Original fallschirmschutzenabzeichen?

[bsiwula1]

Out of curiosity how much consideration do you guys give to comparing makers marks? The top image is the one from the badge on the thread I posted (deemed original). The second the OP badge. Third the Stagemeir fake. It seems the original badge 's MM is barely discernable, similar to the OP's, and the fake is rather easy to read IMO. Plus the overall patina on the OP'S badge is convincing but if the badge can be that well faked, the artifical aging is easy by comparison I d guess. I realize photography skills come into play here but it something I always look at for comparison purposes.

Brian

[bsiwula1]

Another declared original from waf member tenten. For comparison. Best regards.

Brian

[bsiwula1]

Comparison images of OP's badge and WAF hardware examples. The catch does seem to be a thinner flatwire variant. Possibly later badge? Replaced catch? The hinges look very close to my eye. Just for discussion. Regards.

Brian

[MAP]

Like I said, I don't study these in detail... but if the difference to the OP's example and an original is about a few micro bubbles here and tiny scratches there, and not something more obvious, well then we have reached a dangerous stage for anyone but serious experts...

Or I could be just missing the boat and there are other obvious flaws in this badge that I'm not aware of (like I said, I don't study them).

That said, the flat wire catch is interesting. Very subtle difference but a difference none the less in both the flat wire and the base...

Also I was looking closer at originals and the OP's (plus the Staegemeir's fakes). A question I have is about the rivets. On the OP's and the Staegemeirs, they all have an indentation that the rivets fit into, where the "originals" have no indentation..Maybe my eyes, maybe my inexperience. Further, Durante states that originals have slightly tapered rivets. I can not see the OP's rivets well enough, but they don't appear to be tapered.

[bsiwula1]

Hello Michael. A good observation about the rivets. I assume when they reference "taper" I assume they mean the rivets once punched, have a flat head and a tapered body towards the shank base (reverse side of wreath body). As pictured? Regards.

Brian

[MAP]

Yes, and I see none in the photos. That said Durante I think only shows pictures of the zinc rivets, (he said there are rare cases of brass rivets but there are no photos). He also notes that often on the top edge of the rivet (where the taper meets the "plateau") there are often concentric circles.

Here are close ups of the OP's badge.







And my last observation. According to Durante, the hinge, pin and catch received a "black oxidation layer". The OP's appear to have a gold wash....

Again, a beginner here, so might not be an issue at all...just point out what I read....

[bsiwula1]

Michael more excellent information. I d love to see close up examples of these points the author brings out. If brass were used as rivets does that imply the eagle was of brass construction as well (doubtful for durability reasons)? Or was the body zinc with brass soldered rivets. I don't see any evidence of the concentric circles on any of the badge rivet heads pictured in this thread, but I'm sure a good macro picture would illustrate them better where present. Thanks for the input as I am learning as well. Best regards.

Brian

[MAP]

All Osang para awards are in Zinc. None in brass or tombak.

[MAP]

So...any status update on this? Did you purchase it? Or pass?

[MAP]

Another example to compare to. A little zinc pest on this maybe. You can see the smaller catch, as well as the artificial black wash on the hinge/clasp, domed rivets and stubby left leg of Swaz.



Credit: 25thLight on WAF