LW Tank Badge - Were They Or Were They Not Produced?

[RobertE]

Fellows, I've read the various threads on this badge. I have one of these, and having owned a number of the LW GAB with identical hardware and clumsy catch, it just looks too darn much like a period badge to be a replica. From the metal finish to the detail, it looks period.

Has concensus been reached on whether these badges were produced prior to 1945? I'd love to know - and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Who believes in these things?

regards, Robert

[RobertE]

2

[RobertE]

3

[RobertE]

Any new info surfaced on these? Photos? Other developments?

I know this is a tough topic that some may not want to engage in (again), but I thought I'd ask.

[Don D.]

Sorry but it doesn't look period to me. The cutous are so rounded, the finish looks nothing like the one on the LGAB (too shiny imo). The reverse set up also only looks close to the LGABs and not a match.

Detlev sold one that he believed in. It is posted here somewhere.

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Robert,

I agree with Don, that there MIGHT be a believable one or 2 floating around, but the one you show is most certainly NOT one of the believable ones. The specific shape of the pin is found on many types of fakes, and the rought cut outs are just too crude in my opinion. We have plenty examples of very late war badges, but even at such a late stage quality was still very good and above what we see on your badge in my opinion.

As far as that cast-in hinge, there are plenty of good fakes of the Arno Walpach LGABs that feature it, so the fakers have been doing that for many decades now.

Tom

[RobertE]

Hmmm. The one I posted is like Detlevs (note the round hole) http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...highlight=tank as well as this one
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ffe+tank+badge . A number of LW badges (usually clasps) also sported round cut-out holes even in their early war form.

The quality of Detlev's in in no way superior in terms of manufacturing to the one I posted. Look closely at them. Note the similiarity of the pins, hinge, and the like.

As far as quality, the tank badge posted is on par with the late war GABs I've examined, which were certainly a prolific badge produced right up until the end.

In summary: the quality and detail is there, when compared to other late war GABs. It's the same badge as Detlevs', IMO. Or at least very close to it.

Thanks for the feedback.

regards, Robert

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Robert,

Just for the record, I don't like the one Detlev shows either. Very sloppy pin and crude cutouts. Again, I think it is possible that we might find one that is more believable in the future, but I would personally want to see more typical hardware.

Tom

[Don D.]

close but no cigar

Robert, I was never convinced of this one either. Yours may be close but it is not the same. Look at the reverse pics. The cutouts are not the same. Your reverse finish appears shiny.

[RobertE]

Tom, fair enough - these could all be bad. Don, the reverse of Detlev's is in much worse condition than mine, and also appears to have started with a silver finish (based on the obverse); mine has a dark metal finish.

I think between the zinc pest or finish loss on Detlev's and the color difference, then comparing the sheen of the two badges may not be a valid comparison. Just my thoughts.

regards, Robert

[Don D.]

But there are huge differences in the cutouts. You can't explain that away so readily.

[ERIC S.]

I have one of these, and having owned a number of the LW GAB with identical hardware and clumsy catch, it just looks too darn much like a period badge to be a replica. From the metal finish to the detail, it looks period.

regards, Robert

So does this badge Robert. I had to take a quadruple take on this one when I first saw it. But alas, this too is a reproduction - and is much more believable than the tank badge posted. As the old saying goes, "don't judge a book by its cover". For the record, I too have not seen any I really truly believe in. Until something concrete comes along, I will continue to feel this way. I guess it's all up to the individual. You have have a dog in this fight - you've acquired one, so you are a believer. I personally would not spend the money, especially dealer money, on something that has yet to be proven bona fide.
ERIC

[RobertE]

But there are huge differences in the cutouts. You can't explain that away so readily.

Don, it is not possible to tell from the angled shots of Detlevs' badge how exactly the holes are cut, other than the one you referenced at the top is circular, like mine. They are both round. With a straight on shot, we could likely tell more.

Eric, there are many badges which are "close, but no cigar". The paratrooper badge you posted is a good example of a replica, but doesn't bare any of the comparison features (construction methods) in common with mine.

The dog (and it may well turn out to be one!) that I have in the fight is marginal. I paid literally nothing for it, but it was in the company of real badges that I did want. I don't want or need it to be real - I have no investment in it other than interest.

regards, Robert

[RobertE]

Steve generously posted pictures of his LW GAB in a thread of some late war cast badges. Look these over. A couple features jump out at you:

- the top hole is round, or oblong

- the casting detail on the wreath, eagle, and bolt are lacking and miserable compared to earlier badges

- there are flanges of unfinished / unremoved metal tabs in many cut-outs

- the pin is brass or other yellow metal, and made like the PAB under discussion in terms of attachment to the hinge pin

- the chunky cast lower catch is the same type on both

My point: crude when compared to earlier badges, with obvious similiarities to badges known to have been produced before May 1945. I would add that these badges would also have been produced under similiar circumstances: lots of LW fighting on the ground in 44-45, in armor, artillery, and infantry roles.

regards, Robert

[RobertE]

Poorly made and cast? You betcha.