'Juncker' Army Para Badge

[Steve Ford]

observation

Hell of a way to make my first post but here it goes. Let me first say I don't own an Army Para badge.

As far as it goes the exbooty example is a very muddy strike. Nothing further needs to be said about the piece.
My take on the Prosper Keating and Eric Queen article was that it was informative, had no axes to grind, and was sincere.

Steve Ford

[Eric Queen]

OK, I honestly was going to stay out of this, but now it is becoming so ridiculous that I decided that I would add my two cents, for what I hope is the last time.

I personally have nothing against Mr.Cross, but as a student, at least to a degree, of the Fallschirmschuetzenabzeichen ( Heer ) // is was not called “Fallschirmschuetzenabzeichen des Heeres” until after the June 01, 1943 reinstatement //
I have to honestly say, that his “proof “ that now suddenly all these badges are original and the “ this ends the story” proclamations, are an insult to both my, and I would presume your, intelligence.

The offering of one over pixilated photograph ( which to me clearly shows the tip of the wing if over the wreath anyway ) is not proof of anything whatsoever. But just to “set the record straight” as they say, here is another picture of Heidrich from the same series. There is no doubt about where the tip of the eagles wing is.



But this, as we all should know from following these conversations, is not the point at all
( the eagle certainly could have been placed at an unusual angle and made it through quality inspection, even on an original, although I have never personally seen a badge which was positioned like this in real life or in a photo ), nor has the point ever been the existence or non-existence of the mark. The point has been how the badge was made and what type of finish was used. We alluded to the fact that nearly all unquestionable original 2nd pattern badge were not marked and most of the badges that did not match the benchmark samples were marked. This is a true statement. Of course Mr.Cross’s “flock” of APB’s photo clearly illustrates what I already knew and have other photographic evidence of, that these badges ( like the one in question ) do exist without the stamp as well.

Both Mr.Cross and Mr.Shepard state that they have received many “private” emails saying that the badge in question is original. My question again is, who is saying it and what are they basing it on? If you extract from this equation, (1)the people who own these badges ( and want them to be good ), (2)other dealers who are selling them ( and want them to be good ) and (3)the people who just plain don’t like Prosper and myself, I wonder what would be left. If there is someone who has something valid to say on this subject, why are they not stating it here for all to see?

Listen, here is the bottom line. 100% of the badges observed from the veterans were made one way ( although Ludwigs had the stamp and the others did not) they were all MADE ( finishes, components, processes ) the same. These were observed by not only me, but others as well. The recent estate find by Peter VL illustrates this as well, and I will be very surprised if the badge I have coming from Helwig will not show the same thing. These badges match the known original qualification badges in aluminum made by Juncker at the time. 95% of the badges observed from other sources ( including these in question ) do not match the benchmark samples ( again, not because of the existence of a stamp, but because of the way they are made ). 100% of the badges in aluminum that can be linked to army paratroopers are as we have illustrated and described. As far as I know, 0% of the badges in question can be linked to army paratroopers. To me this is compelling evidence, to others it may be meaningless. As I have said a countless number of times, we all must decide for ourselves. I do not know when, where or by whom these badges in question were made. But I am firm in my belief that they were not awarded to the FIK/FIB in1937/38 nor did they ever have access to them in subsequent years. This would then beg the question, IF they were produced prior to mid 1945, exactly when were they made and for what purpose? I have gone through all the possible scenarios over and over in my head and with Prosper. We just can’t think of one that makes sense, or can be supported with even the frailest of evidence.

My true feeling on this , although I can’t prove it ( yet ), is these badges were made post war for the GI trade. A lot were brought home, subsequently bought by collectors, dealers and pickers and made there way into the mainstream market and collections, and were thought of as originals. Which really is perfectly understandable. It wasn’t until recently, after an exhaustive look at what the army paratroopers really were awarded, that we
( collectively ) came to understand that these badges were not part of the original picture. There is no doubt that many dealers have sold, and continue to sell, these badges in good faith.

Again, we cannot “prove” that these badges are fake. No one can “prove” that any of this stuff is fake. That wasn’t the intention of our article anyway. The intention was to show you what the army paratroopers were actually awarded ( and what they weren’t ). For me, as someone actually interested in the history of the people who originally owned the items I collect, I would be only be interested in something I knew for sure was awarded to and worn by the FIK.

As a collector you need to ask yourself “do I want to own something that I know for sure was worn by the army paratroopers, or do I want to invest in something that the jury is out on and, more likely than not, will never be coming back”.

* Of course for me, and I think I can speak for Prosper, the jury has already come back and delivered the death sentence in regards to this badge.

Eric Queen

[Eric Queen]

Just another quick comment to Jamie Cross AKA James Dangermouse regarding your irrational rantings concerning our article.

1. We said from day one that marked badges existed and showed photos of such. This was not something that was added later.

2. We removed the ( let's say questionable ) marked example from the article at YOUR insistance because it belonged to YOU and you cried foul to Seba. I am sure Seba will confirm this. It was subsequently replaced with another image of the same type of badge donated to us by a gratefull fellow collector. It was not removed because we suddenly thought it was good. It was merely replaced at YOUR insistance and remains there still.

Thank you for your comments and interest in our article.

Eric Queen

[exbooty]

another reply

Hi fellas, as I said I would be sending some of Jamies replies that he seems to think back up his badges...hey and mine. I am not an expert on this, but freely I admit I should be, if I am willing to pay that kind of money.

My fault, my chin, or my good luck if it's OK. I'm not being delusional, just trying to be objective, as to my personal views I will leave to the end..I hope. I just asked Jamie 3 questions and to use a Jamie quote...Now let's recap.

I asked about the position of the eagle as for me that seemed a burning issue...all Jamies badges are short of the wreath and all APB's seen by P and E were over the wreath.

The S on the Hall mark which is rounded, and not like other pre war examples of other badges made by Junckers which are "Z" type "S" Jamie refers to them as flat and round.

The "C" type clasp which I was led to believe was a Classic ID mark of a Junckers badge.

I'm no Rocket Scientist on this subject so I'm hoping that people who think it's good get the chance to say so and obviously those who have reasons against also.

If there are people out there who think its good, post, have the balls.

One of Jamies replies...I have always kept it simple...answer these three question. He did give me answers, these are some of them.

(Chris... start of reply)
Ref your questions, firstly may I say that Prosper (Chris...no mention of Eric) does not appear to know anything about manufacturing or die work.

He is sniping at me and a few others and frankly I am not worried in the least he is basically trying to claw back some credability since the para badge fiasco.

Other people have come out saying they have these badges. (Chris....I had one gentleman who gave me a thumbs up..ONE).

I think Jody Beltram has one that is a signed Vet bring back with all the papers. This is on the Forum and is identical to the ones I sold you. Anyway I digress.

The badge I have for my bench mark is repaired.

The badge has had the hook replaced with a "C" type hook.

On all the other original APB by Juncker, I have had the "?" hook. It does not mean the "C" type hook are wrong it is just I have not seen any others on Army PB.

If you compare the die work, first of all the eagle. Look at the claw from the back (a scan was sent of 5 APB's of the back) then the bench marked example, they have the same die cuts, the wreath it has the same faults, on the oak leaf wreath etc.

With regards to the angle of the eagle, (Chris..I always asked about the wing tip over the wreath, not the angle of the badge) take off the shadow and angle and differences will be seen on these just like the glider badges. If each badge were identical die struck you get identical die marks which we have, but each badge is then finished by hand with the badge eagle attached by two rivets.

Now have you ever tried to drill a piece of metal with a bench drill, you get movement don't you, even if you .....

.Also the rivets to the APB appear to be attached after the die has ejected the badge

( I have attached a scan of 5 APB's) all are identical with the same flaws, notice the angle of each badge all are similar but not the same.

When you measure the gap between the rivets on the reverse you get over 2mm in difference between them. (ie 34.25 to 36.58). However as it has been dragged up again the record has to be put straight. AGAIN. (Chris ...end of reply)

I hope that this informs the Forum

Regards Chris

[Eric Queen]

Mr.Shepard,

I am not sure what you are looking for here. You keep going on and on with this. If you are waiting for the courtroom doors to fly open and for someone to walk in with Junckers records in their hand, I can tell you it's not going to happen.

You asked Mr.Cross an number of questions on multiple occasions and received a number of responses. You have reviewed his original article on the subject and his subsequent revisions. You have viewed the article on the same subject done by Prosper Keating and myself. You have also read what we have offered in defence of the article in numerous forum treads.

You are the collector. You are the only one who can answer the question to your own satisfaction. Knowing what you know and what you have read, are you comfortable with the badge you have bought? Will you be able to put it in your display case and never think about it again? If so, then that is all that matters. You are the one who needs to decide because you are the one who needs to be happy with it.

No one can make this decision for you.

EQ

[exbooty]

Education

Hi Eric

I have strong views that I formed after the education of your article.

I feel that Jamie Cross should have his say as he seems to have stayed in his trench. His observations are in his emails which I am sending for all the Forum to read if they should wish.

I have told Jamie what I think. I am trying to leave the door open. BUT I have formed an opinion

I will give my personal opinion after J C has had his day in court.

I will then summarise what he has said to me and what I think.

If I say what I think now I may not be fair to JC.

That is of great importance to me.

I am not going to be a Dangermouse. Because he is a sick puppy.

I will come of the fence with one comment. I think you and Prosper have a great article. Thank you.

It has informed and educated me.

Kind regards Chris

[Eric Queen]

I think that everything that could be said on this subject has been said. Everyone has had an oportunity to voice their opinion and present what they base their opinion on. Should new information on this subject materialize it will be presented. Until that time, please read what has been written on this subject by Jamie Cross and Keating/Queen, read through the numerous threads in support of both articles, and reach your own conclusions regarding what you feel comfortable investing in for your own collections.

Eric Queen