Opinion on 2 pin Cholm

[Pascal H.]

if into an album
and why somebody else is not from shields then this typ two prongs

Narvik ,etc,etc?

I don't know. Maybe there are Narvik etc. tombak shields with two prongs still out there. As Patrick mentioned these Demjansk shields are also ultra rare.
What I don't understand is why is it so difficult to accept a reliable statement that these shields were already around just after the war?

As with most awards we have to trust reliable sources and yes sometimes we get it wrong but if you want to have bullet proof evidence of authenticity I think you will be left over with a hand full of awards.

Kr
Pascal

[Leroy]

Great discussion here: http://www.germancombatawards.com/th...user=0&page=12

[kraut72]

Great discussion here: http://www.germancombatawards.com/th...user=0&page=12

Thanks most I know it
no improvement happened in the topic since only 2009

[Thomas Durante]

What I don't understand is why is it so difficult to accept a reliable statement that these shields were already around just after the war?

Hi guys,

Patrick, thanks very much for showing your Demjansk shield. Looks very good, and much better than the quality of the Cholm that started this thread IMO. With the identical prong setup, I agree with you that these would certainly point to the same maker. Whether that maker is wartime or postwar, I am still not sure.

Pascal, I think your above statement certainly has merit and it is good information to have. But unfortunately, the many "vet stories" that have turned out to be made up or incorrect, I don't think you can blame anyone for being a bit skeptical of a single vet account. If we had several different vet accounts, from several independent sources placing this shield in the war or very soon after, then I personally would put stock in them, but not with a single one.

All of these 2-prong Cholms have rough surfaces that are IDENTICAL to one another. Typically, this has been a tell-tale sign in identifying many fake badges. I agree that it is possible that this type of shield was made from die that matches the typical, accepted 3-prong Cholms. But likewise, isn't it also possible that someone copied an original Cholm shield and then used that die to make all these 2-prong shields? That is why they have a rough surface and also why they all share the same bubbles and flaws on the surface that are identical to eachother?

The fact that they are made from Cupal is a good sign to me, it proves they aren't cast. But on the other hand, we know that S&L was using Cupal to make reproductions in the 1970s, so its no sure bet either IMO.

Tom

[der bingle]

Hi guys,

Patrick, thanks very much for showing your Demjansk shield. Looks very good, and much better than the quality of the Cholm that started this thread IMO. With the identical prong setup, I agree with you that these would certainly point to the same maker. Whether that maker is wartime or postwar, I am still not sure.

Pascal, I think your above statement certainly has merit and it is good information to have. But unfortunately, the many "vet stories" that have turned out to be made up or incorrect, I don't think you can blame anyone for being a bit skeptical of a single vet account. If we had several different vet accounts, from several independent sources placing this shield in the war or very soon after, then I personally would put stock in them, but not with a single one.

All of these 2-prong Cholms have rough surfaces that are IDENTICAL to one another. Typically, this has been a tell-tale sign in identifying many fake badges. I agree that it is possible that this type of shield was made from die that matches the typical, accepted 3-prong Cholms. But likewise, isn't it also possible that someone copied an original Cholm shield and then used that die to make all these 2-prong shields? That is why they have a rough surface and also why they all share the same bubbles and flaws on the surface that are identical to eachother?

The fact that they are made from Cupal is a good sign to me, it proves they aren't cast. But on the other hand, we know that S&L was using Cupal to make reproductions in the 1970s, so its no sure bet either IMO.

Tom

Thank you gentleman for all of your input,which translates into years of intense study. I respect all of you, and I thank you very much. this badge is thin, die struck and cannot be bent by hand under normal conditions, and is entirely non magnetic,at least I can give you that with my first hand information.

[Pascal H.]

Hi guys,

Patrick, thanks very much for showing your Demjansk shield. Looks very good, and much better than the quality of the Cholm that started this thread IMO. With the identical prong setup, I agree with you that these would certainly point to the same maker. Whether that maker is wartime or postwar, I am still not sure.

Pascal, I think your above statement certainly has merit and it is good information to have. But unfortunately, the many "vet stories" that have turned out to be made up or incorrect, I don't think you can blame anyone for being a bit skeptical of a single vet account. If we had several different vet accounts, from several independent sources placing this shield in the war or very soon after, then I personally would put stock in them, but not with a single one.

All of these 2-prong Cholms have rough surfaces that are IDENTICAL to one another. Typically, this has been a tell-tale sign in identifying many fake badges. I agree that it is possible that this type of shield was made from die that matches the typical, accepted 3-prong Cholms. But likewise, isn't it also possible that someone copied an original Cholm shield and then used that die to make all these 2-prong shields? That is why they have a rough surface and also why they all share the same bubbles and flaws on the surface that are identical to eachother?

The fact that they are made from Cupal is a good sign to me, it proves they aren't cast. But on the other hand, we know that S&L was using Cupal to make reproductions in the 1970s, so its no sure bet either IMO.

Tom

Hi Tom,
I absolutely agree with you.
We have discussed this type of shield before and I am sure we could discuss is again for hours and hours and pages and pages. Without further proof I am sure we would reach the same conclusion that some of us believe in this type and some of us don't.

I am sure that we our knowledge today we all can agree that this is a shield for the "not faint hearted" .

Kr
Pascal

[kraut72]

continuation later...

[Pascal H.]

continuation later...

Exactly, let's hope so.

Kr
Pascal