Navy Narvik opinions

[Segmund Tang]

Hi, gentlemen

What is your opinion about this Navy Narvik?

Regards
Tang

Edit: I resized and uploaded the picture to prevent that this thread becomes useless without pictures.
Pascal

[J. M. C.]

Sorry it's a bad one IMHO.

[Pascal H.]

I don't agree.
This is an original type 5.2 shield.
Very typical for this type of shield are the cut-off corners of the backing plate.

Kr
Pascal

[OST]

Looks original for me too.

[J. M. C.]

I trust Pascal's judgement. It must be good.

To me the shield details were just so weak and soft. They look almost buffed down. Maybe worn dies?

[J. M. C.]

Edit: I resized and uploaded the picture to prevent that this thread becomes useless without pictures.
Pascal

I think the bigger picture really showed the lack of detail better. I just cropped it a little smaller.

Note...

1. Lack of detail in eagle, wreath, flower, anchor rope, and anchor top.
2. Missing lines in anchor rope.
3. Deformed look of the swastika.
4. Round edge of the eagle's wing (left side).
5. Strange waviness to some of the letters.

This may be another version of a "Type 5".

It almost looks like it has some rust. Is it magnetic?

[Pascal H.]

Please compare Segmund's shield to my original type 5.2 shield and you will see that both shields are the exact same type.

Kr
Pascal

[J. M. C.]

Hi Pascal,
The one that you just posted is a better match. I was comparing it to the Type 5 Version 2 from your guide here...

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=422331




As I said the one that you just posted with the softer details looks almost the same but there are still some differences to note.

[J. M. C.]

It may be a new version of a Type 5. Maybe just a bad strike or bad photo.

The details just looked a bit off for me.