U-Boat badge

[Lettermain]

Hello,
What do you think about this submarine badge?
Thanks for your help.

[Mike Kenny]

Hi Lettermain,

I'm not keen on this one at all for one reason or another. Looks like it's pretending to be a Schwerin but a lot of the obverse detailing is off/poor (eagle's head and chest, deck gun, conning tower/flag detail, very thin keel, etc). The hinge/catch combination appears incorrect for both a tombak or zinc badge (hinge is ?cracked on top) and the way the pin is affixed to the hinge appears strange to me. Then there's the finish - very glitzy.

At best it's been repaired/refinished, although I don't really believe that. Imo it's most likely a fair to good cast repro.

Regards
Mike

[John R.]

badge

Looks repainted, poor quality. Strange hinge set up, not sure what this is trying to be, but I would take a pass on it. John

[Lettermain]

Thanks for your answer.
The badge doesn't look repainted. The hinge isn't cracked but it appears to be make in 2 parts
I join more pictures.





Bye,
Lettermain

[mrg]

Hi, sorry to say but i agree, poor detail, and the metal looks wrong, amongst other things, not one for my collection.

[entasis]

sub

U-boats are not my forte but just a few observations:

= the catch doesn't look 'right'.

= the pin is not symmetirical. the right side is more 'bulbous'.

= the hinge is not symmetrical. the left side looks larger. could be I need a better photo or perhaps it's an accumulation of paint..??

= is that a casting line I see on the top-view? It looks to run along the entire top of the badge.


Tony

[luftwaffe303]

double post

[luftwaffe303]

I agree with comments below. Also wanted to mention that swaz looks so bad (luck of detail) and it looks like its not symetrical at all. I would pass on this one for sure.
Thomas

[Frank Heukemes]

There is also a casting line running over the hinge when you look at it from the reverse side view.

[Lettermain]

OK,
thank you for your assistance. Again a fake one!!!
regards,
Lettermain

[Ludwig]

-

Not original!

[John R.]

cast line

As I said, I do not believe this badge is a good one, however, I would like to discuss a bit the cast line. The cast line is not a major reason to say a badge is good or bad is it? In other words, using the die-struck method you should get a line I think that needs to be finished by the maker.

It is my understanding the tombak badges were all die-struck, the later war badges like zinc cast. Like to get some clarification.

In a straight casting procedures where perhaps a molten metal was poured into a form (lost wax, oil and sand, plaster, whatever), there would not be a line I think.

In this last example, the new reproduced piece would be slightly smaller perhaps, but only if the cast mold was terrible, otherwise, it should be the same size.

Just looking for comments and opinions on the line and methods of production. I do not think the line is a dead sure way to make any judgement and think it should be there on all die struck badges and not there on cast badges.

Note I am saying I think, since I am not completely sure on the entire process used in WWII on these badges.

John

[John R.]

line

I have been informed that such lines as the badge above are indications of a post-war cast reproduction and that neither the die-struck or die-cast procedures produced a line like this.

John

[mrg]

Hi John the line shown on the pic is very extreme and heavy, less obvious lines do however exist on some original TR awards. All the best