I also thought your shield was good because of the detailing Mike, however I think Detlev reached this conclusion because of the edge along the shield.
Mads
Mads
-
-
Hi Mike!
Was just down rephotographing those two pieces I got a couple years back from your collection--great EK1 and the cased Meybauer Observer is just stunning!
On the Narvik; As I have lost my PICS of it, which were pretty detailed all around, I would say try to search for my past threads and providing the PICS have not disappeared from the forum like many have, they should still be there and the discussion on what I saw on that shield was pretty compelling to me. The layering of metal is not correct, or at least that was the concensus and the shield proper should be made of one piece construction and not a sandwich of different metals. At first I thought it was CupAl, but under a loop could make out actual layering.
The anchor flukes (shanks actually) should be narrowing towards the fluke end IMO and both should be even, not so fat like the one on the bottom. Again, it is an opinion based on known originals as a comparison and is an opinion shared by some.
The backplate on mine was funny. It had angle cut corners on the top--which is wrong and resembles that of the Detlev "copy". The bottom of the backplate on the one I returned was cut so close to the edge of the bottom of the cloth there was no way to ever have sewn it onto anything. It was cut to the edge! Other little things, you'll just have to search the old thread.
When I returned it to the dealer, he was surprised and still felt it to be original, but two other dealers as well felt it wasn't right and wouldn't have it for their personal collections either. I can't mention names as they all know each other and visit this forum! Frank H. also handled the shield at a local show after I sent it back and he felt it was bad too, just couldn't say exactly why.
I agree, it's a beauty and honestly, yours was the one that when I saw the initial PIC of it sometime back, I told myself I wanted to have a couple as nice as yours! I eventually changed my mind though.
TimComment
-
Thank you Mads for the Detlev photo
.
Tim, I have sent you the photos of your old Narvik shield.
As why Detlev thinks why this type of shield is a fake only he can answer. I think however that he must have had a VERY good reason to believe because the shield looks on photos very good.
The reasons why Tim think that this type of shield is a fake all sound very plausible to me.
Pascal
Comment
-
Pascal,
Got em last night, many thanks!
FYI, when I returned that shield, as anybody knows that has had to return an item, you do so with an heavy heart and especially when the item looks as good as something like that Narvik did. But...if it's so questionable and controversial and sooooo close to an item that has already been identified as a new high quality reproduction, I ask would you really want it in your collection anyway?
I looked at this piece and said to myself, it's great-fantastic details, but there was something with the crisp almost new look and feel to the shield and overall finish that told me to send it back. I knew I would never look at that shield again with affectionate eyes and always regret spending the money on something that everytime I showed it to someone, would wait for the --"but hey, is that really authentic?" questions that would surely follow. You can speculate all you want, but in the end if you can't look at every piece in your collection with 100% (okay--maybe 98%) confindence, then I think your entire collection will always be suspect and open to questions and every future penny you spend will become harder and harder. That's my thoughts anyway.
I wish I could say everybody had all 100% authentic items and bless each and every collection, but in this case, I'm sorry I just can't.
Tim
PS: On a lighter note and in hopes of ending despair and pending gloom, after sending it back, I didn't wait long before I had these two below and one is accredited to a HE-111 radio operator/air gunner. So...be paitent, they're still there. Did I mention both were cheaper too!
Comment
Comment