Worn badges?
How can we really be sure a particular item was worn in combat or merely uniform worn?
Just what is the criteria for deciding on whether a badge is:
1) worn, as in worn on a uniform(combat or display)
2) worn, as in having had a rough time of it for any number of reasons
I see a lot of descriptions about worn badges and, more and more, I get the feeling that the badges I am reading about(and observing via images) are considered to have been worn on a uniform. Of course, in some cases, the authors of some these threads make the claim that their badge is 'combat worn.'
Granted we look for 'wear patterns' that would seem consistent with what we would expect a 'uniform worn' badge to look like. How does one really know for sure?
I personally know of badges that have languished in drawers(or boxes) over the years and, quite frankly, exhibit wear that some would swear shows they were 'combat worn'. But in reality they are suffering from nothing more than having been ignored, banged around and even rubbed against other items of varying composition to include cloth.
Some badges even show what seem to be signs of 'combat wear' and are accompanied by zink-pest. Does this mean that they were 'combat worn' and then carelessly neglected over the years? Or were they they unworn and victims of bad storage and zink-pest too?
My point being is that after 60 plus years, since the end of WWII hostilities, it seems to me that the 'combat/uniform worn' claims are now very difficult or most likely nearly impossible to substantiate with any sure degree of validity.
How can we really be sure a particular item was worn in combat or merely uniform worn?
Just what is the criteria for deciding on whether a badge is:
1) worn, as in worn on a uniform(combat or display)
2) worn, as in having had a rough time of it for any number of reasons
I see a lot of descriptions about worn badges and, more and more, I get the feeling that the badges I am reading about(and observing via images) are considered to have been worn on a uniform. Of course, in some cases, the authors of some these threads make the claim that their badge is 'combat worn.'
Granted we look for 'wear patterns' that would seem consistent with what we would expect a 'uniform worn' badge to look like. How does one really know for sure?
I personally know of badges that have languished in drawers(or boxes) over the years and, quite frankly, exhibit wear that some would swear shows they were 'combat worn'. But in reality they are suffering from nothing more than having been ignored, banged around and even rubbed against other items of varying composition to include cloth.
Some badges even show what seem to be signs of 'combat wear' and are accompanied by zink-pest. Does this mean that they were 'combat worn' and then carelessly neglected over the years? Or were they they unworn and victims of bad storage and zink-pest too?
My point being is that after 60 plus years, since the end of WWII hostilities, it seems to me that the 'combat/uniform worn' claims are now very difficult or most likely nearly impossible to substantiate with any sure degree of validity.
Comment