Your opinion please on this die flaw on a Narvik shield.

[Pascal H.]

After <st1 ="">Oleg</st1> posted his Narvik shield in another thread some members noticed a scratch on the shield. It didn’t took me long to find at least three other shields with the exact same scratch.<o =""></o>

<o =""></o>Let’s just have a closer look at two of them

[Pascal H.]

Detaik of the "scratch".

[Pascal H.]

Besides the scratch there are several other similarities between these two shields and I am convinced that these shields are coming from the same die.
But here we are coming to the point which I can’t explain.

At first I thought that the scratch on the shields was because of a die flaw (scratch) in the dies but if there was a die flaw in the die then surely the scratch on the shields would be raised. This is however not the case.<o =""></o><o =""></o>

So I am a bit stuck here and would like to ask your opinion on how this scratch could appear on these shields.<o =""></o><o =""></o>

What do you think and maybe we can solve this puzzle together???

Thanks,
Pascal

[Bob Hritz]

Pascal,


When the finished product has a flaw that is impressed into that product, it is the result of contamination debris in the die itself. A piece of metal shaving, for instance, can leave it's impression upon finshed products. Once the die is cleaned, the flaw will dissapear.

Also, a die that is cracked can have the crack repaired, leaving a slightly flawed product.

I would favor the first scenario as this looks like the pollution of the die with a metal shaving.

Bob Hritz

[Don D.]

I had the same thought. I meant to get back to this this morning after my run. Another possibility is that during the ejection/handling process the badge passed over an obstruction that left the mark. No as likely as a contaminated die.
Don

[Peter J.]

Hi guys.

Since I have a horse in this race (one of the shields is mine), I'd like to add some thoughts to this thread. Please bare with me, it's tough to do this in English
I believe the production method of these shields was the use of a die to strike sheets of metal. The image looking into the die would of course be the opposite to the one found on the actual produced shield. As already stated, a scratch in the die would present a raised image on the shield. Consequently a debris would result in a concave image. I believe we can all agree on this. But after looking at the "scratch" more closely, I don't think debris is the issue here. If you look closely at the image below, you'll notice not only the concave "scratch" but also what seems to be ridges around this scratch. If you draw a finger through snow or use a sharp, hard instrument on softer material, these ridges will occure. That's why debris doesn't seem likely, hence it wouldn't produce the ridges. In order for them to occure, they have to be concave on the die. I hope you all comprehend my logic .

After contemplating this problem for a while, a scary though crossed my mind. We've all heard about laser produced dies. I don't know about the manufacture of these i.e. if an original award is used or if a mould is made with a original award and then used to get the measures. And here's the "scary" part:
If a mould is made from an original shield that has a scratch on it, the scratch will be raised in the mould. If you then laser scan the mould and make a die, that die will produce exactly the same shield as the original. That's it, let the party begin

KR
Peter

[Don D.]

If you look closely the scratches are not exactly the same, which you would expect if it was die produced. Another answer could be damaged stock. I know sheet metal comes in many forms but it is produced by machines which could have let these marks in the surface.
Don

[Peter J.]

Believe me Don, I've looked closely, my eyes are almost falling out . Although my eye-sight isn't the best, I do think they are identical. The imaginary difference is probably due to the different angles of photo. Oleg's is shot with a camera in an angle, mine is straight with a scanner (on the comparison image).
Any thoughts on the ridges I mentioned.
As for your comments on the metal sheets, are you suggesting every shield was produced from a single metal sheet, which would have this scratch positioned on the same spot. Wouldn't it be plausible to have on large sheet, from which numerous shields could be produced (pictured in Angolia's "For Führer and....." Civil Awards page 69.)

KR
Peter

[Marc Garlasco]

The rope is even "cut" in the same place...

[Don D.]

Sheet metal is delivered in rolls of hundreds of feet. During production of the roll of sheet metal any scar on one of the rolling surfaces would leave that mark everytime the sheet passed over it. Does that mean every badge has it? No, Depending on how they were stamped out it could be every fourth-fifth etc... It could have been from only one faulty roll from one manufacturer. The problem is we don't know exactly how they were made but I will bet they were stamped out automatically by a machine by the thousands. The worker only had to install the dies, load the material feed and set the pressure. Of course I am basing all of this on only four years of metal shop so who knows. If you think they are fake I would be glad to hold them for you.
Don

[Peter J.]

Come on Don, I fully respect your knowledge in metal manufacturing. Like I said, I'm a novis, but I'm eager to learn more about it. You do have point, the device that fed the machine might be responsible for this scratch. One question though, if the sheet was scratched before it was inserted into the die, wouldn't the pressure of the process eliminate the ridges around the scratch?
I never said this was a fake, but the anomaly made me curious. But you can't have it

KR
Peter

[Don D.]

Metals react differently under pressure and react differently under different amounts of pressure. I don't think the pressure needed to pump these out was that great. I think these badges are fine and what you are seeing are the normal mechanical faults that occur in an industrial setting. I know some folks think that a german master craftsman labored for hours over each of these awards but that really is not the case. As the war progressed and foriegn labor was added I think you would see more or less a lowering of the quality. All this leads to the "Juncker Project" theory of Frank's (with documentation of course). Once the Volksturm was stood up in Sep 44 the skilled labor pool was degredated even further. Foreign workers were exempt from Volkssturm training and there were probably days where the majority of workers on the factory floor were a mixed bag of semi-skilled, apithetical workers. Of course, if this type of shield with the scratch mark floods the market suddenly I reserve the right to take back everything I've said.

A scratch/scar doesn't always remove the metal, it merely displaces it. Hence your slight ridge.
Don

[Tim B.]

IMO, debris on the die surface is the most logical answer. It wouldn't take a significant amount to show some indentation when pressed and a dirty die would be something that would naturally happen overtime. If the debris was retained on the die surface, I don't think the indentations would show any ridges as the press was directly stamped and not drawn across the surface.

The question I have to ask is; do we have any "known original' period pieces of this design that have these scratches? I'm not calling the shield good or bad, just bringing up the point that if we know of an original shield that has these die traits, then we can safely assume all of them are good (at least for now). However, there seems to be a recent influx of Narvik shields in great condition and the majority of them are either ones clearly identified as known fakes, or of the Duemer varieties. You have to consider those possibilities of recent manufacture. They look really great!
Tim

[robert60446]

Guys, can you check the “paper backings” under the black light? It sounds like the easiest way to check their originality… <o =""></o>

[Thomas Bendixen]

Hi Everyone

This is why I wan't my shields worn No really I'm very reluctant buying mint shields after I found out that I had the "Serif/movin propellor Demjansk zinker". This Demjansk fake had so crisp details that I allowed myself to get fooled. I can't prove anything but I think:

1) Sharp crisp details isn't proof of anything in itself
2) Backingcloth are being made that looks 100% original
3) Backingpaper that dosen't glow - how much do you wanna buy (my wife has modern old looking, old style made, paper that dosen't glow).

What I'm trying to say is that everything can be explained (not deonteing you here Don) so its really up to one self. I think this scrath could very well be from casting and I must say that such a badge would never get near my collection.

Cheers Thomas