Unmarked General Assault Badge Opinions

[Nordmark]

I still don´t like this one. Looks somehow dubious to me. If the mold was worn down, we should find some sort of evolution on these, but as far as I know, I only saw razor sharp talons of this particular maker. Maybe John could provide some exact measurements of his badge?


Regards,


Daniel

[John Degioanni]

Hi Daniel,
My understanding from Thomas Durante is the only way to get accurate measurements is to use a caliper which I do not own. Badge collecting has not been my main interest. I picked up this badge when I got back into the hobby some 22 years ago. a lot of great infomation has been shared in the thread
I thank everyone for looking and commenting on my badge.

Regards
John

[DTS]

To Thomas Durante: Thank you for your reply.

To anyone else: Why are there two completely different backs to the Unknown #10? The four-rivet version, and the smooth back with sloppy soldering of the pin (as shown by Eric Lin)?

[Graeme]

I still don´t like this one. Looks somehow dubious to me. If the mold was worn down, we should find some sort of evolution on these, but as far as I know, I only saw razor sharp talons of this particular maker. Maybe John could provide some exact measurements of his badge?


Regards,


Daniel

Hi Daniel

I had the same feeling with regard to some "RK" GABs shown recently. They just did not have the crispness and sharpness, along with a couple features (like the talons in this thread), that made me feel uncomfortable. However the majority of other members liked the badges.

I agree with your comments about a worn mold and that is why I said I can't definitely explain it. Maybe there was a "one off" problem? but impossible to say for sure.
The badge that started this thread does have a soft feel about the obverse, with the talons, acorns, head and bayonet groove all showing lack of crispness.
And I am not sure if it is my tired eyes, but there appears to be a ghost of the bayonet handle rivets. If this is really on the badge, then maybe something happened in production. And if somehow it was pressed out of position, that might have caused the talons to be the way they are. But this is all guesswork.

cheers
Graeme

[DTS]

Just re-read my post above. I realize it could be misinterpreted...
Mr. Durante, I'd love to hear your remarks as well.
Thanks.

[Graeme]

To Thomas Durante: Thank you for your reply.

To anyone else: Why are there two completely different backs to the Unknown #10? The four-rivet version, and the smooth back with sloppy soldering of the pin (as shown by Eric Lin)?

Hi

There are several variations of "unknown #10". And quite often manufacturers and their production evolved over time. Not all reasons are known, but some thoughts are that some changes took place to save badge material, ease of production, crimping to save soldering etc.

As mentioned in an earlier post, the 4-rivet obverse design is different from the badge with the flat reverse shown in this thread, so if a different obverse die was used, then it is likely a different reverse die was used also.

If you were an association member you would be able to check them out in the GAB Gallery

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=525908

cheers
Graeme

[Graeme]

Just re-read my post above. I realize it could be misinterpreted...
Mr. Durante, I'd love to hear your remarks as well.
Thanks.

That is funny

Cheers Tom for answering my last question, Can others now answer this question ..

regards
Graeme

[DTS]

Thanks for your answers and sense of humor!

[Thomas Durante]

Mr. Durante, I'd love to hear your remarks as well.
Thanks.

Hi guys,

Well, I still like the badge, despite it's weak details. I feel it is the thick finish making it look weak. Who knows, maybe they dipped the badge face down in the finish, and that is what caused it to have such thick finish on the front of it.

Here is my UK #10, with the sloppy-crimped hinge. Specifically note the similar wavy finish, best seen on the bayonet blade.

Tom

[Chet Sowersby]

This has been a very good discussion on a badge that is questioned frequently. When I collected these I had a good one (I think!) and I also was burned with the copy that is still found in the market place today. I belive that the badge that started this thread is a period example, albeit worn. To fake this example isn't cost rewarding and the fakes on the market differ greatly from the orginals. How many of these sc copies have we seen on the market? I belive it to be a good one.

Chet

[Dave_B]

Hello Guys

My first post..new collector. Spent the last few months reading and learning Anyway..what do you think of this UK 10 on the EMedals site. Let's see if I've learned anything. Outside of the talon details, this badge looks identical to the original badge in question. What does anyone think?


http://www.emedals.com/Pages/DirectS...s.aspx?id=5414


Dave

[Panzercracker]

Good eye and the striations are there too. I wont comment on the price or shipping costs.

--Rgds, Ken

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Dave,

Yes, that is another example like the one we are discussing and perfectly original. Note the same wavy-finish on the reverse, which to me is the key to saying that the one that started this thread is an original. I have not seen fakers do this yet but they get smarter every day.......

The emedals example has very detailed talons, so it is still a bit of a mystery why the one that started this thread has poor details in this area like Daniel noted. I think at this point, only time will tell to see if others pop up with the same exact weak detailing. If so, then that could be a sign that this is a new fake on the market. But until then, I still feel that the one that started this thread is an original.

Tom