By far one of the best looking badges i've seen, Beautiful.
Kind Regards
Shane ⚡️⚡️
By far one of the best looking badges i've seen, Beautiful.
Kind Regards
Shane ⚡️⚡️
Hi Norm,
Sorry for not responding earlier, and thank you very much for taking your time to share your knowledge and formulating such clear, detailed explanations.
The information you provided are very interesting, and they also triggered a few questions or thoughts, some of which I would like to share.
Based on the described process, it is obvious that variants 2a and 2b must have been made with a new working die compared to variants 1a-d, as all upper portholes are open again in 2a. However, it seems as if some of the lower portholes are closed in 2a, which is not the case in 2b. This somehow makes me believe that in fact two different working dies were used for 2a and 2b. Originally, I assumed that my badge can be classified as variant 2a, as all upper portholes are open, but as the lower portholes are open as well, I am wondering if it could also be an earlier version of 2b, i.e., prior to the wear causing the upper porthole flaws.
When progressing from 1b to 1c, the L bridge windows suddenly become narrower (indicating wear of the master?), while more of the lower portholes appear open again (contradicting the rationale of wear of the master?). May this be explained by a master die that was repaired at some point or even the existence of two master dies?
Best,
Michael
Hi Michael,
Cogitating on the porthole pattern is an activity after my own heart and your observations are valid. But there's a difficulty in drawing conclusions from the lower row of portholes in 2a and 2b, and that is that all of the portholes lateral to the central two on each side are so much smaller and shallower than the others, making them potentially more variable in appearance based upon the force and depth of the die pressing, especially considering that the hull of the ship is a slanted surface. So what you describe as closed portholes in the lower rows may in fact simply be shallower pressings, and the look may vary between badges from the same die set.
That's not to say they couldn't be sister dies from the same master; they certainly could be but I can't be sure based upon current observations. One thing I will point out is that they both have the same "slash porthole" on the right (circled in red in the attached image) supporting the theory that 2b is an evolution of 2a. Regardless, I would still consider yours to be the 2a pattern, more specifically F1.1.9 in the classification system.
Another thing to consider as a potential cause for variability is the possibility of a double-striking technique to improve obverse detail. When you look closely at the row of observation slits ("windows") in the bridge on your badge you can see signs of double-striking which has made them taller. You often see similar signs of ghosting in this area on Schwerin's Fleet badge and whether caused by double-striking or by some laxity in the die mounting I couldn't say, but regardless it's another source of variability in the appearance that must be considered.
Best regards,
---Norm
Back to the "Die 1" stages (for which once again we can't be sure there wasn't more than one working die), the theory would be that the metal nubbin on the working obverse die became narrowed over time (if it is indeed the same tool) and eventually broke off entirely, so that the corresponding bridge window on the badges first narrowed and then disappeared.by Iammichael
The idea of die repairs is often brought up, but in my opinion the options for repair are limited to engraving to improved details and edges of worn or fractured areas which can only produce positive relief changes in the final product, not deepening of negative relief features. I don't believe you can add tempered steel nubbins back to the surface of a die once they are lost in an attempt to restore window integrity in the badges.
Also, by definition, there would be only one true negative master die, although theoretically one could make any number of intermediate positive working hubs from that master which in turn could be used to produce the working dies. We don't know enough about the actual sequence of events used by Schwerin and his tool suppliers to reconstruct the precise historical scenario for the number of tools produced.
In the end, we just need simple easy to spot physical features in order to organize and classify our badges and distinguish them from reproductions, regardless of our incomplete knowledge of the production process.
Best regards,
---Norm
Similar Threads
Posting Permissions
.
Bookmarks