1926 - 1936 Berlin Badge.. Good or Bad??

[Chris Lee]

Badge

Gary,
I have informed Craig of this thread. Hopefully he`ll take a look and give his opinion.

[Richard]

There are excellent copies of the 1944 Gausieger badge in zink that are painted that have even fooled experts. The quality is actually significantly more superb than the painted Gau badges shown here. To say no badges have been reproduced in zink is incorrect. One also has to consider the pictures in Dohle's books are drawings/renderings. Even the DKiG shows a thin swastika not seen on originals so one cannot assume his drawings to be to scale or 100% accurate and photo quality reproductions.

To assume a badge of this significance would be produced in a low quality painted version is quite a stretch, especially with the pin versions that are on the reverse. Even towards the end of the war, painted badges were produced with a high degree of quality. A badge of this significance and importance, even if produced in painted zink, would be of highest quality and would not show the cheap characteristics of the badges shown.

Chris' badge also shows pitting and bad surfaces on the obverse. Not a good sign. Perhaps some might consider the badge a risk worth taking but in the overall collecting community, you would have a difficult time selling any of the painted badges shown as original. Just as there may not be proof showing they never existed in zink, there is also no proof to show they existed in anything other than fine quality enamel. This in itself makes the painted badges a hard sell to the majority of the collecting community until substantive proof arises. Dohle's rendering may show a round headed eagle, but it doesn't show the reverse, which may be a more telling characteristic. Additionally his renderings are drawings, not photographs.

Richard V

[Gary Symonds]

Richard V:
Why do you have a problem with the concept that there are two separate badges? The artist in Doehle's book drew what he saw. He was NOT provided with a 1936 Honor Badge. He did not see before his artist's eye, a flat headed SA Eagle. If he had, he most certainly have drawn a flat headed SA Eagle. After all this was an official Party Publication, edited by the Dr.Doehle, the SS Oberfuhrer, head of medal production in Hitler's Chancellery.

It would have been plainly unthinkable for the artist to decide, he did not artistically "like" the SA eagle, so he would render the color drawing as he "liked". Do you really think that this would have occured in the iron police state that was the Third Reich? Not a chance! By the way, you mention a "thin swastika" on the German Cross in Doehle's book to illustrate what may be called "artistic liberty?" Fair enuf. Did the artist change the date "1941", to "1942", because after all the guy was making the color drawing in 1942, and he wanted to be up to date. Did the guy decide he did not "like" a rotated swas, so instead, he painted a static, flat swas because he "liked" that way. The change from a flat headed SA eagle to a round pigeon head eagle is not even close to a "thin swas" on a 1941 German Cross in Gold.

The artist was provided with a round pigeon headed eagle. That is what he saw, that is what the artist drew. Whoever provided the artist with the round headed eagle, probably really thought it was the 1936 badge. Probably never looked that closely and the end result is what we see. Not what we want.

This artist was drawing the redesigned badge with the pigeon headed eagle. That is what he saw. That is what he drew. Why it was created is anyone's guess. But they did exist. And mine and Chris Lee's are the proof. The evidence is there. These not being Honor Badges, the quality is not there, for the simple reason that they are NOT honor badges. The Berlin Gau would never have granted a 1936 badge in zinc, a future wartime metal. But they would have granted a redesigned badge based on the 1936 badge, at first in enamel and tobak, and as the war progressed and copper had more important duties in such minor roles as being used as brass for artillery shell, or 7.92 mm mg ammo, find the wartime subsitute, paint for enamel. Zinc for tombak.

Richard, You say you have seen repro zinkers. You mention the 1944 HJ/DAF paint and zinc badge as being reproduced. If these are credibly reproduced, what other fake paint and zinc badges are out there? The very few of the so called fake 1944 Gaussiegers in paint and zinc that I've seen posted on the Forum, are originals in my opinion. I cannot recall any other repro zinkers on the Forum, bu I'd love to see them.

Could please either post these pictures, or better yet, a WAF thread that proves your point.

[Gary Symonds]

Gary,
I have informed Craig of this thread. Hopefully he`ll take a look and give his opinion.

Chris:
Please don't count on that. The Great Craig, deems not to mix with the great unwashed unless on his own terms. Please don't hold your breath on this one.

He may bestir himself, or he may be off "performing" as a "firearms expert" on Pawn Stars.

That was one of the many reasons I was put off from talking to the Exalted One. He was "too busy to talk." Had to go to Vegas to shoot Pawn Stars." "Later"!

[Winston]

Ron shows the real deal IMO.....Deohle´s pics show a different 9 on the right hand side that I would say just looks like the one on Ron´s.....so in that aspect the other ones shown do not correspond IMO

[Gary Symonds]

Ron shows the real deal IMO.....Deohle´s pics show a different 9 on the right hand side that I would say just looks like the one on Ron´s.....so in that aspect the other ones shown do not correspond IMO

Winston:
Not surprising. Ron's is "the real deal", it IS a Honor Badge. The badge depicted in Doehle is NOT a Honor Badge. You with me? I know the concept is hard for the membership to understand, but these are TWO different badges.

The artist could have artistic license to illustrate the "9" slightly different than the actual piece. That is so minor compared to the shape of the eagle's head, as to be really inconsequential to these discussions.

Again, we are comparing the 1936 orange, to the circa 1940 apple.

Why does the membership have a problem with the word "diff-er-ent?"

[Winston]

Now if I keep an open mind for a second I wonder why both depicted in Doehle carry the description 30 golden awarded below the picture? And I would also wonder what name is given in both Doehle editons for what is shown......dont get me wrong,you are entitled to your opinion on your badge

[RonR]

Winston:
Ron's is "the real deal", it IS a Honor Badge.

The badge depicted in Doehle is NOT a Honor Badge.

these are TWO different badges.

Perhaps this will help (from Niemann's reference)........


............

[Gary Symonds]

RonR:
Now we are getting somewhere. I forgot about Niemann. He at least mentions the Berlin badge in zinc. His opinion is these are tinnies or participant badges. Fair enuf. Too bad he does not show a picture of the badge in his catalog, but my post #16, #17, is obviously what Niemann is describing. The same badge that Chris Lee originally posted.

I don't agree with Herr Niemann, and my opinion is that the enamel and tombak badge I posted proves to me that the pigeon headed eagle was given for the war effort. Too well made to be a tinnie or participant badge. But that makes no difference. I might add, that by the time zinc and paint was used after 1942, tinnies or participant badges were a thing of the past. They died shortly after the war began. Not many events after 1942 would have its own "day badge." Guys, give that one some thought.

Even if the paint and zinc is a "tinnie", or call it a "participant's badge" , the whole point is that they are Original to the Third Reich, and not "fakes", as the membership to a man told Chris Lee his badge was a "fake"without a doubt.

The historical proof are the pictures of this "tinnie" in Doehle's books.

Ron, you know the difference between apples and oranges.

Thanks for providing some real evidence to this discussion.

[der bingle]

RonR:
Now we are getting somewhere. I forgot about Niemann. He at least mentions the Berlin badge in zinc. His opinion is these are tinnies or participant badges. Fair enuf. Too bad he does not show a picture of the badge in his catalog, but my post #16, #17, is obviously what Niemann is describing. The same badge that Chris Lee originally posted.

I don't agree with Herr Niemann, and my opinion is that the enamel and tombak badge I posted proves to me that the pigeon headed eagle was given for the war effort. Too well made to be a tinnie or participant badge. But that makes no difference. I might add, that by the time zinc and paint was used after 1942, tinnies or participant badges were a thing of the past. They died shortly after the war began. Not many events after 1942 would have its own "day badge." Guys, give that one some thought.

Even if the paint and zinc is a "tinnie", or call it a "participant's badge" , the whole point is that they are Original to the Third Reich, and not "fakes", as the membership to a man told Chris Lee his badge was a "fake"without a doubt.

The historical proof are the pictures of this "tinnie" in Doehle's books.

Ron, you know the difference between apples and oranges.

Thanks for providing some real evidence to this discussion.

In my humble opinion, this thread could be a breakthru, and important enough for the membership to bring this to a definite conclusion. my hats off to all involved.

[Richard]

Glad this was proven to be period with out a shadow of a doubt. In any event, not one for my collection or for most others either. If it is a genuine tinnie (which I doubt), it is one of poor quality.

Gary, Don't know why you are so steadfastly defending this badge (other than you have an investment in the one in your collection) and appear to be upset that I don't personally care for this badge. I have to ask, in post 33 you seem to belabor the point the artist would not have taken artistic license with the eagles head and must have used an original to draw what he saw in Doehle. Then in post 36 you state someone did use artistic license to illustrate the "9" differently in the book than on scanned badges. So does he or does he not take artistic license, or does the story change to suit your defense of this badge?

You ask me why I have difficulty accepting that there may be two badges. I have no difficulty accepting that there is a day badge and an honor badge. Unfortunately none of the supposed "day badges" pictured here qualify for anything more and would, if original, be of minimal value. Why do you have such great difficulty believing these may be fake? I know when you have money invested and something in your collection, you may fight to the end to try to prove it real.

Here is a thread discussing the 1944 Gausieger badge. Even the fakes of this badge are better than the supposed day badge that mimics one of the Third Reich's Ehrenzeichen posted at the start of this thread you are suggesting is original. There exist also fake "late war" HJ membership and NSDAP membership badges that are painted. Most painted badges that bring any kind of money have been faked. I've even seen the Seefahrt is Not tinnie (which brings $10 on a good day for a real one) faked.

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...1944+gausieger

Richard V

[Max_Porter]

Perhaps this will help (from Niemann's reference)........


............

Oh yes, that´s really a perfect prove: If one takes the pics of the Berlin Badge and proves the zinc version of it with the text reffering to the next badge in catalogue:

Niemann reffers to the DANZIG badge in zinc, his next number .... The description of the Berlin Badge ist at the page before ....

Did nobody realises that?

[RonR]

Oh yes, that´s really a perfect prove: If one takes the pics of the Berlin Badge and proves the zinc version of it with the text reffering to the next badge in catalogue:

Niemann reffers to the DANZIG badge in zinc, his next number .... The description of the Berlin Badge ist at the page before ....

Did nobody realises that?

Max,

Of course your are right.

What a terrible error on my part!

My limited understanding of German, and my haste, I afraid, made this mistake.

So very sorry!

I should have kept out of this discussion.

Here is the proper text for the award......




.................