Sawfish patches/small battle units

[Norm F]

As you can see, I am not the only one, who gives thumb up or thumb down, without a deep analysis. On the other hand, how do we know, that what I believe is original really is original? We don´t, which really means it´s all BS and hence worthless!

Hi Ludwig,

Your comment suggests that you don't own an example with clear provenance for posting and analysis. But in a previous thread you said:

...but as I am planning a book about the K-Verbände, I have to keep some goodies til then. I´m sorry and I hope you understand.

Can we presume then that you are withholding evidence pending publication? And if so, how firm is your resolve to publish and what is your tentative timeline?

Despite being published, John and I post freely of our knowledge and analysis but of course we're just collectors without remuneration or royalties so I recognize others may have legitimate business reasons to be more cagey.

And yes, unfortunately it's not uncommon that we see the quick "thumbs up or thumbs down" responses without further explanation or analysis, but these simply aren't helpful to the collecting community, regardless of who's posting them.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Ludwig]

There is no doubt Ludwig that you have participated in many threads. What I don't understand is why you are unwilling to help increase everyones knowledge of these patches by posting your vet groups and provenance. Do you think that it is some badge of honor that you are the only person who knows anything about these patches? Are you deliberately trying to make sure that there is not much known about these things so you can increase your own collection of them? I just don't understand why someone would act the way you are.
jeff

1) I have never got any KdK-grouping directly from a KdK veteran or his family, so IMO there is no 100% provenance. I have bought everything I have from dealers or other collectors. What do you say about that "provenance"? Just read in other threads (about Knight´s crosses for example) about what is said about that kind of "provenance"!

2) Why should I be the only person here knowing something about these patches? In fact I don´t think that´s the case! I have never called me an expert!!! Please note that!!! Only other people have.

3) Analysis? I haven´t analysed this (the badges) deeper than Norm F has! What´s wrong with his analys? What more do you want?
IMO you are just provoking and I can just speculate why.

4) Do you attack and insult all persons here, who just say "yes" or "no", when they are commenting an item?
Do you present an analysis of everything you comment yourself? If not – why?

[JAndrew]

There is also a grouping to K.leut Georg Meissner on Emedals which includes a sawfish badge among other things but there is no proof offered that this is a wartime example and I did not see this listed on his awards page (unless I missed it) in his post war Marine Wehrpass.
JAndrew

[Jeff V]

So the bottom line is- other than the one in the museum, there is no way of knowing what is an original patch or not. We can find the ones being sold as fake and that eliminates some. For the others, blacklight and burn tests. After that, no way of knowing what is authentic and what is fake. It stands to reason that there was more than one manufacturer of these awards. Like Norm said, it takes a great amount of faith to buy any of these patches.
jeff

[Ludwig]

Hi Ludwig,

Your comment suggests that you don't own an example with clear provenance for posting and analysis. But in a previous thread you said:



Can we presume then that you are withholding evidence pending publication? And if so, how firm is your resolve to publish and what is your tentative timeline?

Despite being published, John and I post freely of our knowledge and analysis but of course we're just collectors without remuneration or royalties so I recognize others may have legitimate business reasons to be more cagey.

And yes, unfortunately it's not uncommon that we see the quick "thumbs up or thumbs down" responses without further explanation or analysis, but these simply aren't helpful to the collecting community, regardless of who's posting them.

Best regards,
---Norm

1) Can´t it be goodies even if there is no provenance? Perhaps I don´t understand the meaning of the word "provenance"?
2) Yes, I am withholding some photos, thinking of one day publishing a book about KdK. Just as all other collectors would do! Would you post very rare pictures here, if you intended to write and publish a book? Of course not!
3) Evidence? What evidence? Evidence of what? Perhaps I´m just stupid, but I still don´t understand what kind of evidence you are talking about!
4) Royalties? Business? This hobby costs me money! I don´t earn any! Sometimes I don´t even get a "Thank you" in books (Gordon Williamson for example). If/when I finally publish something, it sure will not be for the money! This is a much too small area and too much work, for profit!
5) Am I on trial here? Am I breaking any rules? Is there any obligation, that if you are a memeber here, you have to show everything you have in detail? Then you guys have very much to do, attacking and insulting other persons here!!!

[amiklic1]

There is no doubt Ludwig that you have participated in many threads. What I don't understand is why you are unwilling to help increase everyones knowledge of these patches by posting your vet groups and provenance. Do you think that it is some badge of honor that you are the only person who knows anything about these patches? Are you deliberately trying to make sure that there is not much known about these things so you can increase your own collection of them? I just don't understand why someone would act the way you are.
jeff

I think that you have pulled the trigger too fast in this discussion, as Ludwig is really helping. Maybe not much as somebody would like, but we must not forget that the forum discussion became tutorials for the guys who are making reproductions, so I salute a certain amount of secrecy here.

For me, it's enough to post and see an advice. Anyway I cannot buy it without reference or forum thread, as there is just not enough material to learn out there.

[Jeff V]

I think that you have pulled the trigger too fast in this discussion, as Ludwig is really helping. Maybe not much as somebody would like, but we must not forget that the forum discussion became tutorials for the guys who are making reproductions, so I salute a certain amount of secrecy here.

For me, it's enough to post and see an advice. Anyway I cannot buy it without reference or forum thread, as there is just not enough material to learn out there.

I disagree. This thread was started about how funny it was that someone had spent 600 euros on a fake patch while a "real" one went unsold. I don't find it "funny" that someone lost 600 euros on a fake because there is so much secrecy in this part of the hobby.
jeff

[Norm F]

1) Can´t it be goodies even if there is no provenance? Perhaps I don´t understand the meaning of the word "provenance"?
2) Yes, I am withholding some photos, thinking of one day publishing a book about KdK. Just as all other collectors would do! Would you post very rare pictures here, if you intended to write and publish a book? Of course not!
3) Evidence? What evidence? Evidence of what? Perhaps I´m just stupid, but I still don´t understand what kind of evidence you are talking about!
4) Royalties? Business? This hobby costs me money! I don´t earn any! Sometimes I don´t even get a "Thank you" in books (Gordon Williamson for example). If/when I finally publish something, it sure will not be for the money! This is a much too small area and too much work, for profit!
5) Am I on trial here? Am I breaking any rules? Is there any obligation, that if you are a member here, you have to show everything you have in detail? Then you guys have very much to do, attacking and insulting other persons here!!!

Hi Ludwig,

Definitely not on trial. No rules broken and you have no obligations here. And I'm not attacking you. I'm simply pointing out how it's possible for readers to get frustrated by the way some of your posts are perceived. You have 13,000+ posts on this forum over 11 years -- one of the most prolific posters on WAF -- and you've often hinted or shown tiny pictures of what appears to be a tantalizing collection of K-Verbände artifacts, but still no detailed images and no analyses in all that time. Until this thread, I had no idea that you have no groupings from a vet source or equivalent provenance, and I think others had the same impression. So I thank you for clearing that up.

I've seen Jeff make very gracious comments about your posts in the past and expressed gratitude, but in this particular case his frustration has bubbled to the surface. His point is valid: why shouldn't one pass up a patch on e-stand and buy a different one from a dealer when there has been no proof posted by you or anyone else that one is better than the other. In your 13,000 posts you've provided your opinions many times but never presented the evidence that has provided the basis for your opinions. I'm not saying you aren't correct, only that you've never supported your opinions in a substantive manner that would benefit others, while simultaneously encouraging everyone else to speak their opinions as much as possible. So be it.

The most compelling evidence posted to date (such as it is) is the two examples mentioned previously. The more examples and sources we can post and study on this forum the better, and I hope your book comes out soon if it has anything more to contribute to the topic. I'm not the right person to ask if I would hold back rare photos pending a publication, since I most certainly would not hold back if it was up to me. I think it's all about sharing information as much as possible, but that's just me and I don't hold others to the same standard. And although many may share Andjelo's fears about fakers, I still maintain that it's the secrecy that serves the fakers and the businessmen and not the analyses.

Best regards,
---Norm

[90th Light]

Can someone please provide a link to the one that Ludwig has for sale ?

I have no bone in this fight but in the good old days before the internet. The ones with "provenance" were the type that Ludwig is saying are the "original" type.

The one on the cover of this book was a known to have been awarded, documented & obtained before May 1945. It certainly had more going for it than the LW para badge and perhaps the cuff title also on that cover.

It seems to be very hard today, to find one with a swordfish and just the rope but no swords. Original examples made before May 1945 of just the sword fish on its own and nothing else (for being a member of this unit) are the most common that still turn up. This makes sense when you stop and think about it.

The old collections are the key to the past on this one,

Chris

[John R.]

I have noticed there is a difference at the end of each of the "accepted" sawfish rostrums.

Please see attached images. At the end, the last denticle is shaped back towards the sawfish.

We need Ludwig's help though since in his post #12, he says that example is also good, but it does not match the this characteristic in the others.

John

[John R.]

2

[John R.]

3

[John R.]

4

[John R.]

I have not studied quite yet the long list of Ludwig's post 45 in this thread, but will get around to it later.

With the exception of the patch in post 12, they are all consistent in rostrum design. The post 12 patch needs a bit more study I think.

So Ludwig's advice on period patchs, as best as I can see, is very consistent and if we stuck with those patches, I think we have a good start.

I see little reason to study the fake or not accepted patches when the first step might be the study of period patches. All "period" patches, whether in Ludwig's collection, in a museum, or owned by another collector, are all very similar in rostrum design at the end of the rostrum.

Reverse stitching, from what I can see, if not of much use to my eye.

John

[John R.]

Based on this study, then the collector would have avoided the patch sold by Carsten Baldes IMO.

John