1st Pattern S-boot by Moritz Hausch

[Mike Kenny]

Hello Mike ,here they are:

weight 24,05 gr.
H 56,09
W 43,49
Cheers
Carlo

Thanks Carlo,

For me, that factual info is very useful.

Someone made the comment that the design is very close to the Schwerin first pattern. I'd probably go further than that. As such, I believe comparison with a Schwerin is justified.

My 1st pattern example has the following dimensions;

H 57.24
W 44.82
Weight 32.19g

So I am looking at an M-H marked example that looks very much like a Schwerin, apparently constructed from a high quality tombak or whitemetal material, yet is alarmingly smaller and lighter than a genuine Schwerin.

That sets alarm bells ringing for me.

Two other things that I do not like about the M-H badge above;

1) the shear marks actually look "smoothed"/weak to me. I've seen well cast shear marks before on "high end" badges (eg Heer numbered assault badges).
2) the shape of the main pin (brilliant job on the hinge and top hook though)

So not for me.

Regards
Mike

[Leroy]

All very good points, Mike.

Is one a casting of the other?

[Leroy]

To answer my own question: Yes, IMO.

[John R.]

My 1st pattern example has the following dimensions;

H 57.24
W 44.82
Weight 32.19g

Typical statistics for the SB First Pattern based on a number of measurements:

Height 58mm<O</O
Width 45mm <O</O
Weight 32.4gr


John<O</O

[Leroy]

From 6 different original examples (average)*:

Height: 57.0 mm
Width: 42.0 mm
Weight: 32.0 g

Slight variances in all, mostly in width.

*Schwerin

[Mike Kenny]

From 6 different original examples (average):

Height: 57.0 mm
Width: 42.0 mm
Weight: 32.0 g

Slight variances in all, mostly in width.

Width: 42.0 mm (??typo) OR 44.0mm?

[Leroy]

42.0 is correct. Over and over, I found discrepancies in width, much greater than in height, among all the known manufacturers, from multiple reputable collectors. I can't explain it, unless it has something to do with the force of the strike, hand-finishing, etc. I also wonder about the possible use of multiple working dies by a single company, all made from one "mother" in use by that company. It is a complete mystery to me.

[Jeff V]

I also believe from these images that it is a fake based on the Schwerin badge.
best wishes,
jeff

[Norm F]

I've hesitated to comment up until now since my opinion really shouldn't count for much in this discussion as I have no hands on experience with S-boot badges. But I do spend an inordinate amount of time staring at images and enjoy pondering the evidence and testimony of the many experienced contributors to this thread.

For what it's worth I agree with Mike and Leroy (and Gordon on the other site), that this is most likely a cast reproduction, based on:

1) The smaller dimensions as discussed by Mike (although may be arguable based on variation).
2) The obvious presence of MH-marked fake Heer badges as pointed out by Tom and others.
3) The lack of any other verifiable MH-produced combat badge.
4) The fact that only a single example of this type has ever turned up in all the years these forums have run.
5) That's the weirdest colour "tombak" I've ever seen on any KM badge - quite atypical.
6) Something not mentioned before: Trimming margins are often a maker's "fingerprints". Moritz Hausch was a Pforzheim maker. If you closely compare the trimming margins of Carlo's badge to the known Pforzheim makers - Mayer and F&B - as well as to Schwerin, it becomes apparent that this badge copies the Schwerin outlines instead of matching Hausch's fellow Pforzheim producers.

It's just too big a stretch to suggest that Moritz Hausch made a single one-of-a-kind slightly smaller Schwerin-design badge, imitating Schwerin's trimming and hardware, using a basemetal different from any other maker in wartime, and that later on someone else also made fake Heer badges with his mark.

I mean no disrespect to Carlo, and it's obviously still an "old" badge (i.e. greater than 30 years old) that is an interesting addition to a specialized S-boot collection --- just not wartime IMO.

Best regards,
---Norm

[fischer]

Hello Guys

I was invited as well by John to join your discussion but I am late to the party and can only echo what Tom has already posted here.

I also have not studied the S-Boat badge but after studying the Heer marked MH badges, here are my thoughts.

The MH IAB has a pretty good obverse and was very close to the obverse details of the attributed Rudolf Karneth IAB. After studying the MH IAB reverse, to me it looks like a cast fake.

With the discovery of MH marked PAB, IAB and CCC fakes as Norm states, I would be very leery of this badge.

Best Regards, fischer

[John R.]

Thanks Tom and Fischer,

We all appreciate your comments in regards to this badge. This is an example of how we lost something when we separated badges by service type (LW, Heer, KM, etc.) but glad to see us get together now and then.

Many forget that in the early days there was only one badge forum more or less and it was through the collective effort of all badge collectors, regardless of service interest, that we were able to try to organize which maker made which badges.

This also applied to marked fakes not matching marked originals as well as unmarked badges, both fake and period examples.

Some newer members do not seem to understand that you lose more than you gain when you divide certain areas of the hobby to service specific sub forums. This really applies to cloth, caps, visors, etc, but it also applies to some of the war badges that are extremely rare these days.

Anyway, thanks for coming over here and taking a look at this badge. It will be very useful when Gordon's book is published as he has indicated that a zinc MH will be in that edition. I think this thread will continue a bit after the publication of his book.

The jury may still be out, however, it is good to see well reasoned opinions on both sides of the issue for a change.

John

[Leroy]

I, too, would like to thank Fischer, Norm, Jeff, Tom, Mike, John and everyone else for their instructive and useful comments in this thread. Although I understand from Gordon's recent posting this morning on GCA that he is having some difficulty contacting the owner of the zinc badge which will appear in his book, I look forward to seeing good photos of that badge. The "more eyes" the better, as John has just noted.

One point I would like to clarify:
Some question has been raised regarding the width dimension of original Schwerin first pattern badges. I exchanged PM's last night with Mike and confirmed to him that the EXACT average width of the original badges (from both Europe and North America) used in the article Jody and I wrote was 42.33 mm (rounded down, perhaps mistakenly by me, to 42.00 in the article*). The two (out of a total of six) that I personally measured, using the same electronic calipers (which I believe to be accurate) were 42.35 and 44.28 mm. The other measurements were provided by collectors using their own calipers, which they also believed to be accurate. The average obtained does differ from the normally accepted 44-45 mm for a typical badge. Except for a difference caused by vaulting (as suggested by Mike), die strike force, hand finishing, etc., I am at a loss to explain this and I personally believe that a correct average width is, more probably, in the 43-45 mm range; however, the key measurements to me for a Schwerin first pattern remain the height (which should range from 57-58 mm) and the weight (which should be approximately 32 g). In a casting, these two measurements will be, IMO, the ones which will be the first "red flags", and are the last things, IMO, to alter for this particular maker. "Curvature" of a badge can significantly alter measured width, which is linear in nature, and is generally done along the longest vertical axis.

In the meantime, I am re-contacting the other collectors to ask that they re-measure the width on their badges. Perhaps it was a fluke and the badges measured were all vaulted in some way, or perhaps measurements were accidentally taken using different reference points. In any case, I don't know the answer, but I will find out.

* For some reason, only the Schwerin measurements were rounded in the article.

[Leroy]

Update: Gordon has now advised that the owner of the zinc badge will be on GCA and will post images.

[Leroy]

Since the badge initially posted here was "lifted" by John R for discussion on GCA, I thought I would "lift" from GCA the images posted there of the zinc badge which appears in Gordon's book, for discussion here.

[Norm F]

Well since the photos are now here I might as well "lift" the comments I posted on them as well.

It makes it a little harder for us that all the 1st pattern S-boot makers seem to have used sister dies for the obverse, but looking at other factors like tiny obverse details, reverse dies, hardware and, most importantly, trimming outlines, I'd say the following:

1) This MH is clearly different from Carlo's "tombak" MH in reverse die, outlines, hardware and maker mark.

2) This MH is different in outlines from the known makers of Schwerin, Mayer, F&B and S&L-attributed.

3) The reverse setup is very similar to Mayer's L/18 zincers but with a slightly different shaped pin. Also, the hinge pin seems to have a flat head which I don't think we've seen before from a Pforzheim maker.

4) The overall detail is poor suggesting either wear or casting, but the trimming outlines are also softer than other makers which makes me uneasy.

5) The provided description of "zinc 79% and copper 21%" needs further explanation. If this was determined with accurate laboratory techniques such as X-ray fluorescence then it seems to me that would automatically mean a fake since badges of this sort should be almost completely zinc aside from impurities shouldn't they? Thomas Bendixen over in GCA used the Archimedes principle to determine the density of some zinc badges showing they were mostly zinc, whereas Staegemeier alloy had a higher density indicating an alloy of zinc with a denser metal.

6) Same problem as with Carlo's badge -- i.e. one of a kind. Where's the profit margin in that?

7) It's interesting that we get the same story about when both these badges entered someone's collection - both from >30 year old collections. The S&L-type S-boats with the spurious L12 markings also turned up in the 1970's according to Gordon.

So another controversial badge, I think.

Best regards,
---Norm