Sniper Badge-Hand Embroidered

[Chet Sowersby]

Gary,
Why even bother to post it up and ask for input if you felt it was good in the first place?

Chet

[Gary Symonds]

Gary,
Why even bother to post it up and ask for input if you felt it was good in the first place?

Chet

Chet:

I was hoping for the "triumph of hope over WAF experience" that I would get cogent factual answers, rather than conclusions of fact.

You're right. Silly me.

[Flemming]

First off,I am by no means an Expert in Sniper Badges, but still I would like to Express my opinion.

Gary, if you are happy with your Sniper Badge, then that is fine, enjoy it, and be happy about it.
But as there are already many coontroversial Sniper Badges around, I think you will have a hard time selling yours, if you should ever decide to do that.


Another thing that I find strange, is that it seems to me, that in the last few years, it has gone from:
An item has to be proven real
to
An item has to be proven fake.

And this I find really strange, why this change?

In my opinion, an item has to be proven real, and not fake, when it comes to our field of collecting.

The "new way" is all to easy, here we just accept a never before seen item as real, unless someone can provide indisputeble proff that it did not excist.
Before, you had to prove, via rock solid provenance, that your never before seen item was real, before accepted by the community.

just my 2 cent.

/Flemming

[Thomas Durante]

thing that I find strange, is that it seems to me, that in the last few years, it has gone from:
An item has to be proven real
to
An item has to be proven fake.

I see the same thing Flemming, especially with regards to S&L items and rare items like the sniper badge.

Is very hard to PROVE something is a fake. We can show similar fakes as proof as Patrick has done an excellent job of, but at the end of the day a case can still be made for something being original (museum copy, salesman samples, field made, private purchase, etc.). It is nearly impossible to refute these type of arguements.

Tom

[jacquesf]

The badge posted is not original. The known originals are very similar, differences not in the embroidery but the backing. The posted examaple does not match the embroidery of the known originals. J

[tgn]

Gary, I sympathize with you. Many many years ago I traded off some really nice items to get this Sniper Badge, which at the time was accepted as original. In fact, the type now accepted as original was not yet known at all. Well now I have a declared fake, so there you have it.

Tom

[tgn]

The best I can hope for is mine is an early '57 version

[speedytop]

Hi tgn,

"The best I can hope for is mine is an early '57 version"

There is no sniper badge as '57 version; there was no change of the design.

Uwe

[longislandercjv]

I have often been asked why I don't have an example of the sniper's badge in my collection.
Unless I am mistaken, there is no period photo of the badge in wear.

It seems logical that an "accomplished" sniper would not want to wear the badge in the field (fearing summary execution or worse if captured).
Two of the most successful snipers survived the war (Matthäus Hetzenauer and Sepp Allerberger) and could shed light on the existence of the badge, their award of the badge and perhaps even the actual piece issued to them.
In order for me to actively seek to buy a sniper's badge, I would want to see a photo of one in wear, and / or an example with credible provenance.
Several WAFers refer to the term "known original"; I'd appreciate someone citing the source of that statement.
This controversy is reminiscent of the "Metz 1944" cuffband.
For many years, there was no period photo of one in wear; when a photo
surfaced, it provided the collecting community with both proof of it's existence and what it looked like.

I look forward to responses from fellow collectors.

[Gary Symonds]

Gary, I sympathize with you. Many many years ago I traded off some really nice items to get this Sniper Badge, which at the time was accepted as original. In fact, the type now accepted as original was not yet known at all. Well now I have a declared fake, so there you have it.

Tom

Tom:

Interesting point. As you say, if "In fact, the type now accepted as original was not yet known at all," what does that say for this "accepted" original? It was in the closet all those years, appears, and is now an "accepted original"?

There is a disconnect here.

If our resident experts say the "accepted original" is an original, well that proves it.

Because they say so. Right?

Step right up folks! No evidence needed, just your conclusionary "expert" opinion.

[Nordmark]

I see the same thing Flemming, especially with regards to S&L items and rare items like the sniper badge.

Sorry Tom, but you are the one who always proclaimes one needs to have an open mind regarding German orders, medals and their makers, which is absolutely a good thing. I don´t see anything wrong in questioning why certain S&L badges are fake per se, without any explaination. And yes, "because this is a known albeit unproven fact for decades now", does not count for me. If it would, we could start naming Ferdinand Wiedmann badges Wernstein again. Why? Because it was done since decades. See my point?


Regards,


Daniel

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Daniel,

Ofcourse, keeping an open mind is a good thing, but I think what Flemming and I are talking about is a different topic.

It seems nowadays, the assumption is that anything new that pops up in the collecting community is presumed original....unless it can be proven a fake. To me, that is backwards. The correct way to look at something is that everything should be viewed with skepticism until it can be proven original. I think the early proponents of the Rounder RKs would agree with me here.

The reason for this is that original material was only made for a short time (at most 12 years between 1933 and 1945). The fakers have had the remaining 70 years. The odds are not in our favor and the more time that goes by, the harder it will get to tell original from fake. So, for me, the presumption should be to prove an item is original.....not the other way around.

A perfect example is the round-wreath pilot badges. Most collectors think they are fakes, or atleast are skeptical about them. I have studied several in hand and happen to like them and think they are possibly wartime based on the hardware, base metal, finish, riveting, etc. For me, there is a good chance they are wartime but I still put them in a category of "skeptical" or "questionable" because there is no real evidence that they are wartime. They have been found in vets hands and there is supposed photographic evidence of them in wear, but until there is more solid proof of their wartime production, I remain optimistically skeptical.

Tom

[Flemming]

I have Edited some of the text out of this quote, but nothing is taken out of context:

Hi Daniel,

Ofcourse, keeping an open mind is a good thing, but I think what Flemming and I are talking about is a different topic.

It seems nowadays, the assumption is that anything new that pops up in the collecting community is presumed original....unless it can be proven a fake. To me, that is backwards. The correct way to look at something is that everything should be viewed with skepticism until it can be proven original. I think the early proponents of the Rounder RKs would agree with me here.

Tom

this is exactly what I meant Tom, thank you for clarifying this.

/Flemming

[Antonio Scapini]

Seems that you guys (Tom and Flemming) ignore me...

...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.

I'm so sad....

[jacquesf]

I have often been asked why I don't have an example of the sniper's badge in my collection.
Unless I am mistaken, there is no period photo of the badge in wear.

It seems logical that an "accomplished" sniper would not want to wear the badge in the field (fearing summary execution or worse if captured).
Two of the most successful snipers survived the war (Matthäus Hetzenauer and Sepp Allerberger) and could shed light on the existence of the badge, their award of the badge and perhaps even the actual piece issued to them.
In order for me to actively seek to buy a sniper's badge, I would want to see a photo of one in wear, and / or an example with credible provenance.
Several WAFers refer to the term "known original"; I'd appreciate someone citing the source of that statement.
This controversy is reminiscent of the "Metz 1944" cuffband.
For many years, there was no period photo of one in wear; when a photo
surfaced, it provided the collecting community with both proof of it's existence and what it looked like.

I look forward to responses from fellow collectors.

Ever heard of the Josef Weissinger soldbuch with sniper badge entry ( by Hauptman Emil Bergefurth) and the accomponying sniper badges? J Pretty good proof of the fact that it was awarded and with the actual sniperbadge in the soldbuch. J