Deumer Para Badge

[paul w]

Please can I have your opinions on the authenticity of this badge.
The pin has been repaired and the maker mark appears to have been double stamped.

Many Thanks - Paul W

[paul w]

Deumer Para Badge

Picture of rear

[IVAN]

sure the pin is repaired and replaced with a new pin inside the hinge but I must to say it has many characteristics of an original one!

I am more to the side that is a good one.

Ivan

[ERIC S.]

Hi Paul,
I'm inclined to agree with Ivan on this one. As he said the pin is definately replaced - I like the rivits and the cut-out portion under the hinge. As far as I can tell, I vote good.
ERIC

[paul w]

Deumer para badge

Ivan and Eric,thank you for taking the time to comment on the badge.As regards double striking on makers marks,was this a common occurance?(not just on Deumer badges but of any maker).Or is this relatively rare?

Regards,

Paul

[Frank Heukemes]

Dear Paul,

It is rare but not neccessarily in a sense of more desirable.

Cheers, Frank

[IVAN]

it's rare because normally it come reject from the controller, but this is not bad and the imprint looks strong right as the original ones.

Ivan

[paul w]

Deumer para badge

Thanks,Frank,Ivan.

[Lorenzo Brown]

I would have to disagree that a double-stamped mark would cause a badge to be rejected.

First of all, it would make no sense to reject a perfectly good badge because of a double-stamped mark that isn't even a requirement.

Second...the mark is on the reverse...not meant to be seen in wear.

Third. The marks were stamped on BEFORE the badge was assembled. A maker would not spend the time and money to assemble and finish a double-marked badge if he knew that the badge would be rejected.

[IVAN]

Originally posted by Lorenzo Brown
I would have to disagree that a double-stamped mark would cause a badge to be rejected.

First of all, it would make no sense to reject a perfectly good badge because of a double-stamped mark that isn't even a requirement.

Second...the mark is on the reverse...not meant to be seen in wear.

Third. The marks were stamped on BEFORE the badge was assembled. A maker would not spend the time and money to assemble and finish a double-marked badge if he knew that the badge would be rejected.

I know that they were very stricts in the inspection, in the beginnen .
About your third point, I thought the control was made on every single piece that the badge forms, immediately after having done it. last control had only to check a correct assemblage not going down in the particular ones any single constituent piece the badge, having already done it before from another one.
only my thought.
the imprint of this badge is not so bad.
Ivan

[Lorenzo Brown]

I don't believe that the condition of the mark would ever cause a badge to be rejected. ...whether,"doubled", half-stamped", "smeared" or altogether missing.

Consider that Schwerin issued HSF badges with missing fifth windows on the obverse...also with double-stamped features on the obverse. Also consider that Juncker issued its Luftwaffe Para badge with a missing front toe and a cock-eyed arm of the swaz arm. If high quality firms such as those could issue badges with obvious defects on the FRONT...why would anybody reject a badge because of an imperfect mark on the reverse?

[IVAN]

Thanks for reply, Lorenzo.

[ERIC S.]

Good point Lorenzo and I agree with you 100% - I have seen many badges, all different makers, with partial or incomplete hallmarks to them(and I own a couple!). If a maker was going to be that choosy as not to accept mismarked stampings, then you would assume they would sh*tcan the eagle way before it ever met the assembly stage of manufacture. If they let imperfections on the front go, the reverse wouldn't even be an issue IMO.
ERIC