Wwi tank memorial badge

[GdC26]

I disagree. The details in post 5 are sharp and angular vs the more rounded details in the badge being discussed. Enlarge the pics and you will see.

If no german manned tanks were used in the battle then the engraving makes no sense.

And you may need more of them involved before one might refer to a "Panzerschlacht". And then there is the use of the word "Panzer"..Everything is possible, but on the balance of probabilities I'd say And that is before noting that all the patina seems to have disappeared from the area surrounding the engraving, while the rest of the badge shows patina.

[Jelle M.]

I'm sorry for me the badge is not original, neither is the engraving.
It has all the signs of a cast fake. Take a close look at the outer edges, these details are
very poorly executed. Not something i expect to see on period quality badges.
The edges and nerves of the leaves are disturbed with almost no detail. These lower parts are also
the most difficult to cast.
Not for me.

Jelle

[VtwinVince]

Provenance is bad, engraving is terrible etc. And I have seen (and own) similar cases which I believe to be non-period. But you can believe in the tooth fairy if you like.

[juvatwad]

Provenance is bad, engraving is terrible etc. And I have seen (and own) similar cases which I believe to be non-period. But you can believe in the tooth fairy if you like.

This is one of the problems with this forum. The other commentators presented their opinions as they see them without being a-holes. Then there is you.

[ccj]

This is one of the problems with this forum. The other commentators presented their opinions as they see them without being a-holes. Then there is you.

???? lol.. you have a good point.

[Lubo]

Guys, let’s get back to the badge!
I just wanted to make something clear, I disagree with Jelle’s comments about the edges of the badge, he is right in general, but I have a superb WWI observer made by the firm, and it has the same weak detail points around the edges. It has to do with the method of production and assembly IMO. The resolution of these pics is low, so it’s quite difficult to get into a good detail.
Could you show us a side shot of the catch and the hinge as well, and also - what is the weight of the badge? This info could give us a lot to work with! What I notice is the texture of the back plate, it’s believable Meybauer’s.
There are other things I don’t like about it, but just wanted to point out my observations.

[GdC26]

This is one of the problems with this forum. The other commentators presented their opinions as they see them without being a-holes. Then there is you.

Unnecessary, both Vince's last comment, Juvatwad's response and CCJ's non-substantive pile-on.

Lubo,
I think the shared view (including apparently your own, unless I misunderstood) is the badge is bad, so why continue discussion and add to Juvatwad's pain? Do you believe it to be a good Meybauer with bad engraving and case (in which case, please make your case)? Or do you agree it is bad? In that last case, why continue the discussion? The key concerns have already been voiced, so anyone with a similar badge will know what to look out for.
Kind regards,
Sandro

[GdC26]

They certainly captured Mk IV's. whether they were used then or not, who knows? I would bet most people consider December winter.

Lest I get the standard WAF battering that I'm just trying to excuse the badge in the face of overwhelming evidence that it's bad, I'm simply pointing out that the reasons given above as strikes against it are not what I would consider "Class 1" evidence.

Juvatwad,
Maybe if the badge came from another source than Winkler. But I think that given provenance, a lot would be needed to show that the item is good - and this amounts to no more than a hail Mary.

"Panzerschlacht" in the 1930's/'40's - maybe, but than that term would refer to a battle of armour against armour, which certainly did not happen at Cambrai (just see how Panzerschlacht is used on p 1 of a Google search - its a battle of armour against armour https://www.google.com/search?client...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 . And to call the first week of December "Winter" would be unusually imprecise. And then there are the differences between the badge and the catalogue, the evidence of casting, the probably fake weephole (commonly found on fake flight/observer badges of the 1990's), the problematic case. All of that amounts to strong evidence that the badge is bad, with very little evidence (if any) to the contrary. And hard evidence is what would be need to overcome the provenance issue, because of the source and his known penchant for and documented history of selling off fakes as real, for composing complete groupings around limited sets of documents, etc..

Kind regards,
Sandro

[gregM]

I don't like the style of the engraving and I'm not trying to defend this badge in any way,but I know the
technically winter starts on the 21st of December but really, if it's the first week of December and there
is snow and cold, -- It's winter. Just sayin'

[GdC26]

I don't like the style of the engraving and I'm not trying to defend this badge in any way,but I know the
technically winter starts on the 21st of December but really, if it's the first week of December and there
is snow and cold, -- It's winter. Just sayin'

As you say, it is hardly the only problem of the badge under discussion, but I'm not swayed by your explanation, also not because I see no mention of winter conditions in any of the public descriptions of the battle. Anyway, even if the uncharacteristically imprecise reference to "winter" could be explained away, I think we can agree there are plenty of other issues with this badge.

[gregM]

I agree