Tombak Minesweeper - good?

[ravrick]

Hi, I would appreicate any thoughts on this badge, i thinks it's ok but what do other members think?
Cheers,
Rick

[Norm F]

Hi Rick,

It looks like a heavily worn Schickle with a replaced main pin and catch. Can you show closeups of the hinge and catch?

Best regards,
---Norm

[Mike Kenny]

I agree, it appears to be genuine tombak badge (I do see some softness, possibly indicating a casting, but clearer pics would be required) with a replaced main pin (looks like it's from one of the recent EK1 fakes - imo definitely not period) and a repaired catch (on a catchplate which should not be present).

Regards
Mike

[Ludwig]

Yes, more and better pictures needed!

[petopoint]

Tombak MS

Ditto, photos are not clear or concise. Definitely has a mismatched Pin and Catch not of the original Badge. It very well could be an original Tombak MS.

[BubbaZ]

I agree, it looks like heavily worn tombak Schickle minesweeper with replaced main pin and catch.
Here is mine.
Cheers,
Hubert

[ravrick]

Thanks for the comments guys, much appreicated,
Rick

[Martyn1]

Strange really on the back of me posting this badge [which I had owned for a number of years] for evaluation on this forum a couple of months back and it straight away being condemned as a cast fake and in one instance a ''crappy fake'',which I respected I sold it as a reproduction with two reproduction helmet shields all as originality not guarenteed the photos you see have been lifted from there so there won't be any close up's available.Yet now the same badge has a good chance of being declared as an original tombak badge allbeit with replaced pin and catch I dare say the photos reproduced here are not the best but they are good enough I think for a good or bad diagnosis given the badge has already been evaluated here on the forum,so in reality does this mean I have just parted company with a perfectly good tombak minesweepers badge for next to no money,no,I dont think so.Its not the money that bothers me as I sold it as a reproduction originality not guaranteed but this reproduction badge is now on the road to being declared as genuine and as such could be sold to some unsuspecting collector based on this thread as having had the ''thumbs up'' on the Wehrmacht-Awards forum which worries me.Safe to say from now on any badges I have in the future that turn out to be reprodutions will be going straight in the bin.

[Norm F]

so in reality does this mean I have just parted company with a perfectly good tombak minesweepers badge for next to no money, no,I dont think so.Its not the money that bothers me as I sold it as a reproduction originality not guaranteed but this reproduction badge is now on the road to being declared as genuine and as such could be sold to some unsuspecting collector based on this thread as having had the ''thumbs up'' on the Wehrmacht-Awards forum which worries me.Safe to say from now on any badges I have in the future that turn out to be reproductions will be going straight in the bin.

Hi Martyn1,

Very interesting, thanks for point that out. I have now found your previous thread:
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=654060

And I see on that thread I did indeed suggest it was a cast reproduction, your slightly sharper photos showing some fine pitting of the surface.

On the photos in this current thread, I thought it could be a heavily worn/stripped original with replaced pin and catch, but also I requested closeups of the hinge and catch - concerns that were repeated in the comments of Mike, Ludwig and petopoint.

On the basis of the limited photos available it's hard to be sure either way, although you have had the badge in hand which gives you an advantage. I'd be more inclined towards original if closeups revealed the standard hollow hinge block like that seen on the attached example. But even if genuine, it is of limited appeal without any of original finish, wear to the point of pitting and hardware replaced on what is a pretty common type of badge.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Here are two other Schickle Minesweepers with alternate setups. Notice that althogh they are both heavily worn they still retain the silver metal plating on the reverse. Contrast that with the example under discusssion which seems to have zero plating remaining. In my mind this is unlikely to occur with normal wear and suggests either intentional stripping or a ground dug condition (if real).

Best regards,
---Norm

[Mike Kenny]

It's amazing how changes in picture quality can effect replies!

I read every thread here but, given time differences, don't post on every thread if I have nothing of value to add to multiple previous posts, so I would have see Martyn's original thread and saw nothing to disagree with the comments already posted, based on the decent quality pics.

The obverse DOES have a cast/pitted appearance in those better pics and there are indications of casting on the reverse however, the latter could be inherent in the metal and more apparent because of the absence of finish. In either case, the hardware is still totally wrong.

One possibility to explain the condition of this example if it is original: a wreck/groundfound badge with recently replaced hardware (still a low value example though)

Maybe Rick could provide some CLEAR EDGE SHOTS to see if this is a casting once and for all?

Regards
Mike

PS: as a general rule, having an item in hand and using a combination of experience, knowledge and gut feeling has much more value to me than forum consensus. I have more than one item that I have kept despite forum consensus.

[ravrick]

Hi,
a very informative thread, however I didn't win the auction so I don't have the badge and I can't add close up photos. It will be interesting to see if it resurfaces again, but I do think some valid points have been raised...
cheers,
Rick