Two Demiansk.....an opinion...

[JustinG]

1bis

If these are two JFS attributed shields, Perhaps we can study and see what might have caused this dye flaw that happened on the Swastika arm from 9o'clock position to 12o'clock. Perhaps a worn dye but there seems to be other areas that differentiate these shields as well?

Regards,
JustinG

[JustinG]

Here's some areas I noticed. Now, these could be dye wear.

Regards,
JustinG

[Pascal H.]

I think it is the easiest if we start with the back.
We all know that if a shield consists of a paper backing like the first one shown in this thread we should be very careful.

The JFS Demjansk shield mostly comes with such a backing and when found with the JFS mark, this mark is very different from the mark found on the authentic JFS Krim shield.

Here is the backing including the mark on the JFS Demjansk shield from my collection. As a comparison you'll see on the right the JFS Krim mark.

[Pascal H.]

Next you will see the backing of a fake Narvik shield and a fake Krim shield.
Both are made by Floch and both contain the exact same mark as the Demjansk shield.

Of the all the well known shields I managed to find out which ones are made by Floch. That is expect for the Demjansk shield.

Could it be that all the time we were considering the JFS Demjansk to be original it was in fact a Floch fake???

Kr
Pascal

[hlynur76]

Could it be that all the time we were considering the JFS Demjansk to be original it was in fact a Floch fake???

Kr
Pascal

It looks like Floch with this paper backing. I would like to see more shields and there backings that are consider to be a JFS Demjansk.

[hlynur76]

I have been looking at many threads with search option "JFS Demjansk" and I have to agree what Peter (PantherV) said in one these threads... "Not for me...I've never really trusted these JFS Demjansk's....Just my opinion"

[Pascal H.]

It is a good thing that we must stay sceptical, never rest and always try to find proof to authenticate these shields.

In the past knowledgeable collectors, including Peter, agreed that the JFS Demjansk was an original shield. A quick search on this forum will show you this. It is only until recently that some doubt arose about the originality of this type of shield.

As I showed the marking on the back together with the flatness which is typical for several Floch fakes made me wonder about the authenticity of this type.

I would like to hear other collectors opinions on why their views on this type of shield changed.

Having said this, until now no definitive proof has been brought forward that this type is without a doubt a fake.

Kr
Pascal

[hlynur76]

until now no definitive proof has been brought forward that this type is without a doubt a fake.

Kr
Pascal

I agree

[Tim B.]

Well, I don't have much to add here, but am reading and watching!

I remember seeing my first one of these back in 2001 or so and had discussed these with Frank H. and Pascal back then, but I think at that time they were viewed as original, just not one of the better made versions.

It will be interesting to find out which way this goes, though I would like to see something concrete one way or the other.

Tim

[pantherv]

......

It is a good thing that we must stay sceptical, never rest and always try to find proof to authenticate these shields.

In the past knowledgeable collectors, including Peter, agreed that the JFS Demjansk was an original shield. A quick search on this forum will show you this. It is only until recently that some doubt arose about the originality of this type of shield.

As I showed the marking on the back together with the flatness which is typical for several Floch fakes made me wonder about the authenticity of this type.

I would like to hear other collectors opinions on why their views on this type of shield changed.

Having said this, until now no definitive proof has been brought forward that this type is without a doubt a fake.

Kr
Pascal

Hi Pascal...missed this thread over here (away for my 20th anniversary)but did give both these shields the elsewhere which in truth I shouldn't have. You're right of course, in the past I would have agreed with the general opinion at the time but now, for me just to many red flags. As mentioned the MM stamp is a big problem and what hasn't been mentioned is the poor finish to the surface of the shield. I'm sure the Floch Cholm shows the same type of finish.

Without definite proof one way or another it's difficult to come to any conclusion but as things stand I'd consider this shield a copy (I think )

[Pascal H.]

Hi Pascal...missed this thread over here (away for my 20th anniversary)but did give both these shields the elsewhere which in truth I shouldn't have. You're right of course, in the past I would have agreed with the general opinion at the time but now, for me just to many red flags. As mentioned the MM stamp is a big problem and what hasn't been mentioned is the poor finish to the surface of the shield. I'm sure the Floch Cholm shows the same type of finish.

Without definite proof one way or another it's difficult to come to any conclusion but as things stand I'd consider this shield a copy (I think )

No problem Peter. I am sure you're referring to your 20th wedding anniversary . Congratulations!!!

It's a good thing that we're keeping sceptical. I also noticed the flatness of this type of shield which me also reminds of the Floch shields.

Kr
Pascal