Army Paratrooper II

[Ron Birch]

Since we have a need to start out fresh my question is about the maker mark on the APB's. This may also carry over to other Juncker marked badges but here it goes. Should the 's' in the 'sw' be rounded or more like a reverse 'z'. Or does this change over time with new stamps for the maker mark. And if not should all rounded 's' be considered fake? I did start a thread on this subject but figure I may get better input on this by using a specific badge like the APB, all comments welcomed. Thanks Ron

[Prosper Keating]

No bites yet? The APB's a good starting point but we should also have a look at other C E Juncker badges dating from 1937/38. Here are a couple of questions to help stimulate discussion: would expansion and contraction of metal over time, as well as ageing processes such as crystalisation, have a deforming effect on a stamped hallmark or logo? Given that these hallmarks were applied by hand, would sloppiness on the part of the teaboy lumbered with this job (joke) make a stamp appear uneven and deformed?

Prosper Keating

[ 02 October 2001: Message edited by: Prosper Keating ]

[Mike Kenny]

My personal opinion is that early Juncker badges should have the angular S in SW. Other things I look for are the E's in Juncker and Berlin, the shape of the J and the periods for the C.E.. All the early Juncker badges I own (Pilot, Observer, Para, LW Flak, Army Flak - the latter is a later badge in zinc but the marking is exactly the same) have the same makers stamp. I posed the question in the initial Army Para Badge discussion months ago, why should the marking on early APBs be any different?

From memory, the Late war Juncker zinc LW badges (those contentious ones with the SW 68 and the cathplates) have a rounded S. Personally, I'd consider buying one of these badges after all the discussions we've had in the past but I would definitely not by an Early badge marked like this though (or an early badge with a rounded S in the SW).

Regarding the regularity of the marking, ie evenness, alignment, etc, as Prosper has said these were hand stamped so variation should be expected. For example, my early LW Flak badge has the right side of the stamp very deeply impressed into the badge whereas the left side of the stamp is so faint as to be almost illegible (the middle part of the mark is fairly standard).

Prosper, an interesting question regarding deformation of the maker's stamp with time. My feeling would be that the majority of contraction would have occurred after the badge had been die-struck but before it was maker marked so the maker's marks in that respect probably shouldn't show much variation. Months or years after production is an interesting question. As the marks were generally applied to the central portions of the badge/eagle, I'd have thought that region would be less prone to expansion/contraction so effects would be minimal. If a badge was showing obvious signs of deterioration with age then that may be a different matter.

The above comments are my opinions and preferences - each to their own I suppose.

Regards
Mike K

(Still away in India!)

[Ron Birch]

Mike on the 'J' what do you look for and do they differ from early to late war badges. And the same question for the 'e'. Prosper, if the metal expanded and contracted enough to effect the makers mark wouldn't you think the badge would maybe 'crack' first or show some other kind of major damage if this was a cause. Oh and by the way, thanks gentlemen for your input. Ron

[Mike Kenny]

Ron,

I don't have an image of the later (SW 68) marking with me so I can't compare individual letters. From memory the later style is more rounded in general. Maybe someone else can help out here with a better comparison.

I also should have typed an L instead of a J in the above post (sorry, I've been away from my collection from so long now I've got over withdrawal symptoms!). The L gives the impression of slanting backwards, I think because on the stamp itself the top of the L is less well defined. The E in Juncker and Berlin are much narrower than the adjacent letters and the middle stroke of the Es are not parallel to the top and bottom horizomtal strokes. The middle stroke rises from left to right, almost at a 45 degree angle. Examine the close-up marking that Eric posted in the other thread in detail - classic early Juncker in my opinion.

Note that in my post above I use the term "early", to me implying good quailty materials such as nickel silver and tombak and indicating pre- to early war period. For APBs, the material would also include aluminium.

Regards
Mike K

[Ron Birch]

Another question; would the use of the rounded 's' be only with SW 68 or just SW by itself? I'm not trying to beat this to death I just figured that this is an angle I can use in determining the validity of a badge, and read somewhere on this forum where a member stated if I'm correct the maker marked badges with SW 68 were copies? And Prosper where did you go? Ron

[Mike Kenny]

Hi Ron,

You'll need to go back through previous posts or the archives for the SW 68 discussion - hopefully it wasn't deleted. Form memory, consensus was that a LATE war ZINC Juncker badge with catchplate and the SW 68 logo has a reasonable chance of being genuine whereas a badge made from quality materials with the SW 68 mark is likely to be a reproduction.

Regarding a Juncker mark with a rounded S in SW (without the 68) I'll rephrase what I stated above, I personally would be highly uncomfortable with it and I would not buy one - but that's just my opinion based on the known originals that I've seen and/or examined.

Regards
Mike K

[Prosper Keating]

Don't worry Ron. Still here. I've been giving myself eyestrain studying C E Juncker hallmarks from different periods. Still, it's better than going blind from other causes…

In response to your question, I suppose the metal might indeed show external signs of damage had it altered form sufficiently to deform the hallmark.

Just as an aside, some feinzink Army Para Badges do show what appear to be stress cracks in the upper parts of the wreath, near the wehrmacht eagle. I've also seen this in other two-part badges with 'delicate-looking' wreaths, like feinzink or mazak Glider Pilot Badges.

Returning to aluminium badges and, specifically, components like the eagles in flight and para badges, the pressure from any expansion and contraction would usually be greater in the middle of the mass than around the edges, where it has 'room' to move. Hence the stress cracks that appear in, for example, aluminium engine cylinder heads machined too soon after the casting process. These cracks rarely appear on the exterior. They appear in the middle, in the combustion chamber. The material cracks because the valve seats, made of hardened material, prevent any movement. Sometimes, the head joint face will warp out of true.

I was thinking of the cylinder heads of some of the old motorbikes I have from the 40s and 50s. They developed cracks because they were machined before the aluminium had time to 'mature' after the casting process. So…could this occur in in aluminium badges dating from the 1930s and could it feasibly deform hallmarks?

Perhaps not. On reflection, Mike K is right too: we're talking about extremely high grade aluminium blanks, stamped from rolled sheet and then placed in the dies to form the component parts of flight badges and the APBs struck from this metal. Would this material be prone to much expansion of contraction?

But as a question, it got the ball rolling. The end justifies the means, as they say.

Mr Angry

Just kidding…

PK

[Ron Birch]

OK Prosper I figured you were hovering around out there somewhere, I just hope you didn't go down to the cafe' and order a cup of coffee! hehehe But is the mark CEJ also an early Juncker mark or was that used before 1937. And are most marked SW 68 in raised letters? I may have to go back to the article to make sure I got this right but in 43 did the APB get reissued to SS and if so was the maker mark different ? Thanks
Let me rephrase that to do you think the maker mark would be different and I will also keep my posts to one question at a time, sorry.

[ 03 October 2001: Message edited by: ronbme ]