"Round O" Osang Fighter clasp

[Thomas Durante]

Cast?

Seems that way to me Leroy. First thing I noticed was the seemingly pourous nature of the reverse surface.

I don't have any Longrange Fighter dims, however I do have 2 Shortrange Fighters in my collection, by the same maker. Not sure if this will be a valid comparison because they are different clasps, however being by the same maker then it is logical for me to think that this maker would have used similar die sizes for their Short/Long Fighters. For discussion sake, here are the dims of my 2 fighters:

#1
Length: 76.69 mm
Height: 26.06 mm
Arrow Height: 19.32 mm
Arrow Width: 15.22 mm


#2
Length: 76.88 mm
Height: 25.90 mm
Arrow Height: 19.43 mm
Arrow Width: 15.18 mm

In comparison to the badge in question, we can see a full 1mm difference in the length and also the height. That also suggests we are looking at a casting. Ideally, we would want dimensions from a Longrange Fighter by the same maker.........which is Osang. Here is the maker mark that is on this clasp, the much discussed "round O" Osang mark.

Interestingly enough, the dimensions of this clasp in question are a spot on match to the "round O" Osang Longrange Fighter shown in Privetera's book, page 165. So without calling this badge a fake, I think all I would say at the moment is that this clasp is consistent with the one shown in the book....

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

Here are a few compares to show the seemingly lack of detail that is on the Round O clasp. Nick, I don't think it is chemically cleaned or refinished, the entire clasp lacks detail. I don't think it is due to wear, as the entire leaf veining structure seems weak to me, compared with other Osang clasps (whether you are looking at Short Range or Long Range Fighters).

Actually, the only thing I like about this clasp is the look of the finish. Looks to have some legitamate wear to it. The finish seems to be a light, powdered silver-color with believable wear. Its in the recesses of the leaves and on the reverse where it is protected by the hinge and catch. I don't doubt it was finished quite a long time ago...but when?

Comparing the arrows, the Round O one seems to lack detail and just looks "sloppy" compared to an original wartime Osang in my opinion. Osang used the same exact die for the arrows on both their Short and Long Range Fighters, so the comparison here is legitamate.

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

Arrows

[nick-j]

I have a long range fighter by Osang as soon as i have some time i will post the dims. if it will help?

[Leroy]

Compare the length of the veins in the leaves (especially the middle leaf).

[Thomas Durante]

I have a long range fighter by Osang as soon as i have some time i will post the dims. if it will help?

Yes, please do Nick. Please also post pics as well, and if your clasp has the typical Osang mark or the round o mark.

Txs.

Tom

[rfleming32]

My first impression of the badge posted was it was an Osang wreath but the rest did not fit. Datails on the wings and the catch and hinge not being symetrical was strange. Details on the oaks weak but could be a bad strike?Catch did not match. But it does look like it was die struck or the casting was pretty good. I have not seen a long range dayfighter by Osang at this time but am aware that this clasp was intoduced late and have seen some transitional pieces where it appears existing dies or handwork was utilzed to meet demand. Very strange to see one of these. Would not think it was a casting of an original. Where is the original it was cast from? Have not seen one. The catch just does not match. Very unusual clasp. Definately not textbook and does not appear to be Osang. One of a kind fake? Who knows for sure. Not for me.

[Thomas Durante]

Compare the length of the veins in the leaves (especially the middle leaf).

Leroy, there is no doubt that the badge in question does not match the Osang Shortrange fighter that I show. There are many differences to see, especially in the central wreath area, so if the badge in question is a casting, it is NOT made from the original Osang SR Fighter I show. That is why I said earlier that my dimensions might not be a legitamate comparison to show that the badge in question is a casting.

What we need is to have some dimensions from an original, wartime Long Range Dayfighter by Osang for a legitamate comparison, like this one shown below:

In my opinion, this is a textbook LRDF by Osang. Hopefully Nick will post dimensions of his clasp, and hopefully it is a from a clasp like this one shown below. My hunch is that the dimensions of an original Osang LRDF will be identical to the SRDFs that I provided earlier.......and that will be definative evidence that this clasp in question is a casting.

With that said, the reason I do believe the dimensions I posted for the SRDFs are relevant is because I also have two Osang Bomber clasps and their dimensions are spot on identical to the SRDFs. Even though Osang used different dies for their Bombers, SRDFs and LRDFs, there is a consistency with the dimensions of their clasps (as least as far as Bombers and SRDFs goes). Hopefully we can determine that it was the same for their LRDFs, and if so, that will be some pretty damning evidence against these "Round O" Osang clasps in my opinion.

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

Very strange to see one of these. Would not think it was a casting of an original. Where is the original it was cast from?

Hi Richard,

It was cast from an original Osang Long Range Dayfighter, here is the compare. They are identical to me, just with noticably poorer detail on the Round O clasp.

For those of you who like the catch, please take another good look at it. I don't see any resemblance to Deumer, or any other maker. Maybe the general "crescent moon" shape, but certainly not a match to Deumer in my opinion. For me, it is one of the most questionable aspects to this badge.....its just foreign and not something that looks wartime-produced to me.

Tom

[Leroy]

(Never mind - Mr. Fleming beat me to it.)

P.S. I still like the catch..........(and interesting that basic leaf designs did vary from clasp to clasp even within the same maker - I suppose arising from the need to have individual dies for each varying central device).

[Thomas Durante]

(and interesting that basic leaf designs did vary from clasp to clasp even within the same maker - I suppose arising from the need to have individual dies for each varying central device).

Precisely the reason Leroy. As far as I can tell, all the central motif's of the different clasps are designed with the central device molded to the correct shape. Then the central device lays right on top of it, they fit like hand and glove. So a bomb would not fit on an arrow, and vice versa.

Here is an Osang bomber base, missing the central device.

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

P.S. I still like the catch

Leroy, can you show a similar one? From any badge, any maker. I am curious as I cannot recall seeing one like this before.

Thanks

Tom

[Leroy]

I just said I liked it, Tom, not that I could show another example of it! (Of course, I could spend the next 10 years of my life looking at 1000's of badges, pin on eagles, etc., for one, but somehow I don't think that would be a good use of my time.)

Seriously (and to learn more about these), is it possible that you could show us where this same catch has been employed on other fakes (perhaps other suspect clasps)? That would be very instructive and, if it is so unique, could be another clue in the line of "well, if you see this particular catch, the red flags should go up" sort of thing. I can't see this being a "one-off".

Here is my Osang LRDF. My electronic calipers are dead at the moment, but I will try to get them back up and running before the SOS and do some measurements.

(Don't ask for a photo of the maker mark, as I tried to take about 30 of it for Ludwig with no success at all. In hand, it is not the round "O".)

[Leroy]

This is the best shot I was ever able to get of the mark, but the combination of a light strike and finish over the mark creates terrible difficulties when trying to photograph it, but I think you can at least see that it is not the round "O" (Sometimes it looks like a totally different letter of the alphabet.)

Also, using a fairly decent mm ruler, the measurements seem to be right in line with the others already posted. The length seems to almost exactly 77 mm. (The clasp is very slightly vaulted and if that were taken into account, it might even be more than 77 mm.)

[Sebastien T]

Good MM on this one and very nice clasp