OK, I have made some very minor edits to Tony's and Norm's posts and the thread is now open.
The situation right now is that Tony desires a more comprehensive discussion of this badge. The badge has been removed from the Fake Gallery as he requested.
Tony does not accept the conclusions so far or at the minimum feels that the conclusions are simply opinions and not fact. Fair enough I think we can agree.
As I see it, but would like others to add to this discussion, the situation is that some, including me, feel that this particular badge has irregularities when compared to accepted originals of this type.
Specifically:
1. Top hook not consistent with accepted originals
2. Missing diagonal die flaw seen in most, but not all, period examples
3. Maker mark not consistent with accepted originals although we all have to admit there is variation in maker marks for period examples.
Tony has indicated that he will provide weights and measurements when he has them so that we can compare that data with other examples of this badge.
Further, Tony has demonstrated that the badge dates back to at least 1980 or so and therefore the statements that the badge is a new and dangerous fake is clearly not correct. It clearly is not new in any case but 1980 was still a long time after the war ended naturally.
I think this is where we stand so lets take it from here and discuss this badge in more detail.
John
The situation right now is that Tony desires a more comprehensive discussion of this badge. The badge has been removed from the Fake Gallery as he requested.
Tony does not accept the conclusions so far or at the minimum feels that the conclusions are simply opinions and not fact. Fair enough I think we can agree.
As I see it, but would like others to add to this discussion, the situation is that some, including me, feel that this particular badge has irregularities when compared to accepted originals of this type.
Specifically:
1. Top hook not consistent with accepted originals
2. Missing diagonal die flaw seen in most, but not all, period examples
3. Maker mark not consistent with accepted originals although we all have to admit there is variation in maker marks for period examples.
Tony has indicated that he will provide weights and measurements when he has them so that we can compare that data with other examples of this badge.
Further, Tony has demonstrated that the badge dates back to at least 1980 or so and therefore the statements that the badge is a new and dangerous fake is clearly not correct. It clearly is not new in any case but 1980 was still a long time after the war ended naturally.
I think this is where we stand so lets take it from here and discuss this badge in more detail.
John
Comment