Strange U-boat badge

[Patrick W]

Found this one in my junk box and was hoping for some thoughts on it- at first glance appears to be a poorly cast copy but looking closer I think it may be a heavily worn unmarked F&BL badge that has been refinished. Certainly the pin setup seems bang on- but the 65 on the pin? only seen this before on S&L pattern badges.
Does anyone have a 65 marked badge to compare the mark?

many thanks

[Patrick W]

,,

[Norm F]

Found this one in my junk box and was hoping for some thoughts on it- at first glance appears to be a poorly cast copy but looking closer I think it may be a heavily worn unmarked F&BL badge that has been refinished. Certainly the pin setup seems bang on- but the 65 on the pin? only seen this before on S&L pattern badges.
Does anyone have a 65 marked badge to compare the mark?

many thanks

Hi Patrick,

Very interesting. That same spurious "65" mark has now appeared on three different presumably Lüdenscheid-produced zinc U-Boats. This soft looking F&BL that you post here, the S&L that you mentioned and also the unknown maker 5-feather U-Boat badge.

In all cases the mark is a different font from the known "65" seen on K&Q's EK1.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Here's the "5-feather U-boat" with the same slanted "65" mark.

[Patrick W]

Hi Norm

Very interesting indeed, the marks look exactly the same- perhaps a distributer put them on there?

K&Q also used a different font mm on some KVKs

[Norm F]

Hi Norm

Very interesting indeed, the marks look exactly the same- perhaps a distributer put them on there?

K&Q also used a different font mm on some KVKs

Hi Patrick,

Depends on what you mean by "distributor".

I can't imagine these marks are legitimate. Firstly, they're different from any known K&Q "65" mark. Secondly, it's too much of a coincidence that mark is placed identically on the very same type of pin on three different U-Boat badges. To me, that suggests these badges weren't just marked after the fact, but rather likely assembled at the same time using the same pin stock.

The "5-feather" U-Boat is always a grey and controversial area since there are some post-war hollow examples, S&L was known to assemble badges post-war anyway, and the unmarked F&BL's also are of variable quality with the possibility that at least some were post-war assembled in Lüdenscheid.

Add to that the fact that PK numbers were not required or expected on official KM awards, and the very few times they occur on S&L ("4"-mark) and Mayer ("26"-mark) badges they appear to be on pin stock borrowed from EK and KVK assembly lines.

So to me the most likely scenario is that all three of the "65"-marked U-Boats were post-war assembled if not produced.

Best regards,
---Norm

[BubbaZ]

These all badges could also be marked early postwar by a greedy dealer in order to raise the value since in the past unmarked badges were considerably less desired by collector's community than their marked counterparts.
Cheers,
Hubert

[Nordmark]

The badge that started this thread is an absolutely obvious fake in my opinion. This one looks awful.



Daniel

[Thomas Durante]

These all badges could also be marked early postwar by a greedy dealer in order to raise the value since in the past unmarked badges were considerably less desired by collector's community than their marked counterparts.
Cheers,
Hubert

Yes, very possible. We know of several S&L Para badges with spurious maker marks as well (L/56, L/12, etc.). Its possible that S&L did this themselves, but could also have been dealers trying to spice up the badges for collectors.

Tom

[Norm F]

These all badges could also be marked early postwar by a greedy dealer in order to raise the value since in the past unmarked badges were considerably less desired by collector's community than their marked counterparts.
Cheers,
Hubert

Hi Hubert,

It's possible, but again it seems an odd coincidence for a 3rd party to acquire fully completed badges of three completely different maker's U-Boat designs and mark them all with the same PK number in the same spot of the same pin type. If it was really an indiscriminate and random sampling, I'd expect the mark on a variety of other badges and in different locations as well rather than on exactly the same type of pin every time. It seems to me more likely a "Floch-like" practise of assembling leftovers (plus or minus reproduced planchets) from the same supply of pin stock, and like you say marked to raise the value at the same time.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Patrick W]

Interesting comments Guys- Norm I find that these being post war assembled using marked pins as being a less likely theory simply because we have 3 different designs of u-boat badge. The other theory that they may have been marked by a dealer is I think more likely

Nordmark- I agree that the badge looks awful but something has happened to it- worn down and then thickly gold finished. If you look at the setup it matches L/56 perfectly - also look at the sharp piece beneath the flag - again typical L/56 feature

[Nordmark]

Nordmark- I agree that the badge looks awful but something has happened to it- worn down and then thickly gold finished. If you look at the setup it matches L/56 perfectly - also look at the sharp piece beneath the flag - again typical L/56 feature

Hello Patrick,


any chance you can throw this in a bath of acetone or would you rather not do it? I see where you are coming from, but the rear end of the sub looks plain wrong, but as you say, maybe the thick gold wash explains it...


Regards,


Daniel

[Norm F]

Norm I find that these being post war assembled using marked pins as being a less likely theory simply because we have 3 different designs of u-boat badge. The other theory that they may have been marked by a dealer is I think more likely

Hi Patrick,

Could be. It just seemed odd to me that someone would seek out only U-Boats with that same type of pin, and not mark any other products with the same number. And all three are badge types with a bit of post-war assembly controversy around them already, as opposed to marking an unmarked Juncker, Deumer or Schickle.

But as you and Hubert have said, it's sure possible nevertheless someone picked up a variety of less marketable leftover zincers from the end of the war and tried to make them more desirable.

I tend towards Dietrich's sentiments at this point; if it's not a wartime awarded or sold piece then it's "second string" regardless of whether it's leftover stock, post-war assembly or post-war production. You could argue that leftover stock completed badges are more desirable than post-war assembly but much of the time we probably can't tell the difference anyway...

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

...
Nordmark- I agree that the badge looks awful but something has happened to it- worn down and then thickly gold finished.

Hi Patrick,

I agree the badge is likely refinished (or oddly finished in the first place post-war). You can see grey zinc in the crevices while the highlights are all thickly gilded - the opposite of what you'd expect in wear.

As per the recent thread discussion on the acetone test, one could take a cotton swab dipped in acetone and test a small spot on an inner margin or on the reverse without heavy scrubbing. If it dissolves quickly (as opposed to slowly with further scrubbing) then it's a bogus finish, whereas if it doesn't dissolve or dissolves only slightly with heavier scrubbing then there's nothing additional learned from the test.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Patrick W]

I agree Norm- doesn't realluy matter if post war put together or post war produced- still equals not wartime! although i think many collectors would prefer post war put together from original stock

I will try some acetone on it and see what happens!

pa anyone seen an L/56 with cut out swaz before?