Alter Kampfer - new found

[Matthew]

Not want to push anything, but how about Microforensics? On a subject like this, on which some of the more respected members of the (political) collecting community appear to have different opinions, this could be a very usefull tool?

best regards,
Gaston

It is a useful tool, and to some degree it is what we are practicing here. Granted it is different environment and we are using different tools (if any) but we do technically engage in forensic examination of artifacts that interest us right here.

Having a background in criminology I can tell you that when it comes to examining 'things past' what is a method employed most by professionals is a comparison between the disputed item and similar artifact of known pedigree.
You also examine the item's composition (done), methods of construction (done) and mechanics (toolmarks etc.). Trying to trace the item's 'birth place' is also a useful information.

I have feeling that by 'microforensics' you mean looking at items through a microscope- if that is indeed what you meant (I could be wrong), it is a bit more complicated than the familiar 'have a microscope, will travel' approach.
Every time I see someone posting a blown-up image from their microscope as a factual evidence of item's age, it brings a smile to my face- I can not understand why the Shroud of Turin's age is still such a mystery.

I have mentioned the metal composition of the type badge in question but as of now, no one came forward with their own results. The one that was tested, came back with different silver content than what's stamped on the verso.

Has anyone ever seen one of those in worn condition?

cheers

Matt

[jabnus]

Hi Matthew,


I understand what you mean with composition, construction, et cetera, but it is still a matter of "one person says this" and " the other person says that".

Microforensics results by (indeed) a microscope can't be faked. The patination and wear-and-tear marks speak for themselves and show a truth that doesn't require a "after" discussion anymore. Anyone pro- or con, can see what an item is and it would quite clear result in definate answers for topics like this one.

best regards,
Gaston

[Matthew]

Microforensics results by (indeed) a microscope can't be faked. The patination and wear-and-tear marks speak for themselves and show a truth that doesn't require a "after" discussion anymore. Anyone pro- or con, can see what an item is and it would quite clear result in definate answers for topics like this one.

Hello Gaston,

That is one of most common misconception unfortunately.
What if the item has been chemically cleaned sometimes during its lifetime? Would the patina be the same?
Wear and tear marks- what if the item is unworn? What if it spent its lifetime in a box? Would you still be able to find the wear and tear marks? And if so, to what extent? And can those be replicated? What if the item is sealed? Will it age differently?
Even at the forensic level- it is definitely something that will always be open to be contested pro or con.
In this case no one is disputing the method of production for example in a way of the badge being die struck or forged so how would you determine when it was struck?

What is disputed is the entire line-up of this type of badge so what do you compare it against?
Don't get me wrong- test it, test it, then test it some more. But at the same time do not leave loose ends to be interpreted by anyone differently.
After 5 years of studying criminology I know one thing for certain- I do not know enough.

BTW- there is no 'microforensics' just like there is no 'micropatina'. Those are just terms someone came up with to make it look more scientific than it really is. Forensics and patina does it just fine for most of us. Not saying it was you who coined it, just pointing out the absurdity of it.

What forensic method exactly would you like to see performed to come up with the results that might bring us closer to the truth in this particular case?

Interesting discussion indeed.

cheers

Matt

[jabnus]

Hi Matthew,

Im in no way an expert on this matter, but the method has been very usefull to determine originality on badges (also here on the forum). The results should speak for themselves. As there is no definate conclusion reached in this topic, it appears the method could be very helpfull.

Regarding the name how to call the method: Potato or PotAto, it doesn't matter. I got to know this as microforensics and think that's a nice term to describe this way of investigation. What i would like to see on the M.ST.&S badges is a microscopic shot of the surface, to see if there is any original weardamage (age damage?), or to see if the surface is unworn. It's surprising what information microshots can reveal on awards and badges.

The things you mention against the method i have been struggling with myself too, but i think it works also the other way around. eg would the fakers of certain badges in the past have gone through the proces of trying to perfect their fakes up onto the microlevel? I don't think so, and this is also a method that is not yet widely accepted or used by collectors. (I believe that certain helmetcollectors use it already as well).

Regardless of what investigation methods are used, i think it would be wise to use as much methods as possible and combine their results to come to a conclusion. Construction, materials AND forensics. Ruling out certain methods that can deliever new insights on forehand is not wise i think.

best regards,
Gaston

[Matthew]

I don't think the fakers would advance past the 'micro' stage as you call it with the sole purpose to perfect their fakes but at the same time I believe (and in this particular case), they are able to come up with a fake that will be deemed 'normal' if not 'original' even when using the proposed methods of detection if they follow their usual course of action when producing something of this caliber.

I pointed out the materials testing as relatively easy way to prove or disprove what is stamped onto the badge itself which if you ask me is not what you might call 'he said this and she said that'. Pretty scientific really and not an opinion but rather a provable fact. Will it give us an absolute proof? Hardly but if the content is different why not follow up on what's 'advertised' right on it and make it out of '925'? (if it is different of course).

On the other hand I was asked to prove this thing a fake. Something that has not been seen on pages of history for decades during its purported existence. Please excuse my analogy but that is like proving to you that I am NOT sitting on your couch in your living room while you're taking a shower next door. Seem relatively hard, not to say impossible, comparing to trying and prove the opposite, no?

I noticed an interesting trend during the course of this discussion- while I get called on things here and there, and questions are flying back and forth- as much as me answering everyone else's, for most part mine remain unanswered. Why do you think that is?

I am sorry I can not deliver on your request to provide a magnified shot of the surface of the badge in question as I do not have such badge in my possession but hopefully one of the owners will. There are at least 7.

Gau Badges are some of the objects that if someone is lucky enough to have in his/her collection, more often than not, they will be some of its centerpieces so no one should be surprised that tempers flare here and there when discussing those, but at the same time no one should be surprised that the hard questions are starting to coming to light. After all- we are all after the same thing here- bit of light.
Unfortunately most of what's out there is still unknown, we're just creeping up on some of the facts now and some of it is and will continue to be disappointing to some but like I mentioned before- that should stop no one from sharing facts and opinions. I for one will always be open to anyone willing to share and discuss anything and everything connected with Gau Decorations, and would encourage anyone to drop me a note if they feel something should be discussed.

cheers

Matt

[Matthew]

Here is another one of the sort we discuss here. This one is shown in Niemann's Catalog and is touted as one of the 'documented' ones.
As kindly pointed out by Stan in the difference between fake and 'original', the fakes are missing the lower portion of the left leaf vein. This one too is missing that part of its design.

[Matthew]

What it lost in veining, it certainly gained in hardware. Shown with broken pin in Niemann's, it is no longer the case as offered by Thies (no surprise here).

It would seem the faker made a crucial mistake when producing this one as it features certain detail only seen on one of the 'originals'.
Can't say I am overly surprised but at least we know they are being reproduced in England.

cheers

Matt

[gt1234]

As usual

Mat , as usual You are using dishonest tricks, why You show fake cast silver Gau Danzig, in post about my badge, You call both of them fakes , did You not see differences. Do You think badge shown in last post is cast copy mabe from another fake.

Regards
Grzegorz

[gt1234]

rewers

!!!!

[Matthew]

Mat , as usual You are using dishonest tricks, why You show fake cast silver Gau Danzig, in post about my badge, You call both of them fakes , did You not see differences. Do You think badge shown in last post is cast copy mabe from another fake.

Regards
Grzegorz

I call both of them fakes because IMO both are post war reproductions- one slightly better reproduction than the other but both repros nonetheless IMO.
I show a picture of a badge as described by some to be a 'documented original' and therefore pertinent to the discussion at hand. Stan posted another- is he using 'dishonest tricks' too?
I would welcome anything of value you can bring to the table but aside of telling us that 'you know' your badge is original and trying to invent 2nd class Honor Cross of Red Cross, it looks pretty bleak.


Matt

[Matthew]

hmmm

This rarest type of this badge was sold a many serious delalers around the world...and exists in very serious collections.You can see it in Detlev N.catalog also.

That is the other reason why I mentioned and posted the fake badge. It is the same badge Monta here believes is an original as seen in 'very serious collections' and featured in Niemann's Catalog.

Funny how this one turned into 'fake cast silver badge' in the span of 7 pages.

cheers

Matt

[dragnet]

I've been following this tread sice the beginning and im totally facinated , i do hope it can be kept civil and look forward to more informative replies. Pete
p.s by the way i dont collect Political awards but am allways willing to learn

[Matthew]

I think it's a very nice badge. I know that these so-called first pattern badges are faked but this one looks good to me.

Here is a pic of Arthur Grieser. In his position as a President of Danzig Senate, he would almost certainly be one of the earliest recipients of this award.
I will let the viewers decide if the pictured decoration is the one with or without its side ribbons.

cheers

Matt

[Matthew]

Talking about dedication

The badge that is shown in Niemann's is supposedly attributed to a recipient: Bereichsleiter Lippkau of Danzig.
The Good Bereichsleiter loved his badge quite bit apparently and wore it everywhere until his pin broke off.
He liked it so much he actually managed to wear off a good portion of the silver, making the badge a wee bit smaller than some.
Must've been really proud of it, I think. True Old Fighter he was...

cheers

Matt

[Matthew]

found on the roof

Matt, almost 50 year I'm living in Gdansk, I'm badge collector about 15 years. This Gau Danzing badge is second silver badge I have ever seen in Gdansk area.The first of them was ground dug many Years ago, I have seen it about 12 Years ago.

Oh, look here is another- found in a box during a roof construction in Oliva "many years ago" as described in 2008.
I am surprised you did not know about this one living in Gdansk 50 years and all..
Talking about lucky here!

cheers

Matt