Destroyer Badge by Friedrich Orth

[Tom Yanacek]

Hello to all,
I am posting this f.o. Destroyer Badge in response to recent offering on the e-stand; that of a tombak Destroyer Badge by f.o.. In my opinion, original Destroyer Badges by f.o. are in zinc only and with a needle pin. I do sincerely welcome the seller as a new member to this forum, and I am not trying to blemish his reputation nor his experience. At the same time however, I truly believe that the badge posted on the e-stand is a fake. It is a well-known fake to many of us, and one that has fooled many collectors. The badge is a very good quality fake, but it has several flaws. The pin on the reverse typically bends like butter. On the front the badge is lacking the central spine to the anchor, and the door on the side of the superstructure, below the bridge is missing. Here is a Destroyer Badge by f.o. from my collection. This badge is original in my opinion, and is how they should look.
Best regards! Tom

[Tom Yanacek]

reverse

[Tom Yanacek]

pin, hinge, and catch

[Tom Yanacek]

maker mark

[Mike Kenny]

Hi,

Apart from the points Tom has mentioned, if you compare the INNER wreath/ship profile you will see vast differences between the genuine zinc Fo Destroyer and the repro.

I used to own the badge on the left, a genuine "textbook" Fo zincer - the badge was scanned lying at an angle, hence the right side looks blurry. The image on the right is from one of Detlev's "repros of the week" - I hope he doesn't mind. Imo, Detlev's repro and the E-stand badge have the same obverse and reverse features.

As Tom has indicated, this is not any sort of attack on the sellers reputation - simply highlighting a bad badge for what it is.

Regards
Mike K

[Ron Weinand]

f.o. Badge Time Frames

While I appreciate the efforts here, my question is how can you compare two totally different time frames of manufacture. It would be like comparing an RZM SA Dagger with an early, nickle silver SA Dagger with a manufacturer's TM. Totally different period of manufacture and totally different materials and dies.
Also, I hope that you are not implying that Orth only had one die for Destroyer Badge production. That would be like telling the US Mint to use only one die to produce the penny during a given year.
It is just like the difference seen in Assmann early Luft Badges and the later, war time production badges.
Just IMO,
Ron Weinand
Weinand Militaria

[nellyp51]

Ron

Sorry but what the guys are pointing out is correct, this type of award and set up is a known faker.

Good eye Mike .

These have been discussed before, you may be able to find the associated thread.

"However I am not so sure that these were produced by our friend Mr Floch, maybe one of our fellow collectors from up North could pop along to the next show and ask him."

[sb98]

Here are a few past threads that mention these fo destroyer badges.

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...estroyer+badge

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...estroyer+badge

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...estroyer+badge

[Ron Weinand]

f.o. Badge

I have looked at the attached threads concerning the fake f.o. badges and, while I see your points, my badge pin base hinge is NOT the same as the ones in the cited threads. Also, the finish gold is different and the front looks "flat" as compared to my version, especially the wave. All in all, I am still not convinced.
Thanks,
Ron Weinand
Weinand Miltiaria

[Mike Kenny]

...how can you compare two totally different time frames of manufacture. It would be like comparing an RZM SA Dagger with an early, nickle silver SA Dagger with a manufacturer's TM. Totally different period of manufacture and totally different materials and dies. :

Two totally different time frames? The destroyer badge was authorised late October 1940. Evidence from other badges indicate that the change from buntmetal/tombak to zinc occurred sometime around 1942/43 - that's only ballpark and would vary for manufacturers and even specific war badges. That's only 2 or 3 years, so I'm not sure that two totally different time frames is correct - I believe the opposite would be correct.

I hope that you are not implying that Orth only had one die for Destroyer Badge production. That would be like telling the US Mint to use only one die to produce the penny during a given year.
It is just like the difference seen in Assmann early Luft Badges and the later, war time production badges. :

Actually, that's absolutely what I'm implying for Fo Destroyer Badges, specifically Fo Destroyer Badges - only one die. There is absolutely NO comparison to the US mint penny production - Destroyer badges were required in very limited numbers, maybe a few 10s of thousands IN TOTAL (probably WAY LESS than 10,000 in reality) - spread across several different manufacturers over a period of 4 or so years - NOT MILLIONS of badges/pennies in one year! In reality, Orth may have only been required/contracted to produce 1000 or 2000 badges in total. Even if it was 10,000 I'd assume a die could handle that sort of volume before deteriorating.

The Assmann LW badge comparison is also not valid for at least two reasons;

1) several different variations of particular Assmann LW badges (eg Pilot's Badge) are known and accepted BECAUSE they have been sourced from German LW veterans. Further, for some of these LW badge types it is possible to encounter the same badge type produced from the same dies in both tombac and then in zinc, or neusilber and also in aluminium, etc.

2) production of some of these badges started in the mid to late thirties, an additional 5 or 6 years of production when compared to the Destroyer badge.

...Totally different period of manufacture and totally different materials and dies. :

In this instance you seem to be saying that the buntmetal/tombak Fo Destroyer Badges came from one die and the zinc Fo Destroyer badges came from another die. I actually agree with that statement, but only because the buuntmetal/tombak badge under discussion is a reproduction from post-war dies - but I'm being naughty and twisting yours words in this instance.

I'll go back and take the statement at face value. The statement means that at the exact same time the Orth changed from buntmetal/tombak to zinc, they also changed their dies. OK, WHY?? What evidence is there for this? There is plenty of evidence that many other companies did NOT do this - is they continued to use the same dies after changing from tombak to zinc - even prolific KM manufacturers like Schwerin. Why do we not see Fo zinc badges with the same die characteristics as your buntmetal/tombac example? Alternately, why do we not see buntmetal/tombac Fo destroyer badges with the same die characteristics as the known genuine zinc badges?

Regards
Mike K

[sb98]

I have looked at the attached threads concerning the fake f.o. badges and, while I see your points, my badge pin base hinge is NOT the same as the ones in the cited threads. Also, the finish gold is different and the front looks "flat" as compared to my version, especially the wave. All in all, I am still not convinced.
Thanks,
Ron Weinand
Weinand Miltiaria

Here's a composite of the badges from other threads that are considered fakes and the one in question on the e-stand. They all look the same to me and all have the characteristics Tom mentioned:

"On the front the badge is lacking the central spine to the anchor, and the door on the side of the superstructure, below the bridge is missing."

It's nothing personal, I'm just looking at the badges. I don't think there's any question these are all made by the same company.

Tim

[sb98]

backs -

[nellyp51]

Well pointed out Tim.

[Philippe DB]

Hi Ron,

Apart from what Mike already wrote try explaining this. Where are the other KM F.o tombak badges?

In fact do you know of the existance of even one F.o tombak badge be it KM or Heer?

For that matter could you give us ONE example of any maker that made ONE Tombak badge and than continued producing only zinc badges?

KR
Philippe

[mrg]

I agree with all the above comments.not one for me. Also did n,t the F0 mm have a die flaw in the O. The Buntmetal one shown looks to rounded and complete for me. Just a thought, please feel free to correct me if im wrong.