1st Pattern S-boot by Moritz Hausch

[John R.]

Well, I will "lift" an opinion from Jeff V, often stated. That is, there does not need to be a profit margin in a fake badge. In other words, the badge was created by somebody just for the fun of it, or to see if they could do it, or to have a joke--who knows?

So we have a couple categories at least of fake badges. The first is by fakers to deceive as many people as possible for profit and therefore we see more of them. Then we have one of a kind fakes that probably were made for an obscure reason by somebody in his garage or factory or someplace not for profit. Certain well known collectors in the past have added diamonds to badges to make a "diamond badge" for the fun of it. Unfortunately, those badges eventually work there way into various markets, sometimes after the death of the creator.

Then we have the one of a kind "sting" badge, usually with diamonds or otherwise exceedingly rare--normally Luftwaffe or Heer though--designed and created to target a single collector or even a dealer with the goal of fleecing them out of a large amount of money. This last category happens and sometimes the sting is not discovered for many years.

So numbers of badges observed do not necessarily mean anything in the end. Each badge needs to be analyzed and perhaps some type of consensus formed by the collecting community.

I hope this lifted your spirits.

[Leroy]

So, John, are you of the opinion that both badges are bad? Or do you think the zinc badge is good?

I personally like and agree with Gordon's comments on GCA:

"The current obsession with identifying every conceivable maker of a badge is a recent phenomenon. A few years ago all people cared about was if it was real, not who made it.

Unlike the case with the MH CCCs where direct comparison with known fake CCCs made identifying the MH as a fake straightforward, I don't think we have the same situation here. The badge is exactly what we'd expect a Zinc badge to look like with typical hardware for a Zinker.
If it wasn't for the MH mark, I doubt if this badge would have raised any eyebrows."

By the way, it did lift my spirits, more than you know. I would still like some measurements, as requested on GCA, though.

[Don D.]

But on the other hand, the old "if it is fake, where are all the others?" doesn't hold water either. Why not say "If it is real, where are all the others?" instead?

[John R.]

I know you are joking about lifting this or lifting that. I am more concerned about any tendency to hide information on different forums, but right now, I see no problem with any Kriegsmarine subject on either GMIC, GCA or WAF I am happy to say.

Each of these three English speaking forums is a bit different and I think anybody interested in KM badges should join all three. I do because different information shows up on all three. Sure, you have to go back and forth now and then, but so what?

Many members are the same on all three, but there are just enough that are not that it forces you in a way to join those forums to hear what they have to say. There is no single fountain of knowledge for all things KM of course.

Everybody does not agree, but that is fine, we are not required to agree. I personally like the exchange of information going on right now and I think a big hats off to Tom and Norm for making this happen. I also do not see anybody on any of these forums preventing anybody from voicing their opinions, since in the end, it is an opinion and not always a fact.

To your question. I do not know. I admit, the badge posted at the top here does not look period to me due to the reasons already mentioned. Maybe it is, but to me, it has too many red flags.

I also am not so sure about the badge posted by Gordon. Maybe, but Tom and Norm have voiced points that should be considered as well. However, absent more information, I would say it was OK and if a collector wanted to buy it, that is up to him assuming he has read everything everybody to date has had to say.

So in the end, I think this thread should be read by all interested and they should make up their own minds about them.

It would be nice if every badge could be neatly wrapped and a unanimous resolution made about them, but just not possible.

I also do not think the word obsession is quite correct--I think enthusiasm might be better. There is a big difference now and a number of years ago when the basic foundation of KM badge knowledge was being developed. Well, that is past so where do we go now? I also think some members are having a good time matching unmarked badges and that is good for the hobby, not bad. So I applaud anybody trying to make sense of these unmarked badges for their efforts. It pays off in many ways.

It is a recent phenomenon but heck, it was not that long ago we did not even know who the makers were and we had the maker marks on the badge. I guess the old old old time collectors would say (and I know they do anyway) that the new breed--meaning post internet--collector are nothing more than self appointed badge scientists.

Bah, Humbug!!!!!

Well, the wheel keep turning.

John

[Leroy]

Actually, John (and I hope you do know this) I am joking about the "lifting" part. Quite frankly, I don't care where the information and ideas come from, so long as they come from somewhere. I think everything should be shared and I don't like inter- (or intra-) site rivalry. I'm a member of at least 5 (or maybe 6, never can remember my password) forums, although I participate mostly here and on GCA.

I have no problem with the pursuit of maker information and agree it's the next logical step. I do have a problem with any idea that we have figured all this out and that we have more than the slightest clue how things were done on a day-to-day basis, or, for that matter, that we have any real insight yet into fake-making. Lots of people like to talk about Carsten Stagemeir as if he's the prince of darkness. The reality is that much more dangerous people have, and still do, exist. The other reality is that there are real things that any one of us would condemn on our best day out of a sense of false security.

At this point, I think there is still a chance, albeit small, that Carlo's badge may be real, mainly because Hausch is an unknown quantity still and we have no idea what it really did or how it did it. I wish that Jody and I had known before the photos were posted about the badge having already gone through Detlev and having been listed in the copy archive, but we didn't and that's just too damn bad. It still doesn't alter the possibility that either badge could be real and either could be fake. On the scale of things, we are at about 10 degrees on a 100 degree thermometer.

[Don D.]

It still doesn't alter the possibility that either badge could be real and either could be fake.

Or both are fake or possibly both are real. Its hard to make a judgement with just one example of each to go on.

[Leroy]

Absolutely right.

[Norm F]

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

I need to clarify my point above. I didn't mean this as a point against it being a reproduction -- just the opposite. What I meant was: Why on earth would a legitimate wartime producer of KM badges make only one? Collector forums have been around for quite some time now, and all known legitimate badges are never "one-offs". And it doesn't matter whether the badge is marked or not.

Wartime manufacturers were businessmen and it doesn't make sense to tool up for production only to produce one badge. Sure they could have been more but obviously not many. So a tiny run of S-boots, most of which disappeared into the woodwork and only one is surfacing after all this time? I don't buy it -- and apparently no one in the 3rd Reich did either!

Best regards,
---Norm

[Gary B]

But on the other hand, the old "if it is fake, where are all the others?" doesn't hold water either. Why not say "If it is real, where are all the others?" instead?

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

Hi,

Although I understand the logic behind these statements we can not use this as a discriminator when attempting to determine the authenticity of a badge. There are several examples in US medal collecting where only a few (less than 12) exist. Additionally, the same can be said about US coin collecting, there are many examples where only a few are known. If we were to hold these items to the aforementioned standard we would be missing out on alot of rarities.

Gary B

[Norm F]

[I][COLOR="Yellow"]
...
Although I understand the logic behind these statements we can not use this as a discriminator when attempting to determine the authenticity of a badge. There are several examples in US medal collecting where only a few (less than 12) exist. Additionally, the same can be said about US coin collecting, there are many examples where only a few are known. If we were to hold these items to the aforementioned standard we would be missing out on alot of rarities.

Gary B

Hi Gary,

I agree one should not dismiss the possibility of authenticity based on rarity. I simply mean we lack the corroborative evidence of other examples and so the quest continues.

However, you also have to consider how prevalent an item should be. An award that was rarely ever awarded is expected to be less common, like the KM Navy Honour Roll Clasp, but an award presented in the thousands should be more prevalent. Likewise a rare variant within a maker's output could be a "one-off". A particular maker may have had short runs, e.g. Meybauer's KM badge output was obviously far less than Schwerin's and so these badges are relatively uncommon.

But to see only one example of even a somewhat lesser-awarded badge as the S-boat causes one to pause and ponder. So "singularity" still remains one legitimate factor amongst many to consider when discussing a badge such as this. But obviously no definitive conclusion can be determined at this time.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Thomas Durante]

Hi guys,

In general, I have to say that I like the look of this zinc-based MH badge. The zinc base metal, reverse hardware and whats left of the finish all look acceptable to me for a late, wartime-produced badge. It looks much more convincing to me than the badge that started this thread (Carlo's tombak badge, which I am convinced of is a cast reproduction).

But even though the base metal and materials looks "possibly" wartime, there are still some bigger questions about this badge that are hard to look past:

1. All the other MH-marked badges have been proven to be fakes. In all cases, these were one-of or VERY rarely encountered badges. The same can be said about Vlad's badge, another very rare badge featuring an MH mark.

2. We only know of 1 legimate badge that Moritz Hausch produced, which is the wound badge. So it is logical to compare the materials and construction techniques used on these wound badges and see how it compares to this badge. When you do that, you find significant differences. Firstly, they are all marked "127". None of them are marked with the initials MH. Secondly, the later ones that were made from zinc are all die-cast badges with integral hardware. These would have been made during the same timeframe as these zink-based MH-marked S-boat badges, so its a pretty significant difference in reverse design and hardware IMO.

These points are not conclusive IMO, but speak more negatively about Vlad's badge rather than positively. It is comparisons like this that are so important when we deal with a one-of badge that we don't have another badge to compare it to.

One last point, in the case of the fake, MH-marked CCCs and PABs, it is true that we had other fakes to compare it to that helped determine that they were fakes. All I have seen so far in this thread is everyone comparing Vlad's badge only to ORIGINAL badges by other makers. That was NOT helpful with the MH-marked fake CCCs & PABs; it was only when I compared them to KNOWN FAKES was the truth revealed. Have any of you Kriegs specialists compared Vlad's badge to any known fakes? I think this could be very helpful. Sadly, but Kriegs database is not as up to speed as my Luftwaffe and Heer badge fakes databases. But I am sure some of you "Kriegs nuts" have some in depth databases in which to compare.

I have asked Gordon and/or Vlad if they would be kind enough to post a closeup of the hardware and especially the maker mark. I think that could be helpful to see if the maker mark is the same as we see on the other MH-marked fakes.

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

Hello Tom,thans for your help

In the thread of the IAB reported by you ,you are pointing to the no good made mark.

The one in the Sboot is very different and well made

Hi Carlo,

Actually, the mark on your S-boat badge looks weaker and less-defined that the fake CCC, PAB & IAB marks. And the MH mark on your S-boat badge is IDENTICAL to the one shown on the fake flight clasp in Michael Tucker's book, page 102. Notice the exact same filled in part of the right leg of the "M", as well as the notched parts of the top of the box.

I actually think all these fake MH marks are the same, but some are just struck more deeply into some fakes, and less deeply in other fakes.

Tom

[Norm F]

Hi Carlo,
...
And the MH mark on your S-boat badge is IDENTICAL to the one shown on the fake flight clasp in Michael Tucker's book, page 102. Notice the exact same filled in part of the right leg of the "M", as well as the notched parts of the top of the box.
...

Hi Tom,

Nice comparison. For us non-Luftwaffe folk, could you quickly summarize what confirmed the Tucker flight clasp as a reproduction? Was this one of those cases of other fakes of the same type occurring with other marks?

Best regards,
---Norm

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Tom,

Nice comparison. For us non-Luftwaffe folk, could you quickly summarize what confirmed the Tucker flight clasp as a reproduction? Was this one of those cases of other fakes of the same type occurring with other marks?

Best regards,
---Norm

Hi Norm,

For some reason, I cannot find the pics of the MH-marked flight clasp. I must not have saved them. I remember us discussing it back in 2005 or 2006, so that was probably before I was keeping a good database of fakes. Maybe Gentry has pics of it saved he could post.

Tom

[John R.]

Hi Tom,

You lost me a bit here with the Tucker badge. You are saying the badge in his book is a fake. Are you saying you do not have an image of that badge on page 102? That is easy to get.

John