unusual Juncker U-Boat

[Norm F]

So either this example is totally bogus or the reverse has been totally professionally reworked.

Regards
Mike

Hi Mike,

That's an interesting thought -- possibly a professionally reworked reverse. I agree the tube hinge appears a bit off from the usual Juncker tube hinge as well.

The obverse and even the edges and saw marks are too disturbingly like the other example for me to call the whole badge a reproduction -- unless they're both reproductions -- but the tube hinge looks good on the other example.

Maybe everyone with early variant Junckers (not the later ones with the uniformly stamped cutouts) could look closely at their tube hinges and badge edges and chip in with some comparisons?

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Hm. I'm thinking more about that "re-worked reverse" theory.

Looking around, I see that Staegemeir has indeed turned his attentions to the Juncker U-Boat badge, at least the "2nd pattern" Type 3.1. And who knows what "generation" this is?

The attached fake is an easy spot, but it occurred to me that the good fakers would have to remove the hardware from an original and do separate castings of both badge and hardware to craft their components for later assembly. And the original used for that would then presumably be "restored" so it wasn't a total write-off, even if the original hardware was no longer suitable for the purpose. Seems like a good reason for a "professionally re-worked reverse" perhaps?

All paranoid musings at this point, but still an interesting line of thought.

[John T]

Hello all, the fakers read these forums, there is a major feature I have seen in these reverse assemblies, on this badge (IMHO a fake, but I respect other views) and on many other of the better made fakes, and we really (I know it is gets tired to hear it) do not need to educate them anymore but they are doing something wrong on this piece and if they correct it, detection will be a rougher road. These points that have not been outlined go against conventional wisdom but are clear as day.

[John T]

On another point, when did you ever really see Juncker U-Boat Badges in comparison to Schwerin examples with regards to the numbers? Not that often I would say. Now they are popping up all over it seems indeed. I think that is great because I love the design but on the other hand I think somebody or some other persons have recognized the beauty of the design and have exploited this.

[Norm F]

Hi John,

I infer two points from your postings (correct me if I'm wrong):

1) You're suggesting we shouldn't be posting analyses of badges because the fakers learn from this and improve their products?

2) A lot of the "good" Juncker U-Boats we're seeing lately are fakes? Or perhaps you were suggesting that since the real Junckers have had more exposure lately, they've become a target for the fakers and we're about to see more attempts?

Regarding the first point, this has indeed been discussed before, and the view I subscribe to is that the fakers have the original badge in hand to already see the discrepancies in their product and improve it if they desire, whereas the unsuspecting collector benefits more from the discussion threads to learn the finer points to distinguish the real from the fake which hurts the fakers (and the dealers in fakes). If we abandon these discussions then I fear collecting is doomed. And simple threads where people pronounce "good" or "fake" with no explanation benefit no one and potentially damn good badges which also hurts the hobby. Finally, discussions behind closed doors amongst collectors "in the know" to identify their fakes also does nothing to prevent the hobby from going to Hell in a hand basket as the vast majority of collectors are left to their errors.

The digital age is upon us. Pandora's box is open already and fakers are out there whether we like it or not. We are unable go back to a simpler time before the internet when collecting was a private matter and there was no perceived mass market. So we have to make the best of it and continue the "good fight", in my opinion.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Tom,

Perhaps this comparison shows better what I'm trying to say. Although the catch views aren't the same, the wire thickness is identical and they both seem slightly atypical (I tossed in a Juncker Minesweeper catch for comparison.)

Hi Norm,

All I can continue to say is that the catch on the badge that started this thread does not remind me of Juncker badges. To me, it is different in shape, wire thickness, and the way it is cut to originals.

For the record, I like the first 1.1.2. badge you show, it is a textbook Juncker catch IMO. I also like the look of your minesweeper catch. Although it is a different shape, it has other haulmarks that I look for on Juncker catches.

On your second 1.1.2. you show, I am not sure because we don't see enough of the catch to be sure. It could be OK, but maybe not.

And ofcourse the one that started this thread, I really do not like the catch.

I agree with you that the saw marks are a good match, and that is disconcerting to say the least. Saw marks on Juncker badges is a good sign, so it is interesting that the one that started this thread has some good cuts on it. But I just cannot get past the reverse. And it is not just the pin that is making it question it, to me it is the entire look of the back. It looks frosted, or foggy if you will, which is the way I see many other fake badges. Its just a weird look that is not like originals IMO.

Tom

p.s., I have the same outlook as you regarding the fakers reading the forum. I can see where John is coming from, and that we should not point out all the flaws we see with fake badges. Especially with Staegemeir fakes. But we still need to talk about these badges, discuss them and point out the fake badges when we see them. The fakes are getting better, no doubt about it. So I will continue to call out these fakes when I see them, but won't mention all of the things that are wrong with them. My opinion is that the fakers will never get their fakes 100% correct, there will always be something wrong with them. Staegemeir is the best faker out there, but he has been at it for more than 10 years now and we can still identify his products, even the latest ones.

Tom

[germanmedals]

Not a badge for my collection for sure

[Norm F]

Not a badge for my collection for sure

It may very well be bad (certainly the hardware seems to be at least). While I appreciate and encourage folks chipping in with their views, it would be much more helpful to include an explanation of the particular characteristics to support one's view for or against any badge. Otherwise it's much too subjective, and not too useful I'm afraid.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Hi Guys,

On the parallel thread on GCA it was pointed out that Staegemeir has indeed copied the "1st pattern" Type 1 as well, and indeed the obverse looks pretty good while the reverse is a giveaway. We don't have closeups of the margins to compare unfortunately. But if this was available in 2007 as it seems, then there could have been "refinements" since then.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Just updating this thread with the link to another example that has turned up like the one at the top of this thread, and these are now confirmed as being high end reproductions. Ongoing vigilance is required!

U Boat Badge unmarked

That thread links to another which shows some other fakes that are possibly related including a fake "Juncker" Observer badge with the same production values.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

For the record, I like the first 1.1.2. badge you show, it is a textbook Juncker catch IMO. I also like the look of your minesweeper catch. Although it is a different shape, it has other haulmarks that I look for on Juncker catches.

On your second 1.1.2. you show, I am not sure because we don't see enough of the catch to be sure. It could be OK, but maybe not.
...
I agree with you that the saw marks are a good match, and that is disconcerting to say the least. Saw marks on Juncker badges is a good sign, so it is interesting that the one that started this thread has some good cuts on it.

Hi Tom,

In light of the second fake that turned up in the other thread, I was considering again what you said above about the second 1.1.2 example. That was the example with the saw marks virtually identical to what we now call a fake.

Here again you see the 1.1.2 with the typical Juncker catch that you liked above the second example which had so much in common with the "weird rounded-pin" fakes. You'll recall that Chuck (vonStubben) had heard negative opinions on these cutout versions, and I believe Gordon Williamson has some reservations about some of these as well, although he definitely supports with his postings the existence of the rare high quality cutout version with straight pin.

So we really have to consider the likelihood that we have another dangerous fake on our hands in the form of a cutout version similar to the "weird rounded-pin" fakes but with a more convincing straight pin setup. In fact, when you compare the eagle of the good 1.1.2 (left side) with the suspect second example and the "rounded-pin" fake you can see the that good badge on the left is different from the the other two.

In summary, the emergence of the weird rounded-pin fakes has allowed us to make comparisons that help us identify the probable straight-pin fakes.

Best regards,
---Norm

[BubbaZ]

Hi Norm,
Thanks for the comparison
Something else struck me when I looked on this suspect U-boat: the color of the bare basemetal on the reverse (it has no finish left), the color of the pin, hinge and the catch are exactly the same as if all of it was made from exactly the same material... and the way catch is soldered is also a bit off. There are more differences in the design - look at the area between eagle's legs and the feathers on the legs.
I lean to think it is a fake.
Cheers,
Hubert