Luftwaffe Glider Pilots Badge

[Spagg199th]

Hi Sal, not always. Some fakes actually look better than the originals.
best wishes,
jeff

I agree Jeff, but that's what I ment by the trained eye! I would possibly miss something that a expert would pickup on. Bottom line, there is a difference between the fake an original.
Sal

[Stijn David]

ball hinge glider

Hello Sal,


"

Take another good look at these Ball hinge Glider badges, do they not look exactly like the original but for Pin Assembly( the ball hinge)? The ball hinge is a War time Genuine Badge assembly, is it not? Is there any difference from the front of the Badge too known originals with the other pin setup?? I haven't heard anything on that?

No the ball hinge glider is defenatly made by another die then for example the C.E.Juncker or the BSW glider badge. Check it out => image of a Buntmetal C.E.Juncker (type 1) glider badge. This example was awarded in early 1941. This for your interest

Cordial greetings,

[Leroy]

As far as this idea that the germans just kept on producing awards for the GI souvenir market after the end of the war I totally reject that idea. This is a collector paranoia myth that has surfaced only in the last 5 or so years as the prices for these items have gotten more and more crazy. I never heard this idea 30 or 40 years ago when one could buy cased EK1s by the hundred.

Immediate postwar assembly of wartime made parts for the GI market- yes.

Immediate postwar new production for the GI market- no.

It IS a myth, created to explain variants and late-war pieces which don't fit neatly into the categories created by collectors to give themselves a "comfort level". But try to explain this to someone who wasn't actively collecting in the "early days" of this hobby.....

[Spagg199th]

OK, then what is it that I have? Is it original or is it a fake or Postwar or what? Or is it War time Badge or do we really no what it actually is? No, I'm not upset at anyone, but would like to find out if it's good or not. Or it's a ???? a maybe does not help me or anyone else. Anything out there with a ? mark does not help the value. JUST REMEMBER this, that this came from the vets collection, everything in that collection is original TR items. His Son said, he was not a collector but had these put away in a old wooden box for as long as he could remember! His father came home right after the War ended. Again, I'm not upset, but I appreciate all the hard work you are all doing. Here is the box that it all came home in!

Thanks,
Sal

[Spagg199th]

I didn't want to do this, but here is a small sample of what was in that box. Anyways, thank you all again for your help, it was appreciated very much. After reading my last two reply's, I have to apologize for sounding so harsh, just getting a little frustrated! Time to go out with the wife and have a nice dinner and glass of wine!!!!!!! I wish you could all join us, would be fun!

regards,
Sal

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Sal,

Understand your frustration, but the truth is that there is no solid consensus on these badges. Much of this hobby is consensus and not real solid proof of anything. The ball hinge glider is one of those badges that does not benefit from a clear consensus and it wouldn't be fair to make a snap judgement call on these just for the sake of it. Much of this hobby is opinions from those that have studied these badges for years, but they are still opinions. There have been excellent and thoughtful posts giving the pros and cons to these badges and that is the best you can hope for at this moment in time.

If you are really needing a value, then I personally would value these more than reproduction, but definately less than the going rate for a Juncker or BSW.

Tom

[90th Light]

This is a war time badge and it was not produced for the GI market after the war. The experts who have studied so many of these badges are talking themselves into their own theory now to try and justify what they believe with that one.

The only real research so far is what Stijn has done and that is based on a sample of convenience not a true cross-section of all German glider pilots it is however a very useful study but only alerting us to a possible finding that the actual German glider pilots did not seem to have got the ball hinge variety and is in no way a conclusion. I mean, may be the one in the north did but not the south or may be the ones in the east but not the west ??? You tell me but until we can find more glider pilots from that time to ask, how will we know. In fact how many German glider pilots are there left and of those how many can actually remember ??? This may sadly, not be a path that yields much more.

On the other hand my direct veteran find and Sal's plus Warlords is clearly alerting us to fact that these ball hinge glider badges were in the storerooms waiting to be issued before May 1945. The question is who got one and it is not a question of if they were made before that date.

Any badge I have ever seen made for the GI market straight after the war has always had some give away features and is not always finished to the desired standards. The ball hinge glider is of a very high standard indeed. In fact show me another GI market badge up to that standard ??? or would you like me to compare it with my bronze "GB 42" general assault to show you what I mean. The fact I have said bronze should tell you something the fact it came off an American based in Germany the late 40's should tell you another. the pin is nothing like the standard of the ball hinge and it did not have to be because they had no one breathing down there necks and all they had to do was excite some green GI to part with his money, candy, cigs, silk stockings or what ever. The fact also remains that there were still plenty of original awards on offer also for the GI's to get in that period after the war ended. In fact many shop keepers buried their stocks with the intention of getting back to them once things settled down. This is another whole area of study in its self which really has not been addressed properly at all by we collectors. The S&L KC debate is probably one of the best so far but look at the give away features on those and where are the POW's who got one of those S&L KC's from a LW base while looking for food in April/ May 45 ???

The ball hinge glider is the real deal and Sal has no reason at all to feel bad about his. What we now need to do, is to start put our energies into is trying is finding out who if anyone in the LW actually got one of these.

These are a badge made before May 45 and what they prove is that although many of us feel we have mastered this subject and know a lot there is still much that remains to be found out and has not yet been fully explained.

Very good debate guys but lets remain pragmatic please,

Chris

[Stephen Previtera]

"The only real research so far is what Stijn has done and that is based on a sample of convenience not a true cross-section of all German glider pilots it is however a very useful study but only alerting us to a possible finding that the actual German glider pilots did not seem to have got the ball hinge variety and is in no way a conclusion."

Chris, While I wouldn't enter the debate concerning the glider badge in question I need to state, having seen Stijn's work and done a bit myself, that his efforts were not simply "a sample of convenience" and would, I might defend, pragmatic in the extreme. To state that his work is not "a true cross-section of all German glider pilots" is in itself a contradiction in terms, as he performed a cross-section which in and of itself does not mean totality. I know, to be fair, you are also stating deference to his work, but he is also displaying an openness to your points, and deserves not to be placed where he does not stand, namely as the opposition. Book writing and research, as Marc Garlasco, Tom Durante, Stijn David, Mark Miller, and the scholar "Leroy" will relate, is absolutely not a matter of convenience, if done in the manner of the gentlemen I have just mentioned. Conclusions are reached after thousands of hours of agony and await new evidence to be proven or unproven. No one feels better about learning new information like a research author. Makes for a great second edition. ;-)
Stephen

[WARLORD]

Looking at the last post I have much to agrea with. The research of Mr David is not to be questioned and has been done masterly. But with any arceology, a time line has to be found. This can be achieved by pottery , or better coin dating. If the item is found in this line then it has to come from that time line, unless the find has been contaminated. In the case of this type of badge, it has been found in an area that configures, Northern Germany, and a time line that has been established as May June 1945. Contamination can be ruled out. Two resons, not as we know from the same site and recovered in different parts of the World. Other strengths of proof, both were in the possetion of British or Comenwealth troops. Both had had them from the time, both had no access emediatly to enhancing their finds. Im my case the RAF Officer was not interested above the fact that they were found on an airfield that he was investigating. When he parted with is uniform log books and medals, these things were a secondry thing all together. So the evidence is so strong that these are period, the chance of them not being so is miniscule.

The next question is is what are these for? If Mr Davids findings are correct, then these could have been used as recognition pieces.

I have another interesting story on the same vien. An RAF Officer was sent from Calaise to Norther Germany as an inteligence officer. Travelled through Hamburg to Seleswig Holstien. Photograpger Luftwaffe aircraft on the airfield, June 1945. These had been put into British markings. Plus photo the first Metior jets that were stationed at the airfield. This was to compare performance with the Luftwaffe planes. NOW his finds that he brought bach from the Airfield were, 2 Naval flak badges, a pre war DLV METAL AND ENAMELLED CAP WING DEVISE AND A SMALL PARTY FLAG. These he gave me together with the very rare pictures. His explanation of the badges was they had been used on a board in an office for recognition purpouses. He had taken the board down and broken it up. He took the afformetioned pieces and the others were taken by staff. He returned in September 1945. These items had been in his office on his farm from that time untill he gave them to me in 1978. So Navel badges on a Luftwaffe base? However it was near the Sea.

[Thomas Durante]

This is a war time badge and it was not produced for the GI market after the war. The experts who have studied so many of these badges are talking themselves into their own theory now to try and justify what they believe with that one.

Chris, with all due respect, YOU are the one jumping to conclusions here. We are all offering our opinions, which is fine. But YOU are the one trying to now make a blanket statement that may be incorrect.

You are basing your entire opinion on a story from 1 vet. David is basing his opinion on interviews with dozens of actual Glider Pilots. We do not know which one is correct, but David certainly has much more ground to stand on here with his opinion. Yet, he only offers his "opinion", and NOT a blanket statement saying these "ball hinge gliders are all fake". He is not forcing his opinion on anyone and neither should you with a blanket statement.

Tom

[90th Light]

"The only real research so far is what Stijn has done and that is based on a sample of convenience not a true cross-section of all German glider pilots it is however a very useful study but only alerting us to a possible finding that the actual German glider pilots did not seem to have got the ball hinge variety and is in no way a conclusion."

Chris, While I wouldn't enter the debate concerning the glider badge in question I need to state, having seen Stijn's work and done a bit myself, that his efforts were not simply "a sample of convenience" and would, I might defend, pragmatic in the extreme. To state that his work is not "a true cross-section of all German glider pilots" is in itself a contradiction in terms, as he performed a cross-section which in and of itself does not mean totality. I know, to be fair, you are also stating deference to his work, but he is also displaying an openness to your points, and deserves not to be placed where he does not stand, namely as the opposition. Book writing and research, as Marc Garlasco, Tom Durante, Stijn David, Mark Miller, and the scholar "Leroy" will relate, is absolutely not a matter of convenience, if done in the manner of the gentlemen I have just mentioned. Conclusions are reached after thousands of hours of agony and await new evidence to be proven or unproven. No one feels better about learning new information like a research author. Makes for a great second edition. ;-)
Stephen

Stephen,

I can see what you are saying here so answer this question was Stijn's research of a qualitative nature or a quantitative nature ? This is an important thing to understand before anyone can publish anything based on research.

What were the characteristics of the sample, what were the limitations for example did he have every glider unit represented, did he have a selection of ranks, did he have a spectrum of age groups, did he get a representation of time periods of service ?

I could go on more and get a lot more scientific if you want but I fear I would lose more reading this than I have already. Then again may be Sijn may want to share with us all how he wrote the sample up. The point is unless a sample is properly designed then what exactly is it a sample of and I repeat was this a sample of glider pilots in the north, south, east or west ?

so what did he achieve here a qualitative investigation which now needs to be quantified or was his a quantitative finding which we have not yet qualified ?

You see it is not hard to find a sample to prove anything we want, ask any politician. All depends how you structure your questions, what you ask, how you ask it, who you ask and how you write up what you find.

This is one of the reasons why Statistics is such an important subject because it lets one analyse samples fully and look for bias or margins of error from the norm.

Now I for one admire fully what Stijn has done but it is in no way the complete study for which it is being implied. It is an initial investigation which can only alert us to other factors needing further investigation.

I have raised some of these factors just as Stijn research has also raised factors requiring more investigation. This is the point I am making, none of us are in a position to yet draw a conclusion,

Chris

[90th Light]

Chris, with all due respect, YOU are the one jumping to conclusions here. We are all offering our opinions, which is fine. But YOU are the one trying to now make a blanket statement that may be incorrect.

You are basing your entire opinion on a story from 1 vet. David is basing his opinion on interviews with dozens of actual Glider Pilots. We do not know which one is correct, but David certainly has much more ground to stand on here with his opinion. Yet, he only offers his "opinion", and NOT a blanket statement saying these "ball hinge gliders are all fake". He is not forcing his opinion on anyone and neither should you with a blanket statement.

Tom

Hello Tom,

The reason why I have put forward a strong case for the ball hinge glider being original is because a lot of weight has been given to the fact that Stijn interviewed a large number of glider pilots and while that appears on the suface to be overwhelming and conclusive in itself, I have felt a duty to share the fact that I got one of these badges fron a veteran who was a POW and picked up an example in May 1945. Certainly it was my understanding that before this series of threads about these badges Stijn was stating that in his opinion such badges were probably not original and of pre-May 1945 manufacture. This in itself is sweeping plus influential from the author of a book on the subject , is it not ?

Maybe I should not contribute to this, after all who am I to question an author but is it not sad when those of us who have collected for some time do not come forward and let other collectors know what we have found plus seen along the way.

I also feel it is important to point out that it is not necessarily the quantity of a sample which helps a finding but the how well the quality of that sample stands up to questioning and further investigation. Some reading this may not have considered that as they took information from reading these threads so it is important to remind them of that.

The other thing now causing me concern is that fact that some collectors who are struggling to explain these ball hinge gliders are floating the theory that they must or might be post war production made to sell to GI's using war time parts. I put to you that such a theory although convenient, is in itself a limitation to further investigation and we would be wise not to give it too much weight in case it lessens our efforts and narrowly lets us think we might have found the answer.

Like yourself and Stijn, I too seek the real answer,

Chris

[WARLORD]

Chris your points are indeed extreemly vallid. The proof that the ball hinge type of badge was produced pre 1945 is incontradictable. Evidence of them being found in Norther Germany in the closing days of the War proves this.

Stijn OBSERVATIONS are also extreemly vallid. However they are not mutually diametrically oposed. Hence those found in Norther Germany do not make the ones found on the vets post war, and likewise they do not make the ball hing type post war. If a manufacture made these for some reason, there will be one to find. As to orders and records, things that should never happen do.

Taking this to a point, outside our thoughts on awards so we might focus with clearer eyes and minds, the 20 pence piece of Great Britain, struck at the Royal mint, one of the most prestigous of organisations, producing coinage for many Countrys with striking security at the highest level. mistakes only being made twice in 200 years, secreets 200,000 mule coints into circulation. Wopps what a cock up. COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAPPEN, said the great and the good. No record of this happening. The little "Buggers" are poping up all over the place.

Returning to the thrust of the argument, these could have been made for the GI market. WellSeleshwich Holstien is a fat treck from any American sovenier hunters. Plus the base the items I had was a little further issolated and run down. Another small thing it was an opperational RAF station, with our top secret Jet plane on it, Gaurded? Might have been, our Red Caps ans special forcers were quite dilagent in that matter.

[90th Light]

Hello Warlord (Chris ?),

well three of us with an allied brought back example that we know of so far.

The question now is who else has one and where did they get it from but the fact is, these were on the storeroom shelfs in April/ May 1945

When did they first get put on those shelves 42 ? 43? 44? and by who, thats the real question,

Chris

[Thomas Durante]

Maybe I should not contribute to this, after all who am I to question an author but is it not sad when those of us who have collected for some time do not come forward and let other collectors know what we have found plus seen along the way.

Chris, you are missing the point. No matter how strongly you feel that the ball hinge glider is correct, it is still ONLY YOUR OPINION and it should be framed in that fashion. It is NOT because Stijn is an author that he shouldn't be questioned. He is a professional researcher and has a lot of ground to stand on, yet he always makes sure his posts include the phase "IN MY OPINION". You should do the same and it wouldn't rub people the wrong way.

No one is an "expert" in our hobby, including authors. I will be the first to admit that we are ALWAYS learning. On the contrary, the only true "experts" in this hobby that I pay the most attention to will ALWAYS include the phrase "IN MY OPINION" with their posts because that is all that we can offer. We are all entitled to an opinion, but no matter how strongly you feel about yours, it is still just an opinion. It is people that make blanket statements like "This is a war time badge and it was not produced for the GI market after the war." with 100% authority shows a lack of courtesy to other researchers and rubs people the wrong way.

Tom