U-Boat badge packet for review

[Thomas H]

I would think the badge makers would buy the paper packets from a paper company so it would seem possible that one company could make packets for two different badge manufactureres.

Yes, that is the most plausible theory. One or a few companies that make packets/ cases/ cartons for all the manufacturers of medals and badges.

I do believe these packets to be original, but then we will always have different opinions, won't we?

So true. What we do here all over the WAF is giving our opinion. Sometimes we can back it up with a lot of proof, sometimes it is just a gut feeling.

In the end everyone has to be happy with his/here collection.

As long as something that I think is fake is inside a collection and me and the owner have a different opinion about its originality, it is fine. The problem comes when the owner puts it on the e-stand and members stil say it is fake.

Regards, Thomas

[realone]

Ok so Thomas,, thanks for your input,,but what I gather heres is,,if one member thinks its fake,,and cant back it up with some proof only his GUT FEELINGS?,,that does seem kinda of one sided,,,,and the chance to sell it has now been tarnish,,,,,????,,,,,,I think somehow we need to stay with facts,,,,thats what I thought the forum was about,,not alot of hear say,,Well I guess someone needs to tell Old Gordon Willianson about his book,,,,,I wonder whats his take on all of this,ok,,thanks again for all the help,,,Greg

[leigh]

Think more than one person has said they think these are fake. And as already said being in a book doesnt mean anything. I would like these to be good as i have a high sea's version but nothing about it gives me a good feeling.

[realone]

Hi Leigh,,,,,,,,,,,well wheres the proof or facts either way,,only opinions,,,we have to keep an open mind when it comes to this hobby,,just because one or MORE say its bad,,wheres there proof Leigh?,,,,Just saying,,its been around since the 60s or 70s,,,,what I look for is facts,,,proof,,,,thats one of the problems on forums,,,,guys just shout out,,,HEY ITS A DUD,,,,,,or words to that effect,,thats not proof,,thats just his or hers opinion,,,,and there respected,,,as such,,,but myself,,I like proof,,other wise you cant discount it as fake,,,that can hurt the hobby,,,

Im sure Leigh when Gordon Willianson wrote his book he took into account the Packet as well as other Items in his book,,,and all other books he has written, In this day and age,,new info is always coming in,, Im sure you can understand that,,,thanks for your opinion,,,,Greg

[MH184]

Hi Greg,


I don't disagree with what you note, not at all. And I empathise with your frustration at the lack of substantiated answers to either claim. I didn't action a removal of you sales thread due to my reasoning in my initial post.

I also confess I was hoping for some more inclusion by other collectors.

But in response; to be fair on balance all we have at times is the comparative process, deducted reasoning and sure, visceral intuition based upon perhaps a level of experience.

In my limited experience over the years seldom has there been any indisputable determination of a multitude of TR wares. That is to say, rarely, has there been premise grounded factors pertaining to a conclusion.

There exists a deliberative process which more than half the time culminates in a consensus. That's not to say it's not without good cause and foundation, but unmitigated and certifiable beyond all reasonable doubt?

I've helped Gordon to some extent in the past and more recently with the odd picture of cases and we've also discussed packets/cases, too. It may have even been in the past in part my ''influence'' regarding these U-Boot packets.....??? I think I may recall he purchased the packet accompanied by the badge wrapped in tissue; altogether a rather convincing set.

There aren't experts in this hobby, as such, we're none of us infallible. There are those that may think they are, but that in itself is ignorance and vanity in my book.

As I say, just levels of competence come understanding; which is as broad as it is narrow for a statement.

I will now try and explain to some lesser or greater degree (following posts) why I think these packets are fake - I may have to do it over a couple of nights as I'm actually at work, so my apologies in advance.


KR


Marcus

[MH184]

I will get back to this tonight.......sorry for the delay!!!

[realone]

Thanks,,,,,,,,,Greg

[MH184]

Only a week late

Sorry, I didn't have the time to start this in the end.

Brian, is correct in the fact many makers did use the same case/packet factories. For example Meybauer and Juncker it would appear did for one - at a time. Other makers I know for certain did, and not only one but two and sometimes three different packaging manufacturers.


Right, what I've more than intimated is these packets are fake, and that's still my opinion.

These are poor images, but if we compare the designations and the lettering we can see they are one in the same. This is more obvious when you have such examples in hand, and I will get better images in the near future; these aren't the ideal packets to compare with their desigantions anyway.

Comparing of individual letters and the whole lettering has been a most important factor in distingusihing the good from the bad. There is no fake as of yet that has actually had the designations copied EXACTLY. Which, is rather fortunate to say the least. There are some sterling attempts though.

As to the maker marks: CEJ, FLL ....etc are infamous portrayals of makers and synonymous with a multitude of fake packets.

I'm not actually aware of any genuine packet with such markings. I think such was perhaps derived by the actual award marker marks.

As already previously mentioned the U-boat packets are but one in a limited ''series'' of the one in the same blue packets; evolved examples of which are still being produced today - reproduction of reproductions.

[MH184]

Here's a larger example of the orange version's. This example is reproduced from Tom Durante's CCC book.

[MH184]

Obverse. No the best depiction to use as on this poorly executed example the designation lacks any definition, and the full extent on the tail on the ''H'' is devoid for the purpose of comparison.

[MH184]

Fake

[MH184]

The others include the Spanish Cross..........etc

[MH184]

And here's one of the Spangen types in a more recent paper type.

[MH184]

Reverse

[MH184]

And an even more modern attempt.