Sniper Badge-Hand Embroidered

[Gary Symonds]

Closeup of the perforated maker paper label, "GD. Stubbe-Linz 45".

[Gary Symonds]

Lower half showing the traditional German "Bow tie" joining the two separate halfs of a medal.

[Gary Symonds]

Top half showing "artisic liberty" by the embroider, changing the usual machine embroidered white cross hatching on the left side and bottom of the eagle's head and neck to gold.

Also eliminating the usual top white thread line going across the eagle's head, usually terminating short of the beak.

[Gary Symonds]

Rear, showing maker's label.

[Gary Symonds]

I have had this hand embroidered sniper badge for a number of years. I am no stranger to the issue of originality with this badge, but I would like to assert the folloiwng observations for the WAF membership to consider, before this badge is damned.

1. The materials and workmanship match Third Reich standards in my opinion.

2. The person who made this sniper badge, presumably G.D. Stubbe, almost certainly a woman, was very experienced and knowledgable about the design and manufacture of German medals. She has taken "artistic liberty" in the design of the bird. She has changed the color of the cross hatching in white that is on the machine embroidered originals, and changed it to gold. She has eliminated the top white line that goes across the top of the eagle's eye, stopping short of the beak. In my opinion, an improvement.

3. The maker had a though knowledge of German badge making and design, as evidenced by the "bow tie" at the bottom, tying the two thread lines of the badge's border together. This "bow" traditionally unites the two sides of a German medal, typically, joining the oakleaf side of the badge, with the laurel leaf side. This would not be something that a faker in Pakistan would even know, less do. All of the Paki hand embroidered examples, slavishly copy the machine embroidered version. No artistic liberty, for obvious reasons.

4. The perforated maker label, is perforated. Not only is this more expensive to make, but the use of perforateed maker labels on hand embroidered insignia, is supported in Dietrich Maerz's "The German Cross." At page 306, 308, 309, various designs of maker labels are shown with the initials of the maker, "C.A.Westman-Dresden" with a perforated label. At page 318, there is a picture of another maker, "NF"'s perforated paper label, and a reference to a similar paper label in Gordon Williamson' "The 1939 Iron Cross." For whatever reason, the maker's hid their identiities behind their initials, as shown in the book and my posted example. A Paki faker if he bothered with the cost of a label, would not have known that the German wartime industry used only the maker's initials with perforated paper labels. The fake label almost certainly would not be perforated in my opinion.

5. For whatever it is worth, the badge is tunic removed.

6. In my opinion, compared to all of the other hand embroidered examples I have seen posted in the Heer Forum, this badge looks believable.

Opinions, please.

[Patrick W]

Gary

Its nicely made but IMO completely fake. Why have a green cord and a gold cord? that makes no sense- if this were a legit period hand embroidered item replicating an award I would assume that the maker would have some kind of knowledge of the awarded grades of this badge. Also these are so few and far between in award and distribution I would really question that such a thing would have been home made for a soldier.
The embroidery style is also closely reminiscent of the common fakes of these that turn up, particularly around the acorn and branch stem, the eagle has been improved to more closely resemble the machine woven originals.
Lastly the label looks blatantly added to increase credibility with a 45 stamp in a different colour- if someone made this at home why would they put such a label on it?
Typically sniper patches are considered genuine embroidered on grey wool, I also believe that those embroidered in the same form on field grey/ green cloth are also genuine and I would be considered 'far out' in my opinions on that matter- so this one not a chance.

[Patrick W]

below is the common fake that Gary's patch is derived from- note similarities in enbroidery- and the original to compare

[Antonio Scapini]

Gary, it is well made, but there are too much problems on this piece.
I completely agree with Patrick.
IMO there is no logic in the way it is made this sniper badge, and it is closer to the known fakes we have seen rather than to an original.

And IMO we can't compare a cloth DK with this badge, cloth DK has a metal wreath that need the involvement of a worker, sniper badge not.

Last point: I'm convinced no one original sniper badge was ever hand made.

[Gary Symonds]

below is the common fake that Gary's patch is derived from- note similarities in enbroidery- and the original to compare

Patrick:

What is your evidence that my sniper badge was a "derived"
copy of a fake. This is a chicken and egg situation.

How do you know which badge came first?

The birds are very different, though the hand embroidery is similar, the patches are very different.

Please provide your evidence, if you have it.

[Antonio Scapini]

Gary, I would say the problem with this badge is that it is closer to a known fake than to an original, and we cannot accept a "new" badge without a solid provenance or a solid proof that explain and support why it should be considered original.
So if we discover "new" pieces, we have to prove why they are originals, not the contrary. Today there are tons of fakes all around, and we can't spend time to prove why each single piece is a fake.

In this case if you want your badge be considered original, you should prove it.

[Gary Symonds]

Gary, I would say the problem with this badge is that it is closer to a known fake than to an original, and we cannot accept a "new" badge without a solid provenance or a solid proof that explain and support why it should be considered original.
So if we discover "new" pieces, we have to prove why they are originals, not the contrary. Today there are tons of fakes all around, and we can't spend time to prove why each single piece is a fake.

In this case if you want your badge be considered original, you should prove it.

Antonio:

I provided six points of evidence in my posting that pointed to this badge's originality. Your response was that a German Cross in cloth, could not compared to this sniper badge because of the "wreath" on the DK.

Why this is relevant remains to be seen. The perforated maker labels are relevant, because it is obvious that these are the labels of the people who were making hand embroidered cloth versions of metal military badges.

You assert the conclusion that a hand embroidered sniper badge could not have existed. Why would that be out of the question? If someone wanted a hand embroidered sniper badge and was willing to pay, why not?

You are telling us that is impossible and never happened? Unless you were an adult in 1945, working in the industry, please provide some evidence to support what is merely a conclusion of fact on your part.

[Bruce Simcox]

Hi Gary......

......

Unless you were an adult in 1945, working in the industry,

This goes both ways wouldn't you think?

The materials and workmanship match Third Reich standards in my opinion.

As you say: in my opinion.

In this case if you want your badge be considered original, you should prove it.

This is the crux of the situation. As I see it you have only provided speculation so far.

A Paki faker if he bothered with the cost of a label, would not have known that the German wartime industry used only the maker's initials with perforated paper labels. The fake label almost certainly would not be perforated in my opinion.

Again: As you say: in my opinion. If I'm not mistaken Pakistan craftsmen don't have a lock on FAKES manufacturing.

Because these badges are so controversial you will obviously need some really rock solid evidence to support your claims.

• Traceable provenance
• Photograph(s) in wear
• Recipient testimony

To this point it just doesn't match up to examples known to this side of the collecting community. I, for one, would not mind if it was proven out to be of genuine TR manufacture.

Speculation means that it could be right, or conversely, it could be wrong.

If someone wanted a hand embroidered sniper badge and was willing to pay, why not?

Anything is seemingly possible. Though not necessarily probable.

[Patrick W]

Gary

I don't need to provide evidence that your badge is fake - the photo I posted tells you all you need to know about your badge. If you think that somehow yours is the pre 45 original that all the common bad quality fakes of this type are copied from then I am afraid you are mistaken. The birds are slightly different you are quite correct, but there are numerous copies like this that have small differences due to being individually made- it is the common traits that they all share that condemn them- look at the acorn and branch area and also the form of the leaves- identical to the one repro example I posted. The only accepted type of sniper patch is the machine embroidered form and the design is of one type only.

If you are convinced that your badge is original, which you seem to be, then by all means keep it and consider it as such, but why post for opinions when you insist on evidence to prove that it is not wartime?

Here are some more of this 'type' of fake- your is done with a little more care but remains post war I'm afraid.

[Patrick W]

more

[Gary Symonds]

more

Patrick:
You are comparing apples to oranges. Different birds, different patchs.

Oh well, I guess you must be right. Which as you say, you need not "provide evidence".