Scary 22 Juli 1944 Wound Badge Repro

[Tom M]

i think people who sell items under lalse pretenses,should by right be put in the village stocks and pelted with wrotten sugar beet,now craig has held up his hands and said yes it fake.this shows he has a spine,does anybody agree his credentials have been destroyed by the sound of it ,we should have a vote to see how many members will do business with old craig

I think a vote like that would be very unfair on Craig. I am not specifically aiming my comments at Craig. Destroying peoples' livelyhood can never be justified IMO

[Brian S]

I vote for doing business with Craig, he gets what I want at the right price, of course. This isn't personal.

[Craig Gottlieb]

Very unique conversation here. First, I humbly accept any apologies, and also apologize if I wasted to much space here responding to things I didn't agree with. Second, I would definitely agree that the font on this wound badge is incorrect. I will now go take a high-resolution and well-lit shot of the front and back of the badge, and post it here for educational purposes. My primary purpose in posting the badge for sale, as I stated, was to offer the consumer a view of one of these badges plainly advertised as a reproduction. If I don't sell it, I have no problem with that. But, I think it's worth having up there, and worth having up at a price that I would be willing to sell it for - it educates the consumer not only on what it is, but what one person feels it is worth to him. To criticise me for doing this is ludicrous, and I am glad the opinion seems to be shifting toward this viewpoint. Stay tuned for the badge photos. I don't plan on posting pictures of an original, because I do not own the original that I photographed, and don't have permission to do so. However, learn well the FRONT of this badge, and you will be able to spot the reproductions when you see them. The back "problems" on this badge are easily fixed. The front is not so easily fixed without retooling the manufacturing process.

[upbeek]

wb

i agree

[Tom M]

Very unique conversation here. First, I humbly accept any apologies, and also apologize if I wasted to much space here responding to things I didn't agree with. Second, I would definitely agree that the font on this wound badge is incorrect. I will now go take a high-resolution and well-lit shot of the front and back of the badge, and post it here for educational purposes. My primary purpose in posting the badge for sale, as I stated, was to offer the consumer a view of one of these badges plainly advertised as a reproduction. If I don't sell it, I have no problem with that. But, I think it's worth having up there, and worth having up at a price that I would be willing to sell it for - it educates the consumer not only on what it is, but what one person feels it is worth to him. To criticise me for doing this is ludicrous, and I am glad the opinion seems to be shifting toward this viewpoint. Stay tuned for the badge photos. I don't plan on posting pictures of an original, because I do not own the original that I photographed, and don't have permission to do so. However, learn well the FRONT of this badge, and you will be able to spot the reproductions when you see them. The back "problems" on this badge are easily fixed. The front is not so easily fixed without retooling the manufacturing process.

That is very nice to hear. I will look forward to learn from your pictures .

Cheers.

[Craig Gottlieb]

By the way, for what it's worth, the Iron Cross MAY be overpriced! Who knows. If it sits around for a year unsold, you all will be definitely right. Generally speaking, my personal business model is such that I try to price things so that they sell within 3 months. Any longer, and I feel the price is indeed too high, and if it gets snapped up within a day or two, with several backup offers, the price was too low. Just a thought for you to ponder - no reply required.

[Craig Gottlieb]

Here is the photo of the front. The back is really irrelevant, as it can easily be changed to exactly mirror an original. Again, anyone who wishes to have the "full size" version of this picture, please email me (do not PM me) at craig@germandaggers.com, and I will be happy to forward it to you for your private use in your reference library. Finally, if by the offering of this piece for sale, its picture was placed in front of people like you all, then my mission was accomplished.

[Craig Gottlieb]

Mark,

Can you also post links to the other ones that are for sale for 45? I think it would be constructive to compare them here. Ultimately, in the coming decades, these items will undergo the transformation from reproduction/copy/fake, to suspect, to variation, to original. My hope here is that we can preserve the memory of these pieces so that this is not allowed to happen. Brian S: You of all people can understand the need to do this (referencing your WPP dagger), so I look forward to your input here. I'm sure you have observations to make about this piece and others like it.

[Brian S]

Craig, a real expert in daggers has already said my WPP dagger is absolutely correct except he is not sure about the blade. He is aware of the controversy started by your own in-house expert Gailen. He has said that with a period Holler dagger it is at least 100% in all respects a period piece Holler WPP. Marrying all original Holler parts to an all original Holler blade is still 100% period pieces. A parts dagger yes and no. The wound badge, a modern fake/reproduction. I'm not sure of your reference to this dagger here?


But, since you bring it up. I remember how happy you were when you came across various parts to create a parts WPP dagger a few years back. Also, the many threads you and Gailen talked about repainting scabbards, but doing so 'expertly'.

My own WPP dagger will be at least for me, perfect, except for the fact that it left the Holler factory originally with a different blade.

If I had a 'parts' Wound Badge I'd be equally happy with it. But this one you're selling is not. In fact, it has been sold over the years as a badge to deceive on the old days on eBay.

I have one of the very first 1911 Colts. I shot it years back and replaced the barrel with a modern piece so as not to wear out the original barrel. I still have the original barrel. I will do the same with the Holler dagger. Keep the blade Gailen doesn't like alongside it as the two should travel together for the day Col. Johnson's and Angolia's opinion wins the day.

Cheers.

[Craig Gottlieb]

Brian: You miss the point. Your dagger is a parts dagger. Get used to it. The "expert" said this even, by your own admission. End of story. This thread is not about that. The reason I brought up your WPP is because had someone taken the time back then to document those parts-daggers, you would not own your parts dagger today. Let's move past that, and move past the innuendo about me and my curiosity about restoration techniques. Lets just say that my experimentation and observation has helped me inordinantly to spot restored daggers in my travels. I am a very curious spirit, known in the Marine Corps for the LT who asked all those dumb questions all the time. Let's forget aobut your dagger, and focus on this reproduction - the July 44 wound badge. As you say, it's been used, and is being used often still, to deceive. Please, Brian, contribute some commentary here, so that it will not happen again. If you have nothing you can say about this badge that is relevant to it, please stop grinding your irrelevant axe in our learning space.

I'll give an observation - some of the earlier reproductions of the July 44 did not have the "rear six-oclock" bolt on the right side of the helmet as you look at the badge. This example has that bolt. A very basic observation, but an instructive one. Also, this badge is indeed made of silver, whereas others we have seen are not. Therefore, the weight of this example is convincing.

[Brian S]

Brian: You miss the point. Your dagger is a parts dagger. Get used to it. The "expert" said this even, by your own admission. End of story.

Let's move past that, and move past the innuendo about me and my curiosity about restoration techniques.

Please, Brian, contribute some commentary here, so that it will not happen again. If you have nothing you can say about this badge that is relevant to it, please stop grinding your irrelevant axe in our learning space.

Craig, it's YOU who went out of HIS way to mention MY WPP dagger. Now I am the BAD GUY. Craig, it's you who has a personal problem. Not me. It's YOU who's obviously holding a grudge for a certain thread I started a while back. But nice try deflecting back on me. Craig, you are something else. And if YOU read innuendo into my words, that's your own conscience talking to you. I merely mentioned it because obviously you have NO PROBLEM in restoring daggers. So if I restore a dagger, you have to go out of your way to make it seem like I have a problem. Craig, I will go no further on this with you. You have successfully baited me at least into this last post. Now I think you know where you can find me if you're interested.

P.S. Craig, I haven't tried to sell that WPP dagger. So until I do, and until you see my description. You have NO MORAL GROUND to stand on with regard to me!

P.S.S. Pascal, if you want this thread to concentrate on that piece of junk, you should apply the same rules to your esteemed Craig.

[Craig Gottlieb]

Back to the wound badge . . . I'll also say that this badge is slightly LARGER and slightly more substantial in weight and thickness than the single original I was fortunate to have studied. The original was an L/12 marked piece, not an 800/2. I do realize that's a "back-side" observation. One thing I do know, is that those who have these badges do not wish to see the differences advertised publically, for fear that the descrepancies will be corrected in future renditions. I respect this, so I suggest that perhaps we all just learn what THIS badge looks like. If you're ever presented with a real one to purchase, compare it with this one, and if it looks slightly different in some very minor respects, then you probably have an original example. I will make it a habit of carrying this piece at any shows I attend in the future so that you can stop me and ask to see it. I will be glad to show it to you if you are interested.

[Craig Gottlieb]

Here is the back of the badge, for your interest. Again, problems back here are easy to fix for the manufacturer, so I doubt that a discussion is relevant of the back features. Others we have seen for sale have other markings in different places and are, actually, probably slightly more "original looking" than this example.

[Craig Gottlieb]

Here is the back of this particular example. Numbers are incorrectly placed, as one of our colleagues pointed out, font on the 2 is not correct, and hinge and catch (at least) are incorrectly sized and shaped.

[Dietrich Maerz]

For me this is a perfect example of marketing! Only when you have the name behind it, you can dare to try to sell a FAKE for $ 1,500.- and be even in a position to explain in detail why it is a fake and even a bad one. (I would exspect a GOOD FAKE for this money at least...).

I can care less, but I think in my little mind, if somebody on E-Bay would try to sell the same badge as a FAKE for $ 1,500.- he would be ripped apart in seconds as the greatest "whatever" alive.

So - I think - the name behind it allows one to sell a FAKE for $ 1,500.- and even open a discussion about it in a civilized manner. But, I might be wrong with this assumption, but that's how I see it.

I don't know you Craig and your name has a 'good' aftertaste with me, BUT a FAKE is a FAKE, even when YOU sell it and even when you say that it is a FAKE.

This is not a good step in the right direction, IMHO.

Dietrich