Unusual bomber clasp

[Patrick W]

Just got this one in which is absolutlely new on me. Now I have seen a lot of recent fakes that have this kind of leaf pattern but they are zinc- I am wondering whether this may be the original type that those were copied from?
This one is tombak, the reverse is milled which to me is a good sign, also polished up highlights. The hinge is exceptionally small and dainty- basically all the bells and whistles makes me think it is good. Anyone seen one like this before?

Thanks

Patrick

[Patrick W]

,,

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Patrick,

Perfectly fine original in my opinion. These are a very uncommon type of clasp, not often encountered but no less original. Here is one of my bronze ones of this variant.

Yours is excellent condition by the way, very nice.

Tom

[Patrick W]

Hi Tom thanks for the reply and that is a very fine bronze clasp you show. I have been collecting for over 10 years now and have never ever seen one of these- always new things to learn!

Thanks for your help- I was sure it was original- in hand it is really a beautiful piece

All the best

Patrick

[Ludwig]

I see no problem here!

[J Temple-West]

I handled one of these “variant” clasps a short while ago and wrote it off as being a ‘next generation’ of a series of fakes that have been around for some time. The series of fakes come in all the clasp types and grades and started off with quite crude pieces, but over the years have become quite good.
IMO, these two clasps are, at least, questionable.
Could it be that the fakers have read the descriptions, reasons and opinions of collectors and have continued using the same dies but modified the reverse set-up accordingly, as it has always been the hardware, as well as bogus markings, that has been the tell tale signs of fakery.
Comparison shows the obverse as being a match, the reverse has the same catch, but without the catchplate, the size of the catchplate being one of the characteristics of the fake.
The only other explanation would be that the fake series were made from castings of clasps by a period maker, but a close inspection shows that die stamping (at least in the case of T’s clasp) has been used, as it has with the fake series.
Comparisons:
<O></O>

[J Temple-West]

Reverse of the fake series....

Note the catch.

[Thomas Durante]

Hi John,

Here is another of this type of fake, this time marked for Osang. I agree with you 100% that these are all very common fakes that are found with all sorts of maker marks and hardware.

But I would contend that Patrick's clasp (and my clasp) is very different than these in the way of construction, materials and finish. I agree that the obverse designs seem to match, but I have yet to see one of these fake badges with this type of delicate hardware, unique rivetting and catch setup. You said you handled one of these recently, did you happen to save some pictures of it?

The obverses seem to match, but they aren't exactly the same. On the originals, all of them will feature a distinct break in the top left leaf where it meets the wreath. I have yet to see this feature on any of the common fakes that you are talking about. I also have never seen any of these common fakes with the delicate hardware that are on the originals. Furthermore, the originals are made from brass and therefore the hardware is always soldered directly to the reverse. Whereas the fakes are always made with a zinc-type modern alloy, have weird finishes and always have big plates under the hinge and catch in my opinion. If anyone has some good pics of these fakes, please post them for comparison but with a few of these in hand, I can honestly say they are very different than any of the common fakes that are found.

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

Here is the leaf flaw that I am talking about. To my knowledge, this is ALWAYS found on original, yet NEVER found on any of the common fakes. If anyone can find this on a fake, please post it here.

Thanks

Tom

[J Temple-West]

Some good points, Tom.
However.....Brass (tombak) has been used in the making of ‘old school’ fakes since waaay back when, so I wouldn’t class that as proof positive.. :-)
What intrigues me is the fact that the obverse of your clasp is an exact match to the fakes.
The flaw (caused by the placement of the hole punch, not a die flaw) you mention is a good point and on looking at the fakes on file I have to say that there is some evidence that this flaw appears to be there... although, again, not having the pieces in-hand for a proper look-see, isn’t proof based on the quality of the pix.
Anyway, and I know...hard to tell...but have a look at the two below and see if you can see what I think to be this flaw.
And...no I didn’t have a chance of taking any shots of the clasp.
I’m still wondering, basing this thought on your clasp being period, if someone has the original dies and is using them to produce the series of fakes?

[J Temple-West]

number two...

[Thomas Durante]

Hi John,

I agree with you on the obverse design, it is an exact match and is indeed the most troubling aspect to this type of clasp. I really have no explanation for this, but to my eye they do seem to be a spot on match for the fakes. But is this single reason alone enough to dismiss this variant? To me it is not, I always like to find 2 or more red flags on a "questionable" badge to try and make a determination. It could be a good casting of an original, but I just don't know.

While I agree that the obverse design is a spot on match, I still think the leaf flaw I referenced is NOT the same. Thanks for your pics, but if you look closely, I think they do not match with the "originals". The flaw on originals is distinct and much bigger compared to the 1 on the Schlacht you show. Better pics of the fake would be needed to be sure, but to my eye the flaw on the fake is much smaller, and usually not even there. So that would eliminate a good casting of an original IMO.

And for the record, I do think its a flaw. At first I thought the same as you that it might be caused by the drilling of the holes, but I have 5 or 6 of these on file and they all appear exactly the same. Not only is it a flaw, but the material is pushed out of the way and there is a distinct "cut" in the end of the leaf. A drilled hole MAY push some metal out of the way, but not create a distinct cut mark in the exact same spot each and every time in my opinion. I am speculating about this, but the consistency on the other clasps I have on file makes me think this was part of the obverse die. And if this is true, then the fakers cannot be using the same die as this.

All the fakes that have this obverse design are all pretty easy to spot due to the crappy reverse hardware, fake maker marks, weird base metal and finish. You contend that these "original" clasps might be upgrades of these same fakes, but if this were the case don't you think we would see more of a progression from crappy fakes to these "originals"? These originals are just so different in so many ways, I just cannot see the fakers making such a dramatic change with absolutely no sign of progression. Here are the good points I think about these clasps:

1. The fakes are found with a bunch of fake maker marks to try and fool collectors (Osang, Juncker, Brehmer, etc.). Yet, the originals are NEVER found with a fake maker mark. They are always consistently NOT marked.

2. The fakes have large hinge and catch plates, but the originals NEVER have a hinge or catchplate.

3. The hinges and catchs on the fakes are always big and bulky, yet on the originals they are small and dainty. This is a consistent feature with these originals, yet every time I see one of these fakes, it has a different type of hinge or catch or different size and shape of plate underneath. The originals have NONE of this, they are always consistent.

4. The shape of the 4 cutouts on the fakes are either small triangles or small drilled holes. However, the originals are ALWAYS large, circular holes, very consistent.

5. The rivets on the fakes are usually domed, and they try to look like the rivets of the more common originals clasps. However, the rivet on these originals is ALWAYS a flattened, circular type. This is a very important point, because NONE of the fakes have this "pancake". All other original clasps also do NOT have this type of pancake rivet either. So its odd that the fakers would all of a sudden switch to this unique pancake rivet if this were indeed and "upgraded" fake as you contend. On the contrary, I would think an upgraded fake would find the fakers trying to be more like other originals clasps, which all have domed rivets.

6. The fakes all seem to be made of zinc with a crappy type of silver or gold wash, whereas these originals are ALWAYS made from tombak with nice bronze brennlacks or fire gilded finishes.

I will follow this up with the other "originals" I have on file so you can see where I am coming from on this.

Tom

p.s., on top of all this, not only do I think that these are original clasps, but I have a very good idea who the maker was Fuel for another thread

First up is a nice fire gilded on from ex-Frank H's collection. Note the exact same leaf flaw as all these originals have.

[Thomas Durante]

Here is one that Weitze sold a while back, same exact flaw and reverse hardware.

[Thomas Durante]

Another

[Thomas Durante]

Here is another one of my clasps, a gold grade of this variant we are discussing.

Fire away guys. Hope Gene, Leroy, Richard and a few other clasp nuts see this and can find the time to post their experienced thoughts as well.

Tom