Cloth Destroyer on E-Stand

[Patrick W]

Norm

I don't dispute that there are examples available for sale currently but I think it's misleading to imply that these badges are common place- a lot of those images you posted are not of examples currently available but I assume from archives and forums over the last months/ years?

I am sure there have been more genuine anti partisan badges posted for review or sale over the last years than there have cloth destroyer badges and I wouldn't say they are common items

[Norm F]

I am sure there have been more genuine anti partisan badges posted for review or sale over the last years than there have cloth destroyer badges and I wouldn't say they are common items

Fair enough Patrick. Perhaps not "common place" but neither are they rare -- sort of on par with the Assmann Minesweeper. But the Assmann Minesweeper can be seen in a period photo in wear and is rarely found in mint condition like these cloth Destroyers always seem to be. Even the Kleinkampfverbände candidate's cloth patch, which was introduced very late in the war and is much more rare, has shown up in period photos and groupings. The only photograph showing the Destroyer patch is a different, less common type.

I'm not ruling out the possibility of some of these being wartime, but just pointing out the concerns and the lack of evidence to date.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

- a lot of those images you posted are not of examples currently available but I assume from archives and forums over the last months/ years?

Of the 15 examples I just posted, 8 are from current dealer listings. Plus the one on e-stand that's 9 for sale currently on just the websites that I polled.
(I do notice that the one on e-stand is considerably less expensive then those on other dealers' sites.)

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

This type and the ditto U-Boat wasn't that difficult to find some +25 years ago and almost impossible to sell. Just my two bits.

Hi Peter,

I presume by "ditto U-Boat" you mean this type of very similar construction? Certainly the very same cloth backing as the first group of Destroyers with the close-knit backing.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Jeff V]

Isn't there a period picture with one of these cloth u-boats in it?

[John R.]

Yes Jeff, in Torpedo Los. Of course, we can now expect somebody to say we cannot prove it was not photo shopped even though Gordon states very clearly that the cloth examples were worn during the war. He has/had a lot of experience with vet collections and the U-boat museum in Germany, so his word should carry weight due to his research sources.

I can also understand why photographic evidence is scarce. The cloth version was most probably worn on coveralls. It certainly would not have been sewn into the blue sailor/officer uniform. The cloth patches would make sense to have been used by some sailors on their working uniforms, especially engine ratings.

Not popular perhaps, but even a small percentage of a large Navy results in quite a high number of men.

I personally do not agree that any of the posted examples are clearly post-war since you cannot prove that as fact. Fact is that there are advertisements from a multitude of makers more than happy to sell them to anybody with the money. That explains the variations in the backing, etc.

Then there is the regulation that you could not wear it after a certain date. Fine, maybe the reg was talking about pea coats and other uniforms, but nobody cared what onboard ratings were using on their work outfits.

The operative phrase is "I guess" and the fact is that determining when these patches were made and when they were worn is pure guesswork.

I think they are as likely period as anything else perhaps, but this post war fake implication has killed the cloth hobby in other areas of the Wehrmacht and now here we are with these patches, long in collections and certainly looking like they did not just come out of a Pakistani factory, being called probably post war creations.

Unfortuanetly, in those other areas many cloth items have fallen victim to the "if it is in the guru's collection, it is good, and if it is not, it is bad." Then the guru will not explain why his artifact is good so the evil "fakers" cannot hone their nefarious skills.

I see no reason to get worried about the KM patches--they are not expensive and they are not going to ruin a collection if you went against the internet forum determinations of fakery and bought one.

John

[Norm F]

I personally do not agree that any of the posted examples are clearly post-war since you cannot prove that as fact. Fact is that there are advertisements from a multitude of makers more than happy to sell them to anybody with the money. That explains the variations in the backing, etc.

Hi John,

Just to be clear, I agree with you. I never said they were clearly post-war but rather:

I'm not ruling out the possibility of some of these being wartime, but just pointing out the concerns and the lack of evidence to date.

We're just fortunate to have U-Boat patches with provenance and photos of the Minesweeper patch in wear despite that fact that they're more rare than these Destroyer patches (which are all mint). Although we have a photo of the other type of Destroyer patch in wear, we currently lack any convincing evidence that the Destroyer patches of this thread are wartime. But neither do we have any proof they are post-war. For now, it remains a matter a conjecture and faith much like the Sniper patch (although they're more common than the Sniper patch).

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Isn't there a period picture with one of these cloth u-boats in it?

The photo in Torpedo Los on page 197 of Wolfgang Lüth is unfortunately too small and low resolution to tell which type of cloth U-Boat badge Lüth is wearing - machine or hand embroidered. Gordon has acknowledged this in the past, but also had access at one time to a better photo of an enlisted man wearing what was clearly a machine embroidered cloth U-Boat patch. However, it was still hard to tell exactly which variant. The problem is that the more common type (as posted before) is very similar (yet different from) the rarer type with provenance so we still need proof for that one -- just like the Destroyer of the same construction.

Again, I'm not saying there's any proof the variant on the left is post-war, only that it lacks the level of evidence that we have for the variant on the right. That's simply the state of affairs at this time.

Best regards,
---Norm

[John R.]

Norm,

It does not matter if a particular patch matches or does not match a photo. There were probably dozens of makers in Germany of cloth items, including KM war badge patches--just like metal badges but without the regulatory oversight. Probably.

A single photo is not the standard, it cannot be.

The evidence standard you are requiring simply is not possible to attain, which should be self evident.

I guess we could say where is the photo showing that a U-boat man is wearing a Meybauer, or any other metal badge. No, we go by German vet groupings, period literature, etc. Same standard should be applied to the cloth badge, not a higher standard.

These patches were created, most probably, to be a convenience to the sailors so their metal badges, if worn at all aboard ship, would not catch on machinery.

I have a great deal of experience in engine rooms, boiler rooms, and electrical rooms. Nobody wore rings or watches or anything metallic for obvious reasons. Germans seem to have loved their badges, and the cloth patch was probably a measure implemented to address the work place environment of a warship.

I think in the end the patch was not popular, not worn by many, but worn by some.

I see no possible way to catalog every single cloth badge but that does not mean we should tread with fear--the valuation of these cloth badges has never been so high as to represent a real risk to the collector--just the opposite, the uncertainty has led to the ability of collectors to obtain these badges at relatively low prices, well under $300 for the most part with the U-boat cloth examples commanding the higher prices, along with MS cloth badges.

The lower valuations of war badges is why a higher standard is required for the special unit qualification patches since those are priced at multiples of the war badge price. Same goes for the Marinefrontspange and the dubious metal sawfish insignia. They demand a higher standard and you, and other members of this forum, have done a good job in the analysis of those insignia.

The pricing of the cloth war badge, for most, but not all (for example some buillion examples are going to be expensive), while not exempting them from analysis, at least protects the collector from a major mistake while rewarding that same collector for making up their own minds on those awards.

Bottom line to me is that we do not know everything about German Navy uniform artifacts and no amount of work today is going to change that, especially for these particular artifacts.

John

[Norm F]

Bottom line to me is that we do not know everything about German Navy uniform artifacts and no amount of work today is going to change that, especially for these particular artifacts.

John

Hi John,

You covered a lot in that message but I'll start with your bottom line. I agree "we do not know everything about uniform artifacts" (indeed very little), but I disagree that "no amount of work today is going to change that". Who knows what further information may come to light from worldwide internet postings by collectors of their experiences, groupings and photographs? Continued questioning and vigilance and piecing together of information like parts of a puzzle is part of the fun of this hobby and cloth isn't any less worthy of this process than metal although admittedly more challenging.

And for any given item, a cloth badge as well, it's important to the collector to know at least what is the current level of evidence, whether high or low.

For metal badges we compile evidence from many sources:
1) wartime catalogs
2) maker marks
3) comparative analysis of setups and manufacturing characteristics to other makers' products and known wartime awards
4) period publications, descriptions and regulations
5) period photographs in wear
6) German veteran groupings (preferably family direct when available)
7) materials and finish analysis

Sometimes, the info adds up in a convincing manner and other times it's extremely sparse, but we continue the process whether the award is worth $2,000 or $20 dollars, because a) no one really wants a fake in their collection and b) that's part of the fun in the hobby (for some of us).

It's this process that has shown the community published wartime notices of regulations around cloth awards, photos of U-Boat, Destroyer and Minesweeper patches in wear and U-Boat and Destroyer patches with varying degrees of provenance. It's been a useful process so far. It's also had its limits so far. No reason to give up though.

I have seen photos of the Assmann, Schwerin, Deumer, and Schickle-type Minesweeper badges in wear. That doesn't mean the other Minesweeper badges are not wartime but we turn to other areas of evidence for those including veterans' groupings like you said. Likewise I'm not saying because we don't have a photo showing the Destroyer patches from this thread in wear they must all be post-war. I'm just saying (again) we still lack the evidence they are wartime and that we are fortunate to have a better level of evidence for some other variants of cloth.

Some will continue to collect them on faith and some who require more evidence for the items in their collection will pass on them. The same applies to "French-made" badges and some late wartime-compatible zincers. That's the current state of affairs, and in my opinion it would be deleterious to our understanding and to the hobby to suggest there was no controversy about them.

Best regards,
---Norm

[John R.]

Norm,

You quoted me correctly and paraphrased me later incorrectly. I stated:

we do not know everything about German Navy uniform artifacts and no amount of work today is going to change that

The operative word is everything.

John

[Norm F]

The pricing of the cloth war badge, for most, but not all (for example some bullion examples are going to be expensive), while not exempting them from analysis, at least protects the collector from a major mistake while rewarding that same collector for making up their own minds on those awards.

I agree if one is talking about a $10 cloth trade patch, but $150+ for a Destroyer patch is still more than petty change for many collectors and worthy of reviewing the supporting evidence in my opinion.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Norm,

You quoted me correctly and paraphrased me later incorrectly. I stated:

we do not know everything about German Navy uniform artifacts and no amount of work today is going to change that

The operative word is everything.

John

Ah, I see. Yes indeed we'll never know everything no matter how much work we do, but we can still strive to know more.

I know we're never really very far apart in our views in these long discussions.

Best regards,
---Norm

[John R.]

Even the Kleinkampfverbände candidate's cloth patch, which was introduced very late in the war and is much more rare, has shown up in period photos and groupings. The only photograph showing the Destroyer patch is a different, less common type.

I'm not ruling out the possibility of some of these being wartime, but just pointing out the concerns and the lack of evidence to date.

Best regards,
---Norm

Well, I agree with your latest long post, but while the above is correct, it is for the wrong reasons or an observation derived from incorrect reasoning.

The Kleinkampfverbände series of patches usually went on, or was seen, on the blue sailor uniform, a walking out or uniform of the day uniform, and one worn in most photos.

The cloth combat badge I believe was worn on coveralls or something like that aboard ship, a uniform that would not have been allowed off the ship much less the base. That possibly explains the lack of photos.

The patch combat badge just would not look right on a normal uniform--working uniform, maybe or probably.

John

[John R.]

I agree if one is talking about a $10 cloth trade patch, but $150+ for a Destroyer patch is still more than petty change for many collectors and worthy of reviewing the supporting evidence in my opinion.

Best regards,
---Norm

And this should be kept in mind for buyers, sellers, and owners of such examples. Reviewing is fine, studying is fine, however unsubstantiated timeline conclusions falls outside of such commendable research.

The only thing you can say in regards to a timeline is that such awards were authorized to be worn in the German Navy during the war for a certain amount of time, officially. Unofficial wearing past the directive discontinuing official wear is speculative, but engineroom gangs were much like U-boat crews. They lived and worked in their own world within a world aboard ship, and leeway was tolerated.

The closest any movie has even attempted to portray engineroom gangs was the German movie Das Boot when the Chief Engineer lost it. They got that right and they got the film Captain's reaction and forgiveness right also.

John