EK2 Spange "first pattern

[streptile]

I think what he refers to the "mystery" is the possibility for a real design with that "rooster head" eagle from D.

Correct.

I make no pretense to being an expert, but I do know that LDO numbers started at 10, and that any LDO-marked piece should be post-1941, and that these first-pattern Spangen with scalloped ends are 1939-1940 at the latest.

An interesting mystery, especially with that L/4 marked example in a related thread.

What I mean is: Three days ago, the consensus was that this "windblown feather" pattern is fake. Then, almost simultaneously, an L/4 marked example is posted to confirm the consensus, and Detlev Niemann, a highly respected mind in our community, posts a supposedly genuine example that looks identical.

The mystery, to me, is the one Detlev Niemann just sold and stood by after being questioned by Sammler, which I assume is unmarked but which seems a match to both the fake LDO-marked example and an example that was displayed in his own "Kopien Archiv."

Thanks for weighing in, Dietrich and Don. I hope that's clearer

~Trevor

[Peter Wiking]

I did a big mistake with the "first pattern" spange and managed to mix the photos. This is the correct pair of phots. Very sorry for this.

[Peter Wiking]

This is the correct pair of photos of the "first pattern" spange:

[Biro]

Thanks for clearing that up Peter.

As the first pattern you posted above is the exact same piece Detlev displayed as his 'fake of the week', I will assume you owned it and sent it in for his opinion.

Did he indicate when he returned it that in his opinion the piece had been "cast" from an original..?

I beleive Niemanns 'Fake of the week' and 'Original' are not two different spangen from two different dies... they are the same spange with the 'copy' hand finished in a different manner around the neck and head area to give the impression of a 'plume feather'. Any of our more talented members can replicate this for themselves using photoshop and greying out the material on an original to see what I mean. I have tried to show an example HERE using an original first pattern of the same design.

Therefore, if Niemanns 'fake of the week' is cast from the original and well known first pattern design, and his recently sold original with the plume feather is simply an original with a different style of hand finishing to what we are used to seeing, then he would actually be quite correct.

regards

Marshall

[streptile]

Hi Peter.

No problem on the mixup... funny no one spotted it given that the reverse L/4 picture shows the straight-ends of the date box.

So we're back to where we were before post #40. All posts from #41 through #48 should be disregarded.

~Trevor

[tinmantis]

Marshall, that's a great handfinishing comparison
it got me thinking, and dredging my files again

I think this whole confusion is the result of noone posting closer pics of the dubious spangen, that's how good the repros have got

I say again, I have never seen this early spange with the later brass prongs
and from Detlev's pics it strongly resmbles the repro

BUT yes, handfinishing craziness, hitherto unseen prongs etc could all be possible
closer pics, closer pics, closer pics please!
regards
jon

[Biro]

I have now seen the Spange offered by Detlev in his latest update (see post # 33) and can confirm it is exactly as described... an original, die struck 1st pattern spange which has simply been over zealously finished around the head area giving the effect of an odd 'plume feather'.

A better picture can be seen HERE

The 'Fake of the week' is a cast version of an original 1st pattern and hence, a fake.

[Don D.]

Why does it have the same funky marks in the beading around the swaz as the fake in post # 48?

[Sammler]

Why does it have the same funky marks in the beading around the swaz as the fake in post # 48?

I agree and am having a hard time with the whole over zealous hand finishing idea, the head is different, the design is different . It is not spot on to the "fake of the week" but to many weird finish, prong and detail differences. The thickness is also of interest to me. The one I posted is very thin.

I will post better shots of the thing that started this and try to remove the ribbon for a shot of the reverse. Its probably operator error but I can not get my cyber shot to zoom decently at all.

[Biro]

...the design is different ...

Hello Sammler


The head is different because half of it has been filed off!

Can you please explain how the design is different?

regards

Marshall

[Sammler]

Hello Sammler


The head is different because half of it has been filed off!

Can you please explain how the design is different?

regards

Marshall

The one you originally posted I think compares well to the one Mantis did in post #17.

For the Niemann comparison, it is not the same IMO. The Niemann head does appear to have not to mention base metal and prongs are taking this too far for me to believe it original from the same first pattern as post # 17.

Someone pointed out earlier the wings are also more rounded on the bottom "armpit" area . Is this supposed to be due to hand finishing on these?
I know the pictures of mine are bad but is that supposed to match as well?

Thanks for your input for the thread but it sems to be getting out in left field now for me.

[Biro]

Hi Sammler

I'm trying to illustrate how hand finishing (a common practise as you can see HERE) can make two otherwise identical spangen, from the same die and manufacturer, appear quite different when in fact they are not.

...Someone pointed out earlier the wings are also more rounded on the bottom "armpit" area . Is this supposed to be due to hand finishing on these?

Yes.

The areas I've indicated HERE with arrows on your spange are not part of the die design. They are file marks from a poorly finished spange. The armpit feathers lower right on your example are over-zealously filed in a rounded fashion.

From your pictures, it is absolutely impossible to tell whether your spange may have been cast (fake) or is die struck, but what I can tell you is that yours is the same type offered by Detlev as an original. The one he uses as his 'fake of the week' is also the same type as yours, but has been cast from an original and finished in a different manner and was therefore deemed fake.

One other thing...

This example SPANGE owned by our own George Stimson is also the same type as the ones we're discussing here, has been hand-finished along similar lines to yours and the Detlev 'original' (sloppily) and also has the tell-tale flaw on the bottom of the '1' which is common on this type of 1st pattern spange.

I hope I haven't made it more confusing, but this is my summation of the various topics raised here by you and others.

All the best

Marshall

[Sammler]

Thank you for that information, I am surprised how much is coming out for these.

I can tell you that mine is very thin, the manner of frosting and prongs all seem correct. I had a good "gut feeling as it being a scarce type.

That said I have a friend who is taking better pictures with the ribbon off and sending me the images. I hate to possibly screw with a ribbon that COULD be on an original spange. It is being done withot bending the prongs just a slit at each prong area and then it should slide off.

I always wondered IF the D fake of the wek may have had an original counterpart?

This thread for me has gone from:

"quite pleased" to "quite arrogant" to "quite confused"

I am "quite cautiously optimistic"


All said I believe a valuable thread for these regardless .

Thank you

[gregM]

All said I believe a valuable thread for these regardless .

I agree. A lot of good information here.
I own only a couple spangen, neither of them first patterns but I do
enjoy reading these threads in hopes of someday finding an original
first pattern.

[ben bijker]

A better picture can be seen HERE

The bigger pic sure helps.

What are all the lines on the feathers from?
Never seen that before...

I also miss the pebbling around the swas (????)

Still don't like it a bit.....