Sniper Badge-Hand Embroidered

[CWP]

How could you ever know? Most of the collectors in the 1950s also collected stuff in the 1960s and 1970s. If one had a picture of a patch in a collection in 1950, great. Otherwise it is just a matter of taking someone at their word. Willi's points are, in my opinion, germane. What is and is not "accepted" is often subjective. Even museum collections have forgeries, and veterans can make mistakes- or lie. True, "ironclad" provenance is not extant for the overwhelming vast majority of TR collectible items.

[chen]

After reading all the threads about sniper badge, only 2 groups: acceptable( left side) and fake ( right side).

[Willi Z.]

That's correct Chris. How do we know what we accept as an original FJ helmet is indeed an original? If we say "well we just know," some will never accept that.

How did we determine all the fake FJ M37 helmets are fake, when we only had one or two "known originals" to compare them by? That is the argument the sellers/ owners of those $18,000 fakes use.......

But yes, original sniper badges have been in collections since the 60's, from some I know of.

[Willi Z.]

After reading all the threads about sniper badge, only 2 groups: acceptable( left side) and fake ( right side).

Chen, I think some, myself included, have changed their thoughts on these over the years. I think we have threads going back 12+ years....

[Mike Davis]

Silver example of the accepted type, not sure where this one is now

[Gary Symonds]

I can't comment on the badge that started this thread but do have an interest in manufacturer paper tags and labels and in my opinion the label in post #1 is not convincing at all and raises a big red flag for me.

Chris:
Please share your knowledge about paper tags and labels and explain to all of us the "red flag."

[CWP]

OK, well, in addition to collecting things like insignia, awards, uniforms, and headgear I also really like field gear including personal items, ration-related stuff and ephemera (material meant to be thrown away). As an example I like to collect, as crazy as it sounds, original cardboard boxes, and office supplies. Having done this now for around 15 years I have, admittedly, been burned by a number of packaged products, such as "bunker candles," with bogus labels and stamps. I have learned a lot and am happy to share my feelings on these items based on my experience with these as part of a sub-focus of mine.

The label on the item in question is purportedly a manufacturer label. It is marked with the name of the manufacturer, G.D, Stübbe. I can't discern if this is a rubber stamp or is printed on the label. If it was a stamp, I would assume it would be stamped in white directly on the backing fabric as is typical with other wartime hand-embroidered insignia, so I am assuming it is printed on. Then, below it, is the word "LINZ"- undoubtedly a rubber stamp. If this was important why would it not have been printed on the label to begin with? If the maker wanted to use rubber stamps what is the purpose of the label at all? The font is not typical for wartime stamps but IS very much like the letters used in commonly available rubber stamp kits. Why is "45" also rubber stamped, but apparently at a different time, and in a different color (why?)? Is this a price? Prices were usually hand written on these. It's not 45 RM, it's 45 pfg, I would expect to see this noted as ",45" or have the symbol for "pfg" written after it (if you collected period boxes you would know what this symbol looks like). No, I believe this is supposed to represent a year, and that is totally atypical for how insignia were marked. Simply put, from a logical perspective, and in comparison to the vast preponderance of surviving original paper labels, not only on insignia but on goods of all kinds, this just makes no sense. That's the red flag. There are exceptions to every rule but this tag is, simply put, not believable at all. I can sense how badly you want this thing to be real. I'm sorry.

[Gary Symonds]

Chris:
Thanks for the explanation. You have provided some evidence in support of your opinion.

[Antonio Scapini]

This badge came from a vet, a sniper who served in Italy. I have the SB too, it confirmed he was a sniper, but this award is not registered.
IMO a solid provenance to support the accepted originals.

[Antonio Scapini]

And here another silver badge in my collection. This is the "accepted" pattern but without a solid provenance.

[Willi Z.]

Great pieces Antonio!

[AndyC]

I like your badges Antonio


Andy

[longislandercjv]

This badge came from a vet, a sniper who served in Italy. I have the SB too, it confirmed he was a sniper, but this award is not registered.
IMO a solid provenance to support the accepted originals.

Hello Antonio;
Can you provide photos of the SB?
Yours may indeed be the provenance I and others are looking for.
(a period photo of one in wear would finally put an end to the controversy.
Of course, the question of wartime variations would linger on forever!)

What do you mean by "the award was not registered" ?
Is there a wartime archive listing the recipients of the snipers badge?
(since it is a late war award, it would be plausible that not all recipients
were reported and are therefore not listed...)

If you are amenable to relating your discussions with the veteran from whom you obtained the sniper's badge and soldbuch, I (and others) would be most grateful for this definitive information!

[Basil]

One thing that has always puzzled me about this award is the assertion that it would never be worn in the field because it would lead to summary execution for the wearer, if captured. The reality is that it was such a 'late war' award that it would be unlikely to the point of impossibility that anyone capturing a soldier wearing it would have a clue what it was; and I suspect it would be far less of a death sentence than someone wearing, for example, SS runes, a death's head or a Dirlewanger collar patch.

[Jeff V]

Thanks Antonio!
jeff