WW1 Pilots Badge

[Vix Steel]

Howdy,

Got this badge.

I did some quick searching and only found one similar that was deemed bad.

Marked CE Juncker, Berlin, half moon, crown and 800.

Can I get a few more opinions please.
Thanx

ww1 flying medal.jpg

[Jelle M.]

Simple fake, not even close to an original.
You should avoid any Juncker flight badge marked with a crown.
Study an original in depth and you won't get fooled.

Regards

[Jelle M.]

This one was sold at the latest Scholz update.
A very fine original.

[Jelle M.]

[RamJet]

Heavily scratched, unfortunately.

[Jelle M.]

Are you serious?
What do you expect, this piece is 100 years old and in untouched condition.
It's normal there are some scratches. Some slight traces of wear.
Gives more charm imo and does not devaluate.

[otter76]

Saw that one in Frank's site too. Beautiful piece. Totally agree with Nightstalker, signs of wear are traces of character and authenticity. Not trying to imply anything opposite about mint pieces but you know what I mean. 100 years old items should show history. Again, beautiful badge IMO

[RamJet]

Yes, I am serious.

Of course these worn pieces are all scratched. They are made of silver and therefore prone to scratches. Mine is scratched, too, see the pics.

But I found it a pity that there are those two deep scratches on the front side and the heavy scratching around the catch.

I prefer pieces which do not have so heavy traces of wear.

[ww1czechlegion]

Am I out of line by commenting that the last posted badge looks heavily buffed/polished and/or cleaned on both the front and back sides?

For example: On the obverse I see many numerous circular polishing marks to the large open area directly below the airplane. Anyone else notice this as well?.

The backside shows a large amount of vertical scratch or polish lines to the right and left of center areas. The scratches are shallow scratches, but they are visible to my own pair of 20/20 corrected eyes in the photos that you have chosen to post here.

I'm not trying to cause problems in stating what my own set of eyes see. Everyone has their own preferences to include "cleaned versus uncleaned badges or medals", badges or medals that show signs of use and age versus mint condition or unissued pieces, etcetera.

All the Best,

Alan

[RamJet]

Yes, I think the badge was more than once cleaned, I suppose the first time around 99 years ago ...

I didn't clean it. It came to me as shown. But I was not able to photograph it in a way that it do not shines that much. Pics were already the second attempt, look here: http://184.172.36.50/forums/showthread.php?t=741283

By the way: It looks not that much shiny when You have it in hands. Also You can see the darkened parts better then.

[nhcoejr]

I agree with Nightstalker on this badge from Frank Scholz. All original hardware, beautiful Juncker wartime example (1918?)actually worn by someone during the Great War. IMO much nicer then a mint piece that was either from someone 's left over stock and never issued or issued and never worn. N. Coe

[RamJet]

Jesus, what did I say that I upset You all?!

I never doubted the Scholz badge, in the contrary I found it a pity that this nice badge has so heavy scratches, on the back obviously from a not so professional catch repair! That has nothing to do with normal wear, which I also like on these pieces.

And everyone should decide for himself in which condition the pieces searched for collection should be. This spans from ground dug items to mint items, which never left stock.

As I said, I prefer items which are slightly worn ...

[nhcoejr]

Ramjet : My comment was not directed at you but mint versus worn. Your example is also a lovely wartime example that I would love to have in my collection. N.Coe

[starikurac]

Beautiful badges

[D Funk]

Subject badge in post one not original IMO. other badges look good to me.