Salty Cased Zeppelin

[Brian S]

What a terrific photo! Now THERE'S an unquestionable badge.

Polux, nicely crafted badge. And all crowns are NOT bad. It's the knockoff Junckers everyone is concerned about with regard to crowns. Crowns were indeed used by several makers.

[Ferg 1]

zep

Hi Polux, sorry for the delay in replying, I have been studying this badge !! There are good things about it and not so good too. At first site the badge looks cast,but without it in my hand I cannot be sure. But then again, I have a couple aviation badges fine-cast in 900 silver( and I mean FINE cast) which I am comfortable with as 1920's privately made pieces. The detail in the front looks a little vague and the pin looks almost like a Juncker pin but not quite. As for the small style crown on the silver hallmarking............well that could well open another long and directionless debate!! All I can say is that Herr Niemann's first reference book sports a Juncker Pilot badge with the same tiny crown ( and that supposedly dreaded die flaw on the reverse). I guess it could be a special order in 900 silver,made by an unknown maker and sold thru Juncker ,who knows. I have seen one or two zep badges in my long collecting career which I quite liked but was not brave enough to buy.I prefer the plated buntmetall ones.Ferg1.

[epsomgreen]

What a terrific photo! Now THERE'S an unquestionable badge.

I may be the new kid on this block, but my opinions are not completely uninformed. I wish to emphasize I do not desire to make gainsay remarks to hurt anyone's feelings or cast aspersions on badges I know only from photographs. However, this discussion began as a "peer review" of one specific badge, and has evolved into analysis of many badges.

John raised the question earlier in the discussion: Were Juncker badges ever cast in the 1930s or 40s? Perhaps it would be relevant to explore this idea further.

With respect to Polux/Richard's badge, I spotted areas of concern immediately. I apologize in advance for "borrowing" and altering his photo, but I thought it the most expedient way to illustrate my point. I will, of course, remove it at Polux/Richard's direction.



My concerns are:

1. The pearls in the crown arch reveal a casting seam and are out of registration above and below the seam.
2. An artifact left by an air bubble is present in the base of the crown.
3. There is an irregular void in the tail of the Zeppelin.
4. The tip of the circled oakleaf is blunted.
5. There is a small break in the ribbon as indicated by the circle.

Does all this imply a spurios badge? I don't know, but the Kaiserkrone was, IMO, cast in a mold. It is possible this was Juncker procedure.

Lest anyone think I have a particular axe to grind, the following will explain why I am so critical of the Polux/Richard Juncker. I apologize for the quality of the photos (my hands got in the way of the Photofloods).



The Kaiserkrone is completely different in detail and size. However, the remainder of the badge is a virtual twin of the Juncker. The points I raised in 3, 4, 5, above apply to this badge as well and have been circled.

Now for a look at the reverse:



What we see is a different pin, an incused 800 proof, and a hallmark that appears to be a cross between Meybauer's and AWS.





Although, I was not able to get a decent picture of the edge, the badge has been hand chased. Filing, by the way, is employed just as often to obliterate casting seams in fake badges.



Disregard the Kaiserkronen, and, IMO, these two badge originate from the same source. Furthermore, I have regarded my badge as a fake ever since I subjected it to 10x magnification. There is nothing subtle about a forgery once it is under the microscope. The next step would be to have a jeweler determine if the composition of the badge justifies that proofmark. As for the "P. K. L. 4" engraving. Two men, an engineer's mate, Kraus, and a Oberleutnant zur See Carl-Hans Kruse served with the L 4. I have been unable to learn the Vorname of Kraus.

Feel free to inform me my engraved badge is likewise unquestionable. I lost a bundle on it. Perhaps, I'm all wet regarding the idea solid body badges should be die-struck and not cast. However, there has been only one legitimately die-struck badge in this discussion, and it was my Walter Schot. I may be fighting a losing battle, but I'm only interested what constitutes a legitimate Zeppelin badge. If Andreas says my Schot is an original badge (which he did), and my critical eye agrees, that's good enough for me.

Regards,

Charles

[J. McCabe Bell]

Clear and compelling analysis, Charles. Could P/R's badge contain die flaws that were duplicated in your reproduction? Possibly. The rest of both badges have attractive elements that lure the eager willing eye away from the problem areas you detail. Did you overlook the Glaeser or were the photos inadequate to comment?
Rgds
John

[epsomgreen]

Could P/R's badge contain die flaws that were duplicated in your reproduction?

Hello John:

I suppose it's possible, but my interpretation is both badges share the same flaws because they were literally cast from the same mold. I don't believe original badges were produced in sufficient numbers to overtax the dies. Additionally, I can't see anything indicative that either badge in question was die struck.

As for Ken Greenfield's badge with the Glaser hallmark, it looks fairly promising based on his photos. However, I'd ask for a return privilege pending closer examination.

Regards,

Charles

[Ferg 1]

Hello Charles,(epsomgreen) your statements are fairly wide-sweeping, why do you think that your Schott badge is for real and no-one elses are? The two examples I have shown,as I said are die- stuck NOT cast. I also have an army example from the same die,there are noticable registration differences between all three pieces ,if cast then they would all be exactly the same ( examine the top left row of laurel leaves on the two pictures and see how they show variation in cut-off). If they were cast they would not be able to vault them ,casting is brittle. There are exactly the same shear-cut marks around the edges of all three badges. The outer edges are dead squared not rounded as in a cast piece. As I said before , the oak leaves on the bottom wreath have varying degrees of double shadowing evidence of slight movement in the die plattens on striking, if cast then they would be all be exactly the same.I agree that most badges that one sees are probably copies but to announce that every one elses pieces are bad and yours is the only good one is wrong.I feel that the Polux badge is indeed cast but conversly the points that you showed could also be quite easily be caused by 'die fill' . Ferg1

[epsomgreen]

Hello Ferg1:

From my understanding of the photographs "regular122" posted on your behalf, you submitted two badges for review, one vaulted and one flat. However, I recall only seeing reverse views of the vaulted badge. I also believe I did my best to qualify my opinions by stating they were based solely on the photographs supplied and not informed by first hand knowledge of the badges in question.

Though I skirted around the issue, I did not specifically comment on your badges. However, based on the photos, I am at a loss to understand why the reverse of your vaulted badge looks so pitted and mottled. When you describe the appearance with phrases such as "pierced out by a jig saw" and "pleasing signs of wear," I fail to comprehend why these characteristics are desirable. Perhaps, the debate is more a metallurgical one than anything else. You imply a solid vaulted badge can only be die struck. I don't happen to agree. In any event, I just can't see the features you describe (other than the saw cutting) in your pictures.

Adding to my egregious opinions, The Kaiserkronen on your Juncker badges seem disproportionately large and appear quite similar to the solid crowns found on questionable Preußen Flugzeugführerabzeichen and Beobachterabzeichen attributed to Juncker. This is pure conjecture on my part, and probably means absolutely nothing. I evidently don't know beans about Junckers.

Nowhere did I say the Schot was "real" to the exclusion of all others. The rash claim I made was the Schot is the "one legitimately die-struck badge in this discussion." Look again at the pictures. I am more than willing to post the largest macros possible of anything you care to see. Please let me know.

Finally, I wrote of things I didn't like and areas of concern, but I certainly never denounced anything here as "bad." The words and attitudes you attribute to me are not mine and I hereby caution you against further misrepresentations. You may, however, quote me. In fact, the only time I described a specific badge here as fake, it was my own (#63).

I certainly beg everyone's pardon for expressing my opinions and being a boor. My zeal was apparently as misguided as it was unwelcome.

Respectfully,

Charles

[regular122]

Charles,

I don't think anyone takes offense at your discussion. In fact, you lay out your reasons pretty well and people may come to their own conlusions based on what you present and what they see.

And, as Brian and John jokingly have suggested, it is OK on the WAF to be a little less 'gentlemanly' on the discussions when gloves off feedback on the badges was asked for by all that posted their pieces. Since I didn't read any gloves off personal attacks, just detailed discussion on badges, I for one do hope you keep posting your great pics and thought-provoking discussions. We all might just save hundreds of dollars as a result of this great thread that John started. Steve

[Jeff V]

I agree with Steve. This has turned into an excellent thread with good healthy discussion. best wishes,
jeff

[Mike Kenny]

Hi,

Re the first badge, the question has been raised re the incuse relief maker mark. In my experience, I have not seen that mark on a known genuine Juncker badge. Having said that, the 20s and earliest 30s (pre-1934) are "hazy" for me. As far as I know, in the post-1934 period Juncker only either used the stamped CEJ marking (generally earlier) or the full two line straight "C.E. Juncker..."marking (not the curved upper line as per WW1 flight badges). I say 1934 because the stamped marking is known from Juncker "Hindenburg Crosses" (Frontkampfer Eherenzeicher) and from the 1935 LW Aircrew Badge, as well as early LW "standard" Pilot/P-O/Observer/Air Gunner badges. Additionally, the much later 1939 Spanish Crosses also sometimes used this marking of course.

As has already been pointed out, and I totally agree, the hinge/pin/catch assembly on the first example does not conform to known genuine Juncker examples - ESPECIALLY from the 1934-1945 period. Comparison to the 1939 EKs (LdO marked, and therefore post-41) simply proves this - sort of close reads to me as probably repro. To me, the reverse hardware is crude and simply does not exhibit Juncker quality of ANY period.

Re catchplates - and specifically catchplates on Juncker badges - I'd agree with Jeff, only on (TR) zincers. Catchplates on tombak/buntmetal badges are imo indication of a fake 99.9% of the time.

Interesting question re whether Juncker cast anything in the 30s/40s. Imo the answer is yes, but heavily qualified. Die-cast yes; injection cast, no. When imo die-cast, there are normally indications of metal "stress"on the reverse (here I am mainly referring to metal cooling effects - "crystallisation patterns". These are most evident on LW Flak and LW 2nd type Para badges (2nd as in the common tombak examples, not the early examples with the "Assmann-like"eagles)). In these cases though, the badge edges are dominated by hand filing. Casting seams (the remains of which appear to be evident on the first badge, post#24, second pic) are NOT evident. Don't forget that a good fake casting CAN pick up shear marks from it's original master.

All examples here have pro's and con's imo.

Re Ferg's badges, one thing I like about his first example is the pin - this type is known from early/mid 30s Civil Pilot's badges (the nice blue enameled type - also the all silver Observer type). These pins have also been faked fairly well of course. Some comments made re apparent lack of obverse detailing on the first example I'd agree with though. Ferg, I'd love to see the reverse of that second example though. The obverse finish and detail look extremely good to me.

Re the Schot badge, the obverse detail looks great but blowing off the difference in makers mark when compared to the U-boat badges is a huge sticking point for me personally. U-boat badges that don't have the correct maker's marks are fakes - and for more than just the reason of incorrect maker mark.

Re the Juncker badge polux posted and the comparison to the fake Meybauer (imo the marking DOES imitiate one of TWO genuine Meybauer marks and AWS have nothing to do with it - interesting in that same maker mark close-up in post#63 you can see pin-point casting pock-marks along the lower reverse edge of the badge) I do agree that they both came from the same die/mold (crowns excluded, which should be separate anyway as far as I know). Some basic measurements would confirm this pretty quickly imo - or determine if one was cast from the other. I do not recall hearing or seeing evidence of Juncker and Meybauer component sharing, so a logical explanation for these two companies producing the same flawed badges is not likely, although I guess it can't be ruled out. Have to say though, I would not be comfortable with that style engraving either way though!

Regards
Mike

PS: For the record, I do not own a Zepp badge of any type, however I am familiar with early Juncker LW badges. Simply too many variants of such a rare badge but too little reliable info available - ie good detailed pics/dimensions of genuinely German veteran acquired examples. Same problem with the Kampfwagenabz.!

If the recent article mentioned above IS really useful, would someone say so instead of beating around the bush with oblique comments!

[Ferg 1]

Well,this turning into quite a saga!!
Charles, lets proceed with the disscusion in a 'gentlemanly way' , the appearance on the reverse of my first badge is a little misleading from the picture,there is a little oxidised silver mottling ,I guess where the lacquer has broken down but the surface of the metal is not pitted ,it is entirely smooth. Also the detail on the front is as sharp as the other one ,again a bad picture.I use the term 'pleasing signs of wear because it shows that the badge has been worn. Jigsaw cutting was not included as a pleasing sign it was just for want of another term for possibly machine cut.
Mike - I do not have the picture posting facility ,if you want more pictures of the reverse of the second badge ,can you post them for me? Ferg1

[Mike Kenny]

... Mike - I do not have the picture posting facility ,if you want more pictures of the reverse of the second badge ,can you post them for me? Ferg1

Happy to..

Pic 1

[Mike Kenny]

Pic2...

[Mike Kenny]

Pic3, last pic,...

[Ferg 1]

Here are more pictures of the reverse of the Juncker second badge,(thank-you Mike Kenny) The reverse and obverse has a reasonable amount of lacquer still visable over the silvering ,this appears to be an over-lacquer applied over the frosting finish presumably to stop tarnishing? So effectively there is Bronze base metal,copper flash to key the silver,silver plate,frosting lacquer and clear lacquer. Highlights on obverse which would have made it 'sparkle' have all but worn through to the bronze,but a few ' sparkles' remain ! Badge is die-struck with the inner open area's sawn out and chased.The cross too is hand sawn ,I would think originally struck in 'block ' form and chased out after shear-cutting. Ferg1.