Gold Nahkampfspange

[Mike Yokum]

Mike, i would return it. The plate on the back should be gunblack. The high points on the obverse should be burnished. I think someone has tampered with a possibly tarnished, but other vice perfectly good, early 1957 CCC.

Peter

Thank you for the input Peter. I value it greatly!

I have to admit, it gave me pause to see both the painted front of the backplate and the gold on the back of the plate. Perhaps someone was trying to increase value of a tarnished or bronze or silver CCC?

To clarify, most of the high points are highly burnished. Check the acorns and high points on the oak leaves. They're like a mirror. More highly polished than on my Silver CCC with similar hardware. It was this burnishing that gave me hope that the gold was apllied at the manufacturer and was just an anomoly that the backplate was coated.

Well, live and learn. Back it goes.

Thanks again for the input gents! That's what I love about this forum.

[George L]

I'd take a pass on it for sure. The color reminds me of this one -

http://cgi.ebay.de/Nahkampfspange-Go...3A1%7C294%3A50

[Nigel N]

been having another look at this CCC, and i think we may have been too hard on it! it got to be early, look at that hardware!! i think they're could be some mileage in this one -Nigel

[Thomas Durante]

Hi guys,

Mike, I would agree with the others and say that its refinished IMO. S&L was very consistent during the war and post war with how they finished their CCCs and in almost all cases, the backplate was a separate piece and did NOT receive the same finish as the rest of the badge. There is a sole exception to this rule, and that is the late war S&L CCC with integral backplate. These were made with the same dies as the other wartime badges, but the backplate area was not cut out, but rather left in place and painted black from the obverse to look like a separate backplate. However, that is NOT the case with this 57 badge. Yours clearly had the backplate area removed (typical S&L construction technique), and a separately attached plate installed. This then appears to have been refinished with a modern gold paint. Instead of removing the plate, they just painted directly over it and then painted the obverse. This is inconsistent with S&L practice IMO. In addition, the gold paint looks dull and muted compared to the very few other gold 57 CCCs I have encountered.

I have an early S&L 57 CCC in silver, and the plating is of very high quality as well, with burnished highlights. I would expect the same for their gold clasps as well. Your gold finish looks to be thickly applied in some places, and less in others, another inconsistency with S&L's CCC production.

Have you tried acetone on a little spot on the reverse, maybe on the pin or catch?

Tom

[Mike Yokum]

Tom,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful analysis. I am grateful.

I would like to provide a bit more information, not in an attempt to convince anyone of anything, but simpy to make all things evident so that the piece can have it's fullest evaluation. Some may not think it necessary at this point. I would like to anyway.

First, the seller whom for the moment shall remain anonymous, while not perfect, does have a very good reputation. I'm sure there are varying opinions of him as there are of all dealers, and collectors for that matter. He claims to have obtained the piece from a "reliable friend who has owned it for the last 35 years" and that the piece has not been refinished in that period of time. A four place stickpin came with the clasp. The stickpin has a Gold CCC, EKI, GWB and IAB. You can see it in one of the comparison photos I will post. Could the stickpin have been added to make a set in an attempt to validate the clasp? Of course it could have.

Second, the color has been questioned so I took some photos showing the piece next to some other early gold items. The pin and backplate are almost identical (at least in hand) in color to the other items. The clasp itself does show a variance, a more bronze tone.

Third, the burnishing of the piece has been called into question, so I have added a photo in an effort to show the degree of burnishing applied to the piece. Only the knife blade lacks burnishing. All of the other surfaces actually have equal or greater burnishing than my early silver CCC. Only a few areas are visible in this photo, but all high points other than the knife blade are highly burnished.

Fourth, I have tried acetone and absolutely NO GOLD PAINT COULD BE REMOVED from any area I tried. Not even a whisper of color could be removed, even with some effort. Patina was removed unfortunately, but only in the smallest of areas. No destructive measures were taken. I will have to return the piece if ultimately deemed refinished.

The scratch created by the pin as it moves under the catch is deep and shows no other colors of finish through it's depth. There is gold only when examined with a 10X jewelers loupe. Also, note to the hinge end of the pin there is an area worn through the finish to the base metal. There are no signs of other finish present in this area. The same is true of the catch, which is not visible in the photo.

I am not addressing the coloring of the backplate, because I do not have a theory or idea as to what might have caused the anomoly. I do know there are exceptions to every rule and we all kow variants exist.

Again, I'm not fighting to make a refinished piece into a good piece. I'm just trying to get all of the information out there so a sound judgement can be made. If it's bad, it goes back and I'm out nothing, If it is good, I'd be a fool to send it back simply because I didn't get enough info to the experts.

Here are some more photos to help assess the piece.

[Mike Yokum]

1

[Mike Yokum]

2

[Mike Yokum]

4

[Mike Yokum]

5

[Mike Yokum]

6

[old siagon]

Let's keep it real!

Hi Mike,

Origonally I liked this piece and my opinion has not changed. It seems like you have tested, compared, and retested it and it still passes each test. I know it is a rare piece, Let's not get so paranoid when a good piece comes our way that we talk ourselves out of it.

I really don't want to see us (57 Forum) become like the TR guys and assume that every piece is a fake and have to prove it by some immeasurable standard to everyone who really does not care even if it is a good piece .

They just love to bust each others balls and make you jump through so many hoops that by the time it is all said and done you have talked yourself right out of it and wind up passing on a perfectly good piece.

Short story = everything is a fake and you have to prove it other wise. In COP talk - you are guilty until you prove your innocence. Please let us not go down that road!!!

Just for fun here are my 3 amigos with their 3 amigos!:

























Granted that none of my full size CCCs are the very early examples with the most desirable "Coke Bottle" pin. They are what they are and until a better/earlier example of each one comes my way, this is my collection and I am darn proud of it.

I hope this does not happen, but if the "Dark Side" gets to you and you talk yourself out of it I will buy it in a New York second!

I am Vince Leone and that's my story, I'm sticking with it! Great find Mike put it on your shelf and call it a day!

Your friend,
Vince

[Peter Wiking]

Hi Mike.<O
The clasp has been finished in a way that is not consistent with other CCC from Steinhauer at that time. The clasp has received gold plating or gold spray, after it was assembled. This can bee seen on the rear plate and the pin holding the needle to the hinge. The rear plate has also reseived black paint on the obverse which has smeared up on the clasp design.

In my extensive research for my book, a process that will continue to the day the book goes to print, i have found nothing yet that justify this type of finish. In the end it will be up to you Mike. You will always have to defend this clasp.
<O
To sum up my look at this clasp:
Original clasp from company Steinhauer, manufactured before 1960, with a finish that is not correct.

If you like to Mike, send it to me and i will inspect it and seriously compare the gold finish and black paint with decorations i have in my own collection.


Peter<O

[Nigel N]

hi Mike, looking at those new photo's, i can't see much wrong with the gold finish!! i wonder if theres some explanation that we have'nt thought of? could S & L have found some old stock and made use of it? could the CCC have lost its original backplate, and had an "overhaul" ? could have been done by an S & L worker "on the side" the truth is, i think we just dont know! worst case scenario... its an early clasp thats been re-painted, still not bad i think! i reckon if you return it Mike, someone else would be happy to snap it up and add it to their collection! at the end of the day, the decisions yours Mike, if you like it, keep it, if not, back it goes!! -Nigel

[Mike Yokum]

Peter,

Thank you for offering to personally inspect the clasp. That is a very kind offer. It will soon be on it's way to you.

Vince and all,

There is no "dark side" at work here. There have been no devisive comments or personal attacks. We need to keep this thread and the 57 forum that way. The piece is not on trial. It is simply being evaluated to it's fullest and I invite that. If you carefully read my comments, I have not defended the piece, yet I have tried to provide as much information as possible for it to be evaluated to it's fullest extent. I want the clasp fairly scrutinized by as many experts as will take the time to do so. It's a piece of history and needs it's place as such.

Hopefully, eventually, the truth will come out. Whether that means a thumbs up and it's a rare, one off, oddball factory applied finish or a thumbs down and that it's been foolishly refinished by a profiteer, who actually took away from it's real value, the truth is the important thing here. Not ego's, not money, not bragging rights, not who's right and who's wrong.

[Mike Yokum]

Just to close the loop on this thread, please click HERE.