faked before and I am always leery of sellers who use blurry pics to represent their wares. Opinions were solicited and I gave mine.

As for the Deformed Leaf solid examples attributed to W. Deumer...IMO there is a good chance that these examples are Deumer but conclusive proof has yet to be presented.

That being said, I do not accept hardware alone as evidence for a maker. Design similarities and production evolution from early hollow tombak to late zinc material are much more important to determine a maker than the hardware set up.

Best Regards, fischer

definitely agree Fischer. I didnt mean any disrespect at all, and wasnt referring to anyone in particular with anything I said. I guess it kinda sounded snotty huh? haha. I usually re-read my posts, cuz sometimes things come out differently than intended. I only meant that I personally saw nothing wrong with this one, thats all. I agree that hardware is not the only factor to determine originality. Like you said, blurry pics are a red flag in my book as they are sometimes meant to try and hide soemthing. But the metal used and the other details that stick out for this deformed Infanterie Sturmabzeichen are what made me comfortable with it. Especially the aged/worn condition of the badge that was similar to mine, was personally another positive factor in giving a thumbs up.(not saying its Okay to judge a badge by wear either, just comparing to mine). You or anyone else have every right to give opinions, and I always find all veiws interesting and welcomed. And I also enjoy your posts in particular fischer, so please understand I had no ill intentions.

[Bill T]

Hello

As for the Deformed Leaf solid examples attributed to W. Deumer...IMO there is a good chance that these examples are Deumer but conclusive proof has yet to be presented.
Best Regards, fischer

I do feel that Deumer is a good match for reasons stated, but it is always fun to try and find others that might fit the bill too. As you already know, there are different variants, so you never know if any new information or changes will be formed in the future . And it wouldnt be the first time for someone to have other thoughts about the maker for this Deformed leaf badge either. It used to be thought that the "verticle crimp" variant was a different maker than the "block" and made from different dies. (different dies can be acceptable, but now the thought on it being a different maker is not believed). I remember hearing a while back that some of these were found in Deumer marked envelopes/packets. I dunno??? One of those things we may never have definite proof or anything substancial to go on. Do you think that all the variants are attributed to Duemer, or just some?

[Glenn66]

My deformed leaf Deumer to compare...

[fischer]

No Problems Bill, I was not offended. I was just giving my perspective on the validity of the "Deformed Leaf - Deumer" argument.

I do subscribe to the idea that the Vertical Crimp obverse die is different to the Oval and Block hinge. I think this due the different details of the head shape to list one reason.

As far as Deumer is concerned, more proof is needed to place the Deformed Leaf variant under the Deumer banner IMO. The block hinge with half moon catch plate GAB found with a packet marked by Deumer is a possible connection but not solid proof. Having not studied this GAB connection, Im not sure how many of these have been found.

What puzzles me is why the need to completely change the design of the badge. Deumer has a BM example and then goes to the hollow zink. Why not use the same design for a solid example like other makers have?

Best Regards, fischer

[Bill T]

I could agree that the dies (obverse) do have differences, especially in the eagle heads like u said. I Have not studied or looked into the marked packets either, but I just remember hearing it a while ago and thought it was interesting. The more I think of what you said.....that there wouldnt really be any reason to completely change the design, makes me wonder now. I guess it wouldnt really make sense for them to change the metals and design just for a different variant. Because overall, the whole point is production amount and using what materials are available for a maker more than anything I would guess. Like I said tho, collectors' thoughts have changed on this before, so it wouldnt suprise me if some new theory comes out sooner or later. Good points tho Fischer, it makes me want to dig deeper.....but even then, I feel that I would come to the same old conclusion! haha I dunno?! Very Good talking to ya



P.S. NICE example Glen!

[3volv3]

Here are 2 photos from the same infanterie sturmabzeichen. I think the photo quality is slightly better if that helps..