Hollow Beco u-boat badge

[Norm F]

Norm,

You are relentless. It looks absolutely compatible with other hollow back examples in appearance and overall "feel".

John

Hi John,

My point is that the step deformity in that linear flaw is not consistent with what one usually sees in die forged badges. Normally, if a master or a working hub were to develop a crack, the resultant badge could show either a fissure or a ridge, but not a step deformity as described by Patrick where the badge on one side of the flaw is higher than the other.

As mentioned, the only theoretical way I can envisage a damaged die set producing a step deformity is if both the obverse and reverse die are severed all the way through and then somehow repaired like in the diagram below -- I don't believe this to be possible.

However, if one made a casting from a fractured badge or (less likely) from a fractured master die, that would produce a new flawed die with a step deformity from which its flawed partner die could be made -- the resultant die set would produce hollow-back badges with the step deformity on both obverse and reverse. That makes more sense to me.

I'm open to other suggestions, but we need a logical explanation for that step deformity.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

I'm open to other suggestions, but we need a logical explanation for that step deformity.

Just thinking out loud. I wonder if a die that had split in two could be mounted in a pantograph machine to try to make a duplicate?

Best regards,
---Norm

[John R.]

Then my working theory is that the hollow badge we are observing could possibly be the very first p&l U-Boat badge produced. I have no idea how they repaired the die but these companies were very clever and the artisans skillful. In fact this very badge could be one of the reasons they lost their license. So when Deumer and Schickle we're making their hollow backs p&l was attempting to do the exact same thing. They were not successful as evidenced by this very same badge and while they tried to produce the solid back it was not of high enough quality although some apparently made it to other companies for hardware and other changes prior to official distribution. In other words we may be looking at the Smoking Gun which led to the license revocation. It also means that p&l actually did distribute a few of these hollow backs and that is why they survive today although eventually the quality was not good enough and they lost their license.

[Norm F]

Then my working theory is that the hollow badge we are observing could possibly be the very first p&l U-Boat badge produced.

Well, based upon varying degrees of circumstantial evidence, there is a continuum (from least to greatest) from speculation to hypothesis to working theory to well-supported conclusion. I'd have to say that falls closer to speculation than working theory due to insufficient evidence.

There's no doubt that the unmarked flawed hollow badges are far closer in production characteristics to the "Beco"-marked solid badges with the same flaw than they are to the P&L badges with the round-wire main pins. The linear flaw and similar hand-trimming are pretty good smoking guns. I can't see P&L as the maker of the Beco-marked badges since the P&L badges are die-trimmed and have different reverse hardware and finish.

I still think it's likely the flawed hollow badges are from the same shop as the flawed "Beco"-marked badges, but I'm still ambivalent about the Beco line in general (marked and unmarked) given their relative poor quality, the unexplained mechanism for the linear flaw, weird variants like the unflawed solids and the "Angry Bird", and the general lack of supporting evidence for wartime manufacture. We accept them because we want them to be wartime, but they remain somewhat mysterious and anomalous compared with "mainstream" KM badges.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

I have no idea how they repaired the die but these companies were very clever and the artisans skillful.

If I interpret this Beco advertisement correctly ("Nur an Wiederverkäufer"), it seems that they sold only to re-sellers and not to the general public. Does it make sense for a wholesaler to expend considerable effort on an iffy repair of catastrophically fractured dies for a small run of badges to supply smaller retailers? Not sure.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Nice production values can be beguiling. Here we see the fake Orth-design U-Boat in Tombak with a reverse setup very much like the unmarked unflawed solid Beco-attributed badges from post #21.

All that is to say, in an ideal world we'd have more evidence than just good looks to support a presumption of wartime manufacture.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Three comparisons:

1)Although these two obverses are from different dies, the unique expression of the eagle on the controversial "Angry Bird" variant is very similar to the known fake Tombak Orth.

2) And as mentioned before the reverse setup of the "Angry Bird" is identical to that on the flawed hollow unmarked "Beco".

3) Meanwhile the reverse setup of the fake Orth is similar to the "unmarked Beco".

None of this is definitive, but irritative.

We can speculate that Beco made both the Beco-marked and the unmarked badges of the P&L design, but we can equally speculate that both of these plus the Angry Bird and the fake Orth are all various generations of Tombak fakes from the 1980s. Both speculative theories are unproven.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Jeff V]

Good stuff Norm. Look at the marks on the catch of the angry bird fake and hollow beco from baldes images you posted, identical.

[BubbaZ]

Good stuff Norm. Look at the marks on the catch of the angry bird fake and hollow beco from baldes images you posted, identical.

Good point Jeff, but we cannot say yet that 'angry bird' was made postwar.
Cheers,
Hubert

[John R.]

Good point Jeff, but we cannot say yet that 'angry bird' was made postwar.
Cheers,
Hubert

Agree

[Norm F]

Here are the three "Angry Bird" badges posted to date. No two exactly the same due to differences in hand filing and slight differences in hardware. Obviously not the work of a mass manufacturer - more like someone's small project.

[Norm F]

Although "Angry bird" and Beco U-boats have a different obverse design (Orth-like vs. P&L), the production details are very similar - very similar finish and hand-filing. Although no two are exactly the same, sometimes the catches look very similar.

To my eye, they come out of the same workshop, wherever that may be.

Best regards,
---Norm

[John R.]

Nice production values can be beguiling. Here we see the fake Orth-design U-Boat in Tombak with a reverse setup very much like the unmarked unflawed solid Beco-attributed badges from post #21.

All that is to say, in an ideal world we'd have more evidence than just good looks to support a presumption of wartime manufacture.

Best regards,
---Norm

I agree. This one does not look good to me though. John

[Norm F]

I agree. This one does not look good to me though. John

Hi John,

Here's another example of the fake Orth in Tombak. How does this one look?

Best regards,
---Norm

[Patrick W]

Hi Norm,

Many thanks for the detailed comments- I fully agree that the die scenario I propose is unlikely but by no means impossible. Logically, this could well be what has happened to cause the stepped flaw we see.

To your counter theory I would pose the following question- what would be the need to newly produce a reverse die from a damaged obverse one?

If the obverse die had cracked then it stands to reason that it was being used in production- as such there must have been a functioning reverse die already in use.

Also, logically and by decree, the hollow struck badges must be the earliest in the timeline or at least run concurrently with the solid badges and we have evidence from two other manufacturers who produced hollow and then solid backed versions of the u-boat.

I fully agree that there is some relation between these and the so called 'angry bird' badges which are again extremely scarce and feature variations in the setup.

Perhaps these are indeed evidence of early war 'cottage' production and we know that it was not uncommon for pins and catches to be supplied externally to several regional producers. So maybe they bought these pin assemblies in from elsewhere?

Or perhaps the same workshop produced two different designs of u-boat? I would think the former scenario more likely.

The fake F.O you show is really a red herring in all this I think- if you get into the detail we could say the setup also is similar to the first pattern Juncker u-boat- (I think likely they have copied from that badge)- so now these can be doubted too?

The unmarked Beco badges all share common features in the setup that the fake FO doesn't have- a very obvious tooling mark to the round wire catch; the cut to the end of the pin; the horizontal striations to the pin....

It may be useful to involve the other Beco attributed KM badges in this thread also to see what variations exist in setup of those and identify if any other common traits to the 'angry bird' or of course the fake F.O.