BKA silver on Collectors Guild

[Tony Bologna]

Comparing the reverse, look at the appearance of finish both remaing and aged/removed/worn.

[Tony Bologna]

I also dont see signs of casting line like in Fake #4, i do see signs of trimming & shearing

[Antonio Scapini]

From that pictures is not possible study the finish, anyway that is really the easiest thing to do on a badge.
Those badges has no real trimming signs on them, but only file marks.
All them shows the same casting flaws everywhere and the hardware setup in NEVER matching with originals. Close but never cigar.
Those badges are rally well made, but if you check them with attention you will see many red flags:
- measurements
- base metal
- casting flaws
- lack of details
- hinge/pin/catch wrong

Have a look at how a real badge looks like.

[Norm F]

Unfortunately there are a few inconsistencies in the theory of this badge being a fake and the same as fake #4. The first is that I can make out what appears to be the Type 2 Die Flaw even with these bad pictures. The flaw does not appear on other examples of this fake. This suggests that this is a late Type 2 which could have easily been copied.

Hi Tony,

As to your first point, the photos from CG are very low resolution so that it's hard to see, but even so the badges we're talking about here are clones of the earlier unflawed Type 2.1. I think you'll agree on this comparison that the CG badge lacks the Sonnenrad flaw seen in the later original comparators.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Look at the identical wear to the obverse between this badge and the one shown in the book. Surely this can be faked, but the resemblance to the naturally worn appearance is beyond impressive.

Your second point is well taken, although Staegemeir-style fakes have become quite sophisticated in reproducing a worn look.

As the comparisons show, the CG badge shares tiny surface characteristics with the fakes that are beyond coincidence. But it's true that we're dealing with low resolution photos and we don't have dimensions and weights for comparison so we still have to consider one other distinct possibility:

IF this isn't a more sophisticated version of the same fake, then the only other possibility in my view is that this is the very badge that was originally cast to produce this line of fakes. That could explain the convincing finish and aging and also the subsequent repair with incorrect hardware after the deed was done. It could also explain the somewhat chewed up margins under the hinge on the reverse.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Here are those closeups again showing the obvious difference between the margins of the original posted by Antonio and those on the CG badge. One could invoke the theory that the edges were man-handled during removal of the original hinge before a new hinge was expertly re-soldered.

All this is to give the badge the benefit of the doubt. Better photos and accurate measurements and weight are likely necessary to be more definitive to everyone's satisfaction.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Antonio Scapini]

I have absolutely no boubt the badge on CG is a 100% fake one.
Hinge too is close but not cigar with Juncker'.
The margins are smaller because it is a cast copy.
Furthermore NO ONE original can have the casting flaws like the two little round flaws on the central cutout.
Cutouts were made with punches (see the production chapter on the APB book) and the could have never generated a round "ball" like that on the rim of the cutout!
This is enough to dismiss without any doubt that badge.

[Norm F]

Another comparison. CG badge on the left and another of these cast fakes on the right. Again, undoubtedly related badges, right down to the blob circled in red (either a casting blob or reproduced blob of solder).

Again, just to play devil's advocate, look at the small red arrows. On the CG badge you see more detailed edges as though these troughs were created by a hard tool pressing on a leverage point in that location -- perhaps while prying off the original hinge before casting? On the "Staegemeir-like" fake on the right this edge is smoother.

It just seems a little odd to me that it's possible to make a more detailed fake from the same previously cast mold? That implies that the faker still had the original and made a newer more detailed casting mold from it in order to improve on his previous rendition.

But I think we've reached the end of what we can speculate upon without further data.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

We've often seen on Staegemeir's website over the years where he would list for sale one of his high quality cast reproductions at the same time as offering the original from which it was cast, not thinking anyone would notice.

I'm just saying this could one of those situations and we need further details to rule it out.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Although not immediately obvious, this appears to be another example of this type of fake (posted as an undersized fake in Jamie Cross' article in 2009), again with a fairly convincing looking obverse finish. About 56 mm tall.

And for the record, I do agree with Antonio that the CG badge is likely just another fake example rather than the original template (especially when look at the catch area on the images provided) but would like more data on it to confirm.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Antonio Scapini]

Although not immediately obvious, this appears to be another example of this type of fake, again with a fairly convincing looking obverse finish. About 56 mm tall.

Best regards,
---Norm

Base metal and back side are the faster give-away.
Anyway you are right, a good attempt, especially the obverse.
On the book it is the "fake number 3".

[Norm F]

Here's the example posted on GCA in 2014, which prompted the first comparisons (by Ned) to another example posted on WRF a few weeks later with the same surface characteristics. Although one was posted on a Belgian site and one on a UK site they were both posted by U.S collectors. The GC example was posted in Canada and the Jame Cross article in the UK in 2009. They're widely travelled and have been around for a number of years.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Tony Bologna]

I agree with you guys on that last ones, a quick glance and I could spot several things that were far off.

[Norm F]

Here's a 2012 discussion on one of these fakes as well (a somewhat cruder example), complete with weights and measurements.

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=629529

Best regards,
---Norm