Thanks, Gary. I think many of us will be quite interested to see the pix you receive! And I'm one who has never seen an example of this badge for sale throughout my 50+ years in this hobby!
Cheers,
Br. James
Cheers,
Br. James
-
-
James,
If you look at the details of the obverse and of the reverse (particularly the maker's markings), you'll see the badges are not identical. While it's possible the maker had more than one die, I think it's unlikely; however, even if there were more than one, the pieces produced from each would be closer in appearance than Gian's is to the original.
I am also interested in seeing the silver badge in question.
ErichFestina lente!Comment
-
SA Marine Silver Sports Badge
Here are the pictures of the badge I am being offered. There are a few pics - I will post all as some have great detail.Comment
-
SA Marine Silver Sports Badge
Next group of picsComment
-
SA Marine Silver Sports Badge
Next group .....Comment
-
SA Marine Silver Sports Badge
Next group ......Comment
-
SA Marine Silver Sports Badge
Last photo.Comment
-
I'm not sure what to think of this badge now...! I note that the reverse inscription is of the First Issue text (March 1934 - January 1935) and the attachment for those early pieces was normally a substantial 'barrel pin' arrangement. But on this piece we see an example of the wartime issue attachment -- essentially a single piece of twisted metal inserted through a squared loop. This does not seem to compare well with period examples of the standard SA Sport Badge of the same period.
Br. JamesComment
-
SA Marine Silver Sports Badge
Much appreciated - wanted to get your view of this before I threw in my two cents worth.
If these were truly transitional pieces, then the "property of ..." statement would have to be first issue. So that much would appear to be correct.
However, I was dissapointed to see the attachment device. I have 1st issues of Gold, Silver and Bronze SA Sports Badges - and all have a substantial attachment device. And all my 2nd and 3rd issues have the "cheaper" twisted wire attachment device. The attachment device on this badge does not match the 1st issue pedigree.
Also, to my untrained eye, the detail appears a bit washed out. It could be that it is silver, and this might affect how the photos look - and that it also appears to be somewhat corroded under the finish - which might account for this.
Very uncomfortable with this piece, and think I will have to pass on it.
Originally posted by Br. James View PostComment
-
Pass on this one. I agree 100% with James.
ErichFestina lente!Comment
-
Thank you James and Erich - much appreciated, as always.Comment
-
Anyone care to comment on the SA Military Sports Badge for Disabled / War Wounded as shown in #s 3 & 4 at the beginning of this thread?
I just noticed one that sold on the E-Stand which looks to be identical (see: http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...light=SA+Badge ).
Subject to feedback to the contrary, l am hoping that mine shown above is period original.
Thanks,
JohnComment
-
SA Sports Badge Disabled/War Wounded
John:
This badge looks 100% authentic to period to me. Finish on front, attachment device and manufacturer information on reverse is correct for this award.
Further your badge is virtually identical to mine, which was authenticated by a very reliable service.
Hope that helps!
Gary
Originally posted by jwburchell View PostComment
-
Sorry, I just saw this question about the War Disabled Sport Badge--IMO it doesn't match any known original M1/100 badge I've seen. While it's very close at first glance, comparing both obverse and reverse to an original (which the e-stand example is, IMO) reveals sufficient differences to question its originality.
ErichFestina lente!Comment
-
Thanks to both Gary and Erich. When one asks for opinions, one must be prepared for the feedback and results which, in this case, differ.
Do you suppose, Erich, that a difference in the strike could allow for the differences...such as some softness in the detail caused by a die toward the end of its lifetime? Or am I pushing the envelope here?
JohnComment
Comment