Questionable S-Boat, 1st Pattern

[Bobki52]

For your viewing pleasure, pics of an S-Boat badge over which there is some disagreement. Your thoughts?

[Bobki52]

Two more pics

Here are a couple more pics that may help you render an opinion.

[Mike Kenny]

Imo a decent casting but with a lot of fine pitting on the reverse.

Regards
Mike

[Jody]

S-boot

Hello,
I agree with Mike-not for me.

Jody

[Norm F]

Hi Bobki52,

We've discussed this variety of reproduction before in this thread.

Although not made by Nicholas Morigi, he has bought them at shows as reproductions and sold them on his website as such in the past. The actual maker of these reproductions is not known, but they're not period.

Best regards,
---Norm

[BubbaZ]

Agreed, a fake
Cheers,
Hubert

[Blued]

Definite fake

[John T]

junk in the trunk...the catch baseplate on a tombac copy is precious

[aa-mil]

junk in the trunk...the catch baseplate on a tombac copy is precious

How can you say that badge ipictured in #1 s tombac when you can clearly see the grey zinc coming through the topside of the eagle's wings. Also you can clearly see from the side photos that this badge is die struck. I happened to see this badge in person before it was offered for sale. Also pitting is very common in zinc badges when the zinc has reacted to air over a period of time. So to make the statement that pitting on a badge makes it a cast badge is totally stupid.
Also this badge has all of the characteristics of both books (Gordon) and the German book. The

But then again with this stuff you can get some of the experts to agree some of the time but you cant get all of the experts to agree all of the time.

Look at the evident pitting marks in the German book.





In fact the Morigi badge has a rounded flag cutout and a triangle eagle's head. Not the same Badge.

[John T]

*pitting

Pitting on a zinc badge is caused by corrosion whereas pitting on the badge in question is caused by the production process.

*base metal

As for the metal used without an evaluation of the piece through scientific methods one will not really know what the mixture is, but it is trying to emulate tombac not zinc.

*this copy or that copy

The Morigi badge is actually a better made copy

[aa-mil]

*pitting

Pitting on a zinc badge is caused by corrosion whereas pitting on the badge in question is caused by the production process.

*base metal

As for the metal used without an evaluation of the piece through scientific methods one will not really know what the mixture is, but it is trying to emulate tombac not zinc.

*this copy or that copy

The Morigi badge is actually a better made copy

Point one. On a die struck badge pitting would not normally be seen as the die forces all of the material to move under pressure towards the surface. Also badges do get polished. Sand casting is another story.

You just said that there is no way to tell if it is tombac but is trying to emulate it.

Your statement has no valid reasoning because if you have an unknown you cant make a logical deduction from an unknown (trying to emulate).

By the way I was an industrial engineer many years ago with expertise in materials processing with a company that made machinery and parts die strucked as well as cast .


Cheers

[Norm F]

How can you say that badge ipictured in #1 s tombac when you can clearly see the grey zinc coming through the topside of the eagle's wings. Also you can clearly see from the side photos that this badge is die struck.
...
But then again with this stuff you can get some of the experts to agree some of the time but you cant get all of the experts to agree all of the time.
...
In fact the Morigi badge has a rounded flag cutout and a triangle eagle's head. Not the same Badge.

Hi aa-mil,

I think John was just referring to the fact that the basemetal color does look atypical - quite frankly not typical for wartime zinc or Tombak either so it's anybody's guess what the maker was trying for.

The fact that you've quoted the images from the other thread discussing these badges means you must have read the other discussion there as well. The slight differences in outlines are from differences in hand finishing, and all these examples share the same obverse design with the Morigi-sold badge with an unusual eagle that is unique amongst S-Boat badges. As well they are far heavier than any wartime zinc S-Boat badge.

I have to disagree that are any clear shear marks on any of the closeups presented. In fact, just the opposite, there seem to be clear casting lines on this example (attached).

In light of recent discussion and evidence, I don't think you're going to find any Kriegsmarine badge experts supporting these badges once they've had a chance to review them -- including Gordon and Sascha.

Regards,
---Norm

[Bobki52]

The badge weighs in at...

Thanks everyone for your input.

One additional piece of data. The badge weighs 1.552 oz. None of the books that I currently own indicate what the badge should weigh, so I don't know if this is approximately correct or not.

[Norm F]

Thanks everyone for your input.

One additional piece of data. The badge weighs 1.552 oz. None of the books that I currently own indicate what the badge should weigh, so I don't know if this is approximately correct or not.

Hi Bobki52,

That's about 44 grams which is typical for this type of S-boat and much heavier than any known wartime S-Boat.

Cheers.
---Norm

[aa-mil]

Hi Bobki52,

That's about 44 grams which is typical for this type of S-boat and much heavier than any known wartime S-Boat.

Cheers.
---Norm

Let me ask you a question, Whats your opinion on the Sasha book. Because according to it the badge weights 45 grams and it's an original. See page from the book in picture #9 above. The badge above is identical in construction and Sasha says its good.

But yet you say that it's much heavier than any known wartime.

Both of you cant be right. Either Sasha is wrong or you are.

You also made a statement above that "We've discussed this variety of reproduction before in another thread". well not everybody in that
thread was quite agreeable to the fact that it was a reproduction as much as you are.

Am not picking on you or anybody for a matter of fact. But I believe in proof of statements. Opinions are OK but unfortunately they are what they are.
It seems from previous threads in this forums, information from books and proof of prior badges sold by reputable dealers are not good enough
for the people in this forum. But the word (IMO) seems to be the law here.

When it comes to collecting the world is black and white. It's either good or it's bad. If you cant prove or disprove a badge then dont say it's bad.
After collecting for 47 years and hearing everything there is to say am getting quite concerned for the benefit of the new collectors as all of this
can only be confusing the heck out of them.

See the previous thread where the similar badge was discussed with also mixed opinions.

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...=E-boat&page=3

ONE MORE NOTE ON EXPERTSHIP:

Am going to make one statement as to being an expert. It will be in the form of a story. I am a Vietnam veteran and I served with the Long range
Reconaissance Patrol Unit of the 3bn/173rd Airborne in Vietnam.
As a test I gave my friend the camo jacket that I wore in Vietnam with a LRRP patch (unauthorized we had it made in Vietnam) and he went around the show showing it to 5
experts in Vietnam memorabilia.
To his surprise 3 of the experts say the jacket was original but the patch was phony. Their explanation was that it looked like the patch was removed
several times.
Simple explanation whenever we went to the field the patch came off for security reasons. as soon as we were back it was sewn back on.

End of story. So now you know my stand on experts , myself included.


Regards