Hollow Beco u-boat badge

[BubbaZ]

Hi Guys,
I found this badge on the internet auction site marked as sold. I wonder if any WAF member bought it?
To my eye it looks like unmarked tombak Beco u-boat but I have never seen a hollow variant before.
Cheers,
Hubert

[Alex Bolotnikov]

Very interesting badge!

[AndyC]

That one are not a common version



Andy

[Martin W]

It certainly looks like a Beco U-Boat badge Hubert.

It has the horizontal die-flaw across the leaves and the upper arm of the swastika.


Cheers,Martin.

[Norm F]

To my eye it looks like unmarked tombak Beco u-boat but I have never seen a hollow variant before.
Cheers,
Hubert

Yes you have, Hubert! Remember back in 2014?
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...42#post6227942

Now, that a second example has shown up, I guess I need to add it to the classification system. A mysterious rarity.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Martin W]

Good memory Norm.

Indeed a rare one.

Cheers,Martin.

[Norm F]

These hollow "Becos" are still surrounded by unanswered questions. They might be rare wartime originals but so far we can't be definite.

There's a precedent for post-war hollow badges in the case of the hollow "5-feather" u-boat badge (although fortunately in that instance the reverse setup gives them away).

Also, the so-called "Angry bird" variant posted by Max_Porter in 2010 shows exactly the same reverse hardware as the hollow "Beco", and that badge is equally controversial with unknown provenance, other than the fact that it's at least as old as 1988 when Max_Porter acquired it.

Best regards,
---Norm

[BubbaZ]

Yes you have, Hubert! Remember back in 2014?
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...42#post6227942

Ahh, now I remember To tell the truth I had a gut feeling that I saw such variant once in the past but could not find it in my files

Now, that a second example has shown up, I guess I need to add it to the classification system.

Please do, I also think this would be a just addition.
Cheers,
Hubert

[BubbaZ]

These hollow "Becos" are still surrounded by unanswered questions. They might be rare wartime originals but so far we can't be definite.

I can see nothing wrong with these tombak hollow Becos. If we do accept tombak hollow Deumers and Schickles then why have reservations about Becos? Same as Deumers and Schickles, hollow Becos are rarer than their tombak solid brothers and were made from the same obverse dies.

Indeed reverse hardware on hollow Becos looks very similiar to the one used on some examples of controversial "Angry bird" variant but so far we know only several examples of the "Angry bird" u-boat, and IMO quality of "Angry birds" points to early wartime production rather than postwar. Maybe these were made by Beco after their original dies wore off? I suppose it was difficult to sell badges flawed so much as some solid Beco u-boats.

Hollow 5-feather u-boat is a different story since they were made from very late war dies (at best, or early postwar) that we know that survived the war and as you've said all they feature typical postwar hardware.
Cheers,
Hubert

[Norm F]

But there's still much unknown about these.

The Beco marked badges are the only U-Boat badges to use the same obverse design as the Petz & Lorenz. Obviously Boerger & Co. didn't come up with the design themselves and the theory is that they acquired some of P&L's tools after P&L's production was shut down by the Präsidialkanzlei in 1941.

The well-known positive linear flaws on the obverse wreath of the marked Beco badges are presumably from a crack in the negative obverse die. Does it make sense to see the same flaws in the reverse die of the hollow version? For that to be the case, the reverse die must have been reverse engineered from an already flawed obverse die, not from an original obverse/reverse tool set from a die maker like Wissmann. If that's the case, it follows that anyone could have done that in wartime or post-war, not just Boerger & Co.

And why would the hollow version use hardware that's a better match to the hardware on the "Angry bird" (a completely different obverse design) rather than to the solid version of the same obverse design as the hollow version? If the "Angry Bird" was Boerger & Co.'s next attempt after abandoning the flawed P&L design, why not mark those with their stamp as well?

I just can't yet come up with a logical storyline for this haphazard chain of events to come out of a legitimate LDO-certified wartime manufacturer. The inconsistencies in their manufacture seem to me more a hallmark of a small-time operator or jeweller, rather than what you'd expect from a large firm that was an official supplier of awards.

I'm not saying all Beco KM badges are fakes, just that we have very little data to go on.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

If we do accept tombak hollow Deumers and Schickles then why have reservations about Becos?

Yes we do accept the hollow Schickle and Deumer badges, but at least their designs are both pictured in early wartime catalogs, and they show the same hardware as their solid counterparts.

[John R.]

Norm,

I am lost on your reasoning:

The well-known positive linear flaws on the obverse wreath of the marked Beco badges are presumably from a crack in the negative obverse die. Does it make sense to see the same flaws in the reverse die of the hollow version? For that to be the case, the reverse die must have been reverse engineered from an already flawed obverse die, not from an original obverse/reverse tool set from a die maker like Wissmann. If that's the case, it follows that anyone could have done that in wartime or post-war, not just Boerger & Co.

You will have to not make the assumption that everybody, including me, is following how these hollow reverse badges were made.

The reverse of the badge at the top of this thread has great looking hardware, especially the catch.

I any case, I have to go with this being period and they used different hardware if you say so. However, how they made this badge is not clear to me and also not clear to me why the crack in the reverse is simply not carry through from the obverse strike.

I also do not think the effort to make an unmarked example was worth it to whoever might have tried to fool somebody. I guess the missing Beco mark might work in your favor in that they simply got rid of the solid reverse to avoid being caught with a bad mark. Still, this one looks good to me.

John

[BubbaZ]

Does it make sense to see the same flaws in the reverse die of the hollow version? For that to be the case, the reverse die must have been reverse engineered from an already flawed obverse die, not from an original obverse/reverse tool set from a die maker like Wissmann. If that's the case, it follows that anyone could have done that in wartime or post-war, not just Boerger & Co.

Hi Norm,
I agree with John that what we see on the reverse of the hollow variant is not really a flaw but a crack caused in the process of stamping internal and external cutots with the trimming die. The crack appeared in the spot of the wreath which was weakened by the deep flaw on the obverse. So the later reasoning although very interesting is or could be based on the incorrect assumption.
Cheers,
Hubert

[Norm F]

However, how they made this badge is not clear to me and also not clear to me why the crack in the reverse is simply not a carry through from the obverse strike.

John

Hi John,

The obverse flaw should not carry through to the reverse.

Here's an example of the sort of die set we expect for a hollow item. As you can see we have a combination of a negative obverse die (on the right of the attached image) and a positive reverse die on the left.

If one die in the pair happened to develop a crack during use, its counterpart would not have the same flaw in the same location -- the flaw would appear only one surface.

A critical feature we're missing from the low resolution photos of the Beco badges is whether the linear flaws are positive or negative, ie. are they ridges or fissures. The would tell us which die originally cracked.

In the beginning, one die must have cracked; if it was a negative obverse working die that cracked, then all the badges would have a linear ridge in the obverse. If it was instead a positive punch that cracked, then that punch would be used to make a working obverse die which would then have a linear ridge in it; this obverse die in turn would produce a badge with a linear fissure in the final product.

My point was, for both the obverse and the reverse to have flaws, one of those dies must have been made from the other after the crack occurred. That's different from a maker receiving a new die set from a die manufacturer and one of the dies cracking during production.

Hope that's clearer.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Hi Norm,
I agree with John that what we see on the reverse of the hollow variant is not really a flaw but a crack caused in the process of stamping internal and external cutots with the trimming die. The crack appeared in the spot of the wreath which was weakened by the deep flaw on the obverse. So the later reasoning although very interesting is or could be based on the incorrect assumption.
Cheers,
Hubert

Hi Hubert,

I don't think the flaw came from the trimming die. As you know, Beco badges (like Rettenmaier badges) have hand-cut internal cutouts, and no standard timming punches were used for those areas, unlike most other makers. That's apparent from the extreme variability of the outlines in the internal cutout margins. (We also see that on many later post-war Souval production but not on wartime-compatible Souval products when they still had their trimming tools.)

Now, it is possible the Beco badges used a trimming stamp for the exterior margins alone since those seem to be quite regular, although we can't be sure without seeing high-resolution photographs of the margins demonstrating sheer marks.

Regardless, I don't expect the trimming process to produce those linear flaws on both the obverse and reverse simultaneously.

Best regards,
---Norm