Difference between Wartime & 1957 S&L badges

[Leroy]

Jeff - Perhaps you would be better off to direct your questions to Tom. I believe he specifically addressed, over at GCA, badges in Philippe's book, here: http://www.germancombatawards.com/th...tuser=0&page=3

[Jeff V]

Hi Jeff

Please don't mix the antipartisan badges into this, they have suffered from controversy and lack of study all to long and are now enjoying their retirement as Juncker badges with the striped tool traits of Juncker banjo pins.

None of the banjopinned ST&L CCC's in Tom's book has the scratched pin.

Cheers Thomas

Hi Thomas, I did not bring the anti-partisan badges in to this, Tom did. Here is his quote from post number one:

"This may not be as important for common badges like IABs, GABs, PABs, etc, but when it will really come in handy is on "questionable" S&L badges like their Anti-Partisan badges, or Retired Pilot badges, Glider badges, etc. Most, if not all of these "questionable" badges have what I consider the "1957 characteristic" and therefore this theory could lead to a real conclusion as to WHEN these badges were really produced and end the speculation that they were made during the war. For me, this is the REALLY exciting part of my theory, so lets get some good discussion here."

Since your badges have the scratches in the catch I thought this matter had better be addressed. Of course, I believe there is no question
that those anti-partisans are wartime and it is disappointing that I have to be defending them.
best wishes,
jeff

[Jeff V]

Hi Leroy, this theory does not hold water, the whole badge must be examined. BTW, what are your thoughts on the early looking classic setup PAB I posted? Have you compared it to the one in Philippes book on page 136 and 137 which does not have the scratches on the pin. Looks like the same man soldered them , even down to the extra spot of solder on the catchplate at the 9 o'clock position. Perhaps the same worker did that 30 years after the war!
best wishes,
jeff

[Leroy]

Why not look at finish, which I believe is far more relevant than a mark on a pin.
best wishes,
jeff

Jeff- I'm sorry to keep referring you to GCA (where this discussion is also ongoing) but here is what I said there:

"If you have a badge with the correct planchet and the correct hardware, but it is carelessly assembled, with sloppy solder or badly formed rivets which do not match what you you have seen on known original pieces, and which, just as importantly, is lacking any trace of the fine hand work or actual finish (frosting, proper gilting, etc.) you have seen on known original pieces, the odds will be that the components are perfectly real but the assembly was postwar. This is not "rocket science", but neither is it an "exact science". It is just common sense. Will some real badges be unfairly condemned? Perhaps so, but probably not very many. This is as close to being "safe" as we can reasonably get at this point, again IMO. "

P.S. I do not have Philippe's book, nor do I collect PAB's, which is why I referred you to Tom's comments on the badges in that book over at GCA.

[Thomas Bendixen]

Hi Jeff, sorry I was only acusing you in the friendliest manner I think Tom is reffering to the massive BKA, belliewed to have been produced by ST&L, I have posted the pics on GCA.

Cheers Thomas

[Thomas Durante]

Hi guys,

Firstly, sorry for my absence today, I was VERY busy at work. Actually the first time in a long time, so it was a good thing that I was occupied and can actually make a little money in this economy these days. I wish my only job was to sit on this forum and annoy guys like Jeff and Andreas with my spectacular observations and theories

Jeff, thanks for all your comments, but they can ALL be explained very simply. First things first, this theory of mine "ONLY PERTAINS TO S&L PRODUCED BADGES". Please pay attention to this, because it is VERY important. It has absolutely no relevance on any other maker's badges. I thought that was quite clear from the beginning, but I am happy to re-emphasize that for you guys that may have missed it. So with that said, lets go through the badges you show:

1. Anti-partisan badge. The badge you posted is actually a Juncker, so it has absolutely no relevance to this thread or theory. Juncker pins have their own set of tool marks, totally different than S&Ls.

2. Schlactflieger badge. I don't know who the maker of that badge is, I haven't studied them at all. It is an unmarked badge, so it also has absolutely no relevance to this thread or theory UNLESS IT WAS MADE BY S&L. If you can tell me that S&L made that badge, then we can discuss it further, but doesn't look like S&L construction or hardware to me.

3. Recon Clasp. This is indeed an S&L badge in my opinion, based on the "o" mark. This is a wartime badge in my opinion. I like it for many reasons, but also notice that it has the "wartime dimple" on the pin. Not the mark that is found on S&L's postwar production. So again, that fits the theory perfectly.

4. Luftwaffe GAB. This is also a Juncker badge, so again, it has absolutely no relevance to this thread or theory.

5. The bronze PAB you show is indeed an S&L badge. But again, notice that it has the wartime dimple rather than the "1957 scrape". So in my opinion, this is a wartime badge.

So in summation, you only show 2 S&L badges out of the 5 you posted, and the 2 S&L badges are indeed wartime products in my opinion because they DO NOT HAVE THE 1957 SCRAPE.

It is my opinion that S&L used dimpled pins throughout the entire war. At the end of the war, they likely had tons of these pins leftover. Some were used in the following years, but I think it is possible that some survived and were used up on the earliest 1957 badges. That is why you can sometimes find the wartime dimpled on a 1957 badge. As LuckyLuud noted with his badges, there are some early 1957 badges with these wartime pins. But note the key word he used was "early". That is because these pins were left over stocks. Once these were exhausted, they started making new pins and those are the ones that have the tell-tale 1957 scrape.

This has been verified by a few 1957 badge collectors. Stijn Smouts is one of them, and he said that of the 16 1957 badges he has, 14 of them have the 1957-scrape while 2 early ones have the wartime dimple. This makes perfect sense with my theory. I also invite all collectors with 1957 badges to do the same and see for yourself how correct this theory is. Remember, this only goes for S&L badges.

So to recap, wartime dimpled pins could be found on wartime badges, but also some very early 1957 badges. However, ONLY 1957 badges are found with the 1957-scrape.

This is where the theory is VERY powerful and useful, by allowing us to eliminate certain badges that are circulating which "claim" to be wartime production. If it has the 1957-scrape on it, we can now say with a good deal of confidence that it is really a post-war badge. This fact alone makes this theory extremely powerful and one I think the collecting community at large will really benefit from.

Ofcourse we should look at other factors such as a badge's finish, hinge, catch, maker mark, base metal, etc. But this is just another feature to look for in determining a badge's authenticity.

Tom

[Jeff V]

Hi Tom, Thanks for the in depth response! I see a scrape of the bronze PAB rather than a dimple, perhaps I need to review the images even closer to see EXACTLY what you are referring to as a 57 scrape. I still believe that your idea needs first and foremost to be taken in context with the entire badge, rather than just focusing on the tool mark on the pin.
best wishes,
jeff

[Thomas Durante]

Last year Tom told us the postwar S&L badges could be determined by how wide the hinge was, what about that theory?

Hi Jeff,

One other thing, I forgot to address this question of yours. You are 100% correct, I have been espousing for years that S&L's 1957 hinges are different than their wartime hinges. I haven't changed my mind at all on this, in fact I feel more strongly about it than ever the more time I spend studying both wartime and 1957 badges. S&L's postwar hinges are tall, narrow blocks with rounded edges. Here they are, from LuckyLuud's post. Can you show me one unquestionable, wartime S&L badge that features this type of hinge? Please show it if you know of one, because I don't and I have been looking for years now to disprove that pesky little theory of mine

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

What about the PABs in Philippe's book on page 138 and 139 and pages 142 and 143. Looks like scratches on the pins to me. S&L monster PAB on pages 144 and 145 looks to possibly have the scratches as well on the pin, or perhaps all of these variations were made for dealers and collectors in the 60's and 70's.

Hi Jeff,

I am glad you brought this up, a very excellent point you have noticed on the "monster PAB. While I was double checking this theory out before posting, I did notice that Phil's book shows similar "1957-scratch" marks on the 2 monster PABs in his book. But maybe this is an important clue that will shed some light on a little mystery here. Too bad Phil isn't around to answer this question right now since he is on holiday, but I think its clear from reading his book that he wasn't really sure where to stick these odd PABs. He also mentions that they are excessively heavy compared to "textbook" S&L PABs. Infact, he calls them "monsters' because they are so different than normal S&L PABs. His placement in the book is also odd, he sticks them in as 1.4.4., which is right in the middle of the S&Ls production run. I have to think he did this based on the reverse hardware setup, but this doesn't jive with the rest of the S&L PAB variants. He says that the PABs that came after these monster PABs were the 1.4.5, and that they are identical to the 1.4.3s! So the badges BEFORE and AFTER the monster PABs share identical die characteristics, but the monster's are suck right in between them? How can this be or how can this make sense?

Just read the first sentence of his description of the monster PAB! Here is the page from his book, he even admits that there is not equivelant in the entire range of Third Reich PAB production!!

Does it make more sense that these odd, monster PABs might be post war restrikes by S&L since they don't fit the normal PAB timeline? I don't know, but finding a mark on the pin that is more in line with 1957 badge production certainly adds a new dimension to these in my opinion and something to consider with these oddballs. The question here would be if we know of any monster PABs that were directly vet obtained or do we have provenance tied to a wartime award document to pin a more specific date on these?

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

Regarding the badge on PAB on page 138-139 of Phil's book, it indeed also has the "1957-scrape". But again, its a weird variant that doesn't seem to belong in the middle of S&L's production run. Phil specifically mentions that this is the ONLY example of a wide-bellied pin S&L badge he found. What also doesn't make sense is that this badge is placed in the middle of the production run, surrounded by badges with decent-quality finishes, yet this one is stark and absent of any finish. If there was ever one applied, it was low quality and absorbed with time. Seems like this "one of a kind" variant is out of place in the middle of the S&L production run. It is anomoly badges like this that we have scratched our heads over for years and years.

Now look at it from the perspective of it being a leftover wartime piece, but that was put together post-war in the 1950s or 1960s with new reverse hardware and sold as a souvenier. With the tell tale "1957 scrape", this scenario makes ALOT of sense and logic to me and explains why this type of badge doesn't fit with S&L's wartime production timeframe. Furthermore, if you remove this badge (and the monster PABs) from Phil's book, the timeline between the 1.4.3 badges and the 1.4.5 badges is now unbroken and makes more sense since the 1.4.3s and 1.4.5s have the typical, wartime pin mark.

To be honest, not something I am happy to report and I am sure Phil will definately be eager to discuss when he gets back. But I am convinced that this PAB and the monsters are post-war built-PABs.

Tom

[Leroy]

Tom - I am glad to see you back to address Jeff's concerns, and also glad to see what you are also talking about with the wide pins (which I did not understand before).

With all these different marks floating around from different badges (including non-S&L's), I believe it would be very helpful if you could post, side by side, LARGE close-ups of the "1957 scrape" and the "wartime dimple". I know a side by side was already posted (by me!) earlier on, but since you've got the "real" photos, you could do a better job. The ones I posted, IMO, showed too much of the surrounding badge area. I know this would be helpful to me, and perhaps to others as well.

[Thomas Durante]

Hi guys,

Good idea Gentry, here they are. This first series of pics is what I consider the classic "1957 scrape". You can see it typically has a deep dot at the top, followed by a long, thin vertical scrape down the pin.

[Thomas Durante]

Here are 2 more 1957 scrapes. All very similar to eachother, but ofcourse these are tiny tool marks and subject to slight variations. But the central theme is the same: long, thin vertical scrape usually accompanied by a small dot on top.

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

Here are some wartime S&L tool marks, what I like to call the wartime "dimple". Basically, I like any type of tool mark, EXCEPT the 1957 scrape shown above. But S&L's are pretty consistent with their wartime tool marks, usually appearking like an oval dimple. On later badges, the dimple is more like a tear-drop shaped smear, but in every case, its always VERY different than the "1957 scrape".

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

Here are 2 more wartime, S&L marks on the pin. Again, these wartime marks will vary a bit, and sometimes there is no mark at all, but I am fine with any badge and any tool mark on an S&L badge......as long as its NOT the "1957 scrape".

Tom