Gents, I provide photos of the campaign shields I have picked up over the years for your review and comment.
-
-
Narvik 2 typ zink Deumer
Demjansk bad copy
Kuban unknown maker
Krim 2 typ zink Deumer -
HI Rich......
......I agree with K72. All good except for the Demjannsk.
Comment
-
Rich. It´s always good to show the backside of shields
Comment
-
Okay, I'll bite. Why exactly is the Demjansk a bad copy?
TimComment
-
Well, I am not a fan of the propeller detail or lack there of. The obverse logs on the left side going toward the wreath/swastika have a poor formation of Logs when compaired to the right side. Like they tried last minute to ensure the correct number of vertical logs.
This is my interpretation of what makes this a questionable Demjansk. This could be an optical illusion but the letter spacing between the D E is really stretched. Unless this was shot with a fish eye camera lens.
Regards,
JustinGComment
-
Hi Justin,
Thanks for coming in here as not many are commenting.
I enlarged and brightened the PIC somewhat for better viewing:Comment
-
I have some old file PIC's saved from 2011 that I can use as a comparison here. The shield is not mine and I think I picked up the photos from this forum, so if the owner comes in, great and hopefully he won't care that I am using these here.
I always considered these were of an original, though not often seen variety.
TimComment
-
Looking at Rich's shield, I thought perhaps a combination of wear on the highpoints and lighting in the PIC made some of the details appear softer but maybe this is a copy or later strike of the shield I am showing?
There is a gap between the D and E but, I didn't think it was much cause for concern here. The logs may look a bit odd in Rich's photo but, sometimes depending on the actual camera lens to subject angle, you can add in an artificial elongation (especially when photographing items like cross arms). I figured he was just a bit off center with the PIC here.
The propeller looks worn to me but as you can see on the example I show, it does have detail.
I'll add some close ups for comparison.
TimComment
-
I didn't take these photos and tried my best to resize them to match up. With that said, I see what appears to be slight size differences in some areas. I don't know if that is a true representation of each or, if the differences in lighting, item orientation, and resizing are giving this false appearance.
TimComment
-
I'll add a couple more shots for review here.
Honestly, I have a hard time believing this shield is bad and that fakes have become this good but, if this is in fact a bad shield, then I would like to know that.
TimComment
-
Hi Tim & Rich......
......Take a good long look at the numerals. They are not all the same(especially the '4'). I think this was a valiant(or evil) attempt to copy the one Tim brought to the board.
The badge you show Tim looks believable.
Comment
-
Hi Bruce,
That's what I'm wondering here. The sword hilts look narrower on Rich's example and the other one appears to have a taper where Rich's does not. I can explain some slight differences with lighting and angles differences between the two photo sets, but the hilts...?
I honestly don't know but, if its a copy, it's not a bad one and one we may need to study and discuss more at length.
Not having either in hand doesn't help!
TimComment
-
Nice Deumer Narvik, but I think it was sewed to the uniform cloth after the war, its nearly impossible to get a sewing machine into the sleeve IMO. I suspect thatthe cloth the shield is on, didn't come with the shield either.
Kr, ThomasComment
-
Hi Tim......
......I see what you mean Tim. I have also noticed other diiferences: pommels, swastika and the lower fueselage of the plane. In the long run, I believe you're correct that a in-hand examination would really be the sure way to help one come to a conclusion, one way or the other, about the shield of Rich's.
An interesting piece, to say the least. But, for me at this point, I still think it is a good copy
Comment
Comment