Badge help needed

[barry1954]

Hi Guys

I have the opportunity to buy this badge but the little I know about KM badges is dangerous. I would really appreciate some comments on whether it is a good one or not.

Barry

[barry1954]

[barry1954]

Last picture. Thanks for looking.

Barry

[BubbaZ]

Hi Barry,
This is original and very nice RK zincer type 3.1.6 in the Classification system.
Cheers,
Hubert

[Norm F]

Hi Guys,

I agree it's a good zinc R.K. but it's MC# 3.1.8 (not 3.1.6). It's a 9-wave variant and has the characteristic vertical flaw on the back of the water column.

More here: http://www.minesweeperbadge.net/Mine...ge.net/RK.html

Best regards,
---Norm

[BubbaZ]

Hi Norm,
Oh, yes, I was obviously wrong, this is not 3.1.6, I am in front of my computer now so I can see it
But this is also not 3.1.8.
It is 3.1.7 IMO - 'high level 6'. Maker's mark is positioned higher than in 3.1.8 and it lacks a prominent flaw, I cannot see it at least.
I enclose reverse shots of my 3.1.7 and 3.1.8 (with the flaw) for comparison.
Cheers,
Hubert

[Norm F]

Hi Hubert,

I know what you mean, and I wondered about that as well given the higher maker mark, but it looks like the vertical flaw was already beginning in Barry's badge, albeit less prominent. Perhaps intermediate in production -- sort of a "3.1.7.5"...

(This is the sort of discussion that could only occur between Minesweeper geeks like us and causes everyone else to just roll their eyes and move on. )

Best regards,
---Norm

[BubbaZ]

(This is the sort of discussion that could only occur between Minesweeper geeks like us and causes everyone else to just roll their eyes and move on. )

Yes, this could be the case here... all in all it's nice RK zincer
Cheers,
Hubert

[BubbaZ]

but this also means that our MS classification has grey zones and is not bullet proof since there are badges that fall in between different types.
This also relates to this AS zincer which has features of type 3.2.2 (early catch crimp) and 3.2.3 (no cutouts around eagles head)... I think that these two do not deserve separate categories but maybe descriptions of existing ones could be expanded?
Cheers,
Hubert

[barry1954]

Thanks for the feedback and very informative information. That last one shown looks great

Barry

[Norm F]

but this also means that our MS classification has grey zones and is not bullet proof since there are badges that fall in between different types.
This also relates to this AS zincer which has features of type 3.2.2 (early catch crimp) and 3.2.3 (no cutouts around eagles head)... I think that these two do not deserve separate categories but maybe descriptions of existing ones could be expanded?
Cheers,
Hubert

Hi Hubert,

Yes indeed, the classification system has grey zones, for the "AS in triangle" category 3.2 in particular, since sometimes there are a bewildering number of tiny variations that overlap so that it's hard to know where to draw the line.

I've struggled with the 3.2 category in several respects. Firstly there's the question of finish. Some badges use a coppery flash coating underneath the water spout (like the AS S-Boat) but some don't. The 3.2.2 never has the gold undercoating whereas the 3.2.3 can be found both with and without the undercoating. For the AS marked badges, 3.2.4 (Type 1 maker mark) is mostly without the undercoating (but not all) while 3.2.5 (Type 2 maker mark) is mostly with the undercoating. The 3.2.6 (unmarked, 2nd pattern eagle) mostly seems to have the undercoating. I managed to avoid this whole topic by purposely omitting variations in gilding and silvering techniques from the classification system.

Secondly, there's the bend in the foot plate of the main pin. The 3.2.2 always has the tightly bent foot plate whereas the 3.2.3 can have either the tight or the loosely bent foot plate. In contrast, all the 2nd pattern eagle badges (both AS marked and unmarked) seem to have the loosely bent foot plate. So theoretically we could divide MC# 3.2.3 into two different categories based upon the bend in the foot plate. I chose not to, just like I didn't separate the marked MC# 3.2.4 into "early catch crimp" and "late catch crimp". So your MC# 3.2.3 in post #9 with the unusual feature of the "early" catch crimp, I tend to include in MC# 3.2.3 category. I wouldn't put it in the 3.2.2 category since all of those badges have the cutouts around the eagle's head which is the key feature of that type (and also they all have the tightly bent foot plate).

But we could alter the wording of type 3.2.3 so instead of saying just " 'classic' catch crimp" it instead says "two sub-types of catch crimp ('early' and 'classic')", even though yours is the only one to show up so far with the "early" catch crimp. Alternatively, we could just remove any reference to the catch crimp from the descriptions of types 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 so that anything goes in that respect -- might be the simplest solution. I would leave the " 'early' catch crimp" descriptor in the definition for MC# 3.2.2 since all of those type seem to have the same catch crimp.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Here's an image showing the combination of features that comprise type 3.2.2. The cut-out shoulders is the key feature that defines this category but the tight foot plate and "early" catch crimp always seem to appear in combination in this type, whereas they appear independently in other variants.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Hi Norm,
Oh, yes, I was obviously wrong, this is not 3.1.6, I am in front of my computer now so I can see it
But this is also not 3.1.8.
It is 3.1.7 IMO - 'high level 6'. Maker's mark is positioned higher than in 3.1.8 and it lacks a prominent flaw, I cannot see it at least.
I enclose reverse shots of my 3.1.7 and 3.1.8 (with the flaw) for comparison.
Cheers,
Hubert

On further reflection, I agree with Hubert that the best fit for Barry's RK badge in the opening post is MC# 3.1.7 rather than 3.1.8. The photo of the reverse is not clear but it certainly seems like the nascent flaw is quite subtle and the positioning of the hinge and maker mark are indeed that of the "high level 6" (images attached for reference).

Best regards,
---Norm

[BubbaZ]

Hi Norm,
First of all thanks for such a broad reply! Lots of very interesting information in it 

I've struggled with the 3.2 category in several respects. Firstly there's the question of finish. Some badges use a coppery flash coating underneath the water spout (like the AS S-Boat) but some don't. The 3.2.2 never has the gold undercoating whereas the 3.2.3 can be found both with and without the undercoating. For the AS marked badges, 3.2.4 (Type 1 maker mark) is mostly without the undercoating (but not all) while 3.2.5 (Type 2 maker mark) is mostly with the undercoating. The 3.2.6 (unmarked, 2nd pattern eagle) mostly seems to have the undercoating. I managed to avoid this whole topic by purposely omitting variations in gilding and silvering techniques from the classification system.

I think this is good approach to omit variations in gilding and silvering techniques from the classification system. If you include them here then in order to be consistent you should also include them for many other zincers such as: Deumers (silvered or gilded reverses, paint-like or premium gilt), F&B (silvered or gilded reverses), RS (silvered or gilded reverses), etc. This would boost the classification system to the enormous size and thus make it unusefull for majority of collectors. IMO opinion the main purpose of the classification system is to help collectors tell if the badge is original or fake, identify the maker and tell if it is not repaired/messed with and that’s why we need hardware variants. It should not become a huge check list for a crazy variant collector like you and me since it will always be to simple Maybe a good idea would be to include maker-wise finish variations in separate elaboration but I cannot even imagine how labor-intensive it might be…

Secondly, there's the bend in the foot plate of the main pin. The 3.2.2 always has the tightly bent foot plate whereas the 3.2.3 can have either the tight or the loosely bent foot plate. In contrast, all the 2nd pattern eagle badges (both AS marked and unmarked) seem to have the loosely bent foot plate. So theoretically we could divide MC# 3.2.3 into two different categories based upon the bend in the foot plate. I chose not to, just like I didn't separate the marked MC# 3.2.4 into "early catch crimp" and "late catch crimp".

Very interesting observation Norm, I have not noticed that before. Looks like earlier badges have the tightly bent foot plate whereas later badges have it loosely bent. Maybe just different tool was used for later production or it was calibrated in the different way? Anyway I agree that this is not the reason for making additional categories.

But we could alter the wording of type 3.2.3 so instead of saying just " 'classic' catch crimp" it instead says "two sub-types of catch crimp ('early' and 'classic')", even though yours is the only one to show up so far with the "early" catch crimp. Alternatively, we could just remove any reference to the catch crimp from the descriptions of types 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 so that anything goes in that respect -- might be the simplest solution. I would leave the " 'early' catch crimp" descriptor in the definition for MC# 3.2.2 since all of those type seem to have the same catch crimp.

IMO better idea is to extend the wording of existing categories by catch crimp types as in your primary proposition above rather than removing that information.
BTW, the AS badge that I posted in this thread is not mine, yet
Cheers,
Hubert