Demjansk Shield

[Peter J.]

Filip, I agree on #2 but don't follow you regarding Ivan's. The log's end marked on my image is positioned differently on Ivan's compared to the one used by you for comparison. Are we looking at three different dies. Here's a close-up to illustrate the rough texture of the surface and the imperfections, similar to the shield posted by Pascal in the link.

cheers
Peter

[Filip]

The roughness and imperfections are usually caused by the die wearing off. Sometimes dies were even fixed which resulted in minor deviations. Also, the condition of the shield itself may vary one from another.

[Alex K.]

Is this a Wurster, too ? If not what maker is it ?

[Alex K.]

back

[Peter J.]

Filip, I hear what you're saying, but still have problems to see the logic. If the distinction between the two types illustrated by you should be made by the indicated logs, why shouldn't the log indicated by me be relevant? After all, it's more noticeable than the other two. Further more, if minor differencies are explained by a repaired die, how are we to differentiate the different types?

cheers
Peter

[Filip]

Is this a Wurster, too ? If not what maker is it ?

No, it is not. Maker of this Demjansk is unknown, but stay away from zink versions.

[Alex K.]

No, it is not. Maker of this Demjansk is unknown, but stay away from zink versions.

Zink version in general ? Because the posted shield is made from Iron

[Filip]

Zink version in general ? Because the posted shield is made from Iron

Demjansk shields in general and this type in particular.

[rkhunter]

Hi, in your opinion Filip is this shield posted up by Alex a copy or an original pre-45 example? I am getting a little confused here!

Kai

[Filip]

Hi, in your opinion Filip is this shield posted up by Alex a copy or an original pre-45 example? I am getting a little confused here!

Kai

The zink version is a copy, Iron - original. I'll post Pascal's comparison image to illustrate this point.

[rkhunter]

Hi, ah yes, I see what you mean now Filip! Some nice original examples posted here!

Kai

[Filip]

Filip, I hear what you're saying, but still have problems to see the logic. If the distinction between the two types illustrated by you should be made by the indicated logs, why shouldn't the log indicated by me be relevant? After all, it's more noticeable than the other two. Further more, if minor differencies are explained by a repaired die, how are we to differentiate the different types?

cheers
Peter

Peter, your shield and the one posted by Pascal in his thread are absolutely the same and were struck by the same die, IMO.

You can use other details to compare shields that are more obvious to you . But you should keep in mind that sometime, images taken from different angles may display some differences that do not exist and are purely a visual trick.
I use my circled logs because this pair is more prominent to me then the others.

BTW here is a puzzle for everybody once again. On the picture bellow are 4 shields of the same make. Number 1 shows no die flaw . Number 4 shows both die flaws usually associated with this make: The missing log and a faulty number 9. The task is to put shield A and shield B in a proper numerical order.

[pantherv]

.....

I remember the first time you posted this.....

Have you figured it out yet.

Peter

[Peter J.]

Filip, thanks for pointing out these differencies. I'm still on the learning curve and need time to digest this info. Have you come up with any specific flaws that would be consistent, thus making it possible to relate a shield to one of the two types discussed here?

cheers
Peter