SS zivilabzeichen pin: real or fake?

[Jo Rivett]

I love a warm and fuzzy chemical alteration.

You are weird. If you have your money on the old man, fair play.

[J. Wraith]

You are weird. If you have your money on the old man, fair play.

Hahaaaaa, now you have me thinking that a warm and fuzzy chemical alteration might be a good way to pass the day. No money on the old man and the pins are fake anyway so not sure what the big deal is. I do know having purchased these many times that every time I receive one I end up looking at the mailed photos from when I made the deal to see if I got the same pin, thats how tricky the lighting and photos can be.

[Jo Rivett]

Well, the main point from my side, was time wasting. But i do have to admit that proving anything is not going to be possible, there will be too many "buts", and to be fair, the image that Gary posted in 2014 is very small. And, if Lawyery terms are flying around, it may indeed to be sensible to blame the "old man" instead.

So, i will concede, and go back to yesterday, when everyone was quite OK with pointing to the "old man." And point too, in his direction.

Yes, fakes of course, but that is not the point. And it would also be very unfair, as well as irresponsible, to just examine good fakes, or fakes that we dont know are fakes yet. Everything needs to be included, even fakes that many have known as such, for a long time.

[Gary Symonds]

Guys, why does Jo protest so much? As J. Wraith said in post 32, since 11376 is a fake anyway, "what's the big deal."? A very good question, why is Jo Rivett making such a big deal over the two ss stickpins, 13185 and 13376, that I sent to him for examination in 12/14?

Jo really does have a stake in this. You will see that in his book The Party Badge Jo goes into great detail about what he call "micro-patina." In fact he devotes an entire chapter in the book to this topic.

Jo's theory, which is born out not only in mircroscopy photos, but plain common sense is as follows: that it is possible for a faker to add a convincing patina to a badge to give the appearance of age, but "a patina can be faked to fool, or convince on any item. Yet adding a micro-patina-is not humanly possible." (See bottom of second paragraph-page 386)

What is exactly "micro-patina."? Author Rivett explains at the top paragraph on page 387 that "micro-patina" is the result of a badge being "worn." It is a badge that "was taken off, put in a drawer, put back on, ended up in a washing machine, was knocked against the clothes stand when the jacket was hung up, brushed against the door frame when two heavily built Parteigenossen tried to leave the room together. Let your fantasy run wild. It was worn, and when you look at certain aspects in detail, you will see it was worn". "This is known as "honest patina."

Author Rivett goes on to say that all parts of an original badge are going to show the micro-patina. At the bottom of page 387 to tells us that the rim of a badge will show evidence of genuine use and wear.

Author Rivett after showing us examples of wear on rims, that he devotes a subchapter on "Micro-Patina on Raised Markings" at page 389. He provides us with micro closeups at page 390-391 of raised letters clearly showing dents and damages in the raised letters on the reverse of a badge, that clearly and common sensibly, could only be caused by "use" and nothing more.

Author Rivett, then clearly proves his point by showing at page 392-93, raised letters on the reverse of reproductions badges, that in fact have no evidence of microscopic dents or damages. These letters are pristine. Never been used.

Author Rivett has clearly showed us a good forensic method of proving originality in enamel badges. He truly must be congradulated by the collecting community for this break through in scientifc evidence!

Now, let us deal with the "fake" hoff stickpins 13185 and 13376 that Jo was provided. In posts 5 and 9, Jo tells us that the obverse of the fake hoff is so good that "nobody" can tell the difference between an original and the fake. The only way is to look at the reverse.

Let us look at the pictures Jo provided in post 30. These are closeups of 13185 which clearly show great evidence of use. The reverse is devoid of silver wash, only the underlaying base metal is left. The obverse shows enormous enamel wear. The silver on the runes is gone. The enamel on the inner edge of the outer ring is gone. Clearly 13185 has a great amount of use patina. Of course this could have been somehow created by the faker, as Jo pointed out.

This of course would mean that someone spent hour after hour rubbing the reverse of 13185 on a piece of heavy cloth, to suggest the wear that woud be created by the stickpin being taken off a jacket and being put on a jacket countless times, from the mid 30s to let's say 1945.

It would mean that someone placed 13185 in a vice, and with some type of small chisel or other tool, carefully gouged out the enamel in the outer ring. Again, to create an artificial, fake patina.

Now what about the micro-patina on 13185? Well, at post 10 Mr. Rivett informs me and the membership that he paid no attention to the micro-patina of 13185, because he wanted to prove that 13376 was in the evolution or process of becoming the fake that 13185 evidently was.

As far as I'm concerned, his attention was misdirected. 13185 is a Rosetta Stone for the raised Hoffs. If this is indeed a fake, no further inquiry need be made to examine 13376, or logically speaking any raised Hoff.

Though Jo has taken micro photos of 13185 as he tells us in post 10, he fails to provide this evidence to me as promised, and tells us the evidence will be forth coming.

Well, Jo, please show me the absence of micro-patina on the edge of 13185. Jo, please post the damning raised letters on the reverse of 13185, to show that they are without dents or damages.

If 13185 has been doctored, with a fake artiificial use, removing the silver wash on the reverse, removing the silver wash from the front, or as you claim I did on the obverse silver ring in 13376 by "buffing", in post 26, then I can be proved to be the fraud you claim that I am, and show that 13185 has no micro-patina, and that will prove conclusively and fnally that not only is 13185 a fake, but 13376 and all of the Hoffs are fakes, and you will finally settle this issue once and for all.

Mr. Rivett, please show the absence of micro-patina on 13185, or 13376. You have the microscpic pictures. Please post them.

If the evidence of these badges being reproductions is there, please prove it.

[valsente]

Gary says: "As far as I'm concerned, his attention was misdirected. 13185 is a Rosetta Stone for the raised Hoffs. If this is indeed a fake, no further inquiry need be made to examine 13376, or logically speaking any raised Hoff."

That's what I have known from beginning. Is it so? All the raised Hoff are fakes or not?
Thanks
Val

[Gary Symonds]

Gary says: "As far as I'm concerned, his attention was misdirected. 13185 is a Rosetta Stone for the raised Hoffs. If this is indeed a fake, no further inquiry need be made to examine 13376, or logically speaking any raised Hoff."

That's what I have known from beginning. Is it so? All the raised Hoff are fakes or not?
Thanks
Val

Val, the answer as to the originality of the raised Hoffs will be provided to the membership by Mr. Rivett.

Jo has the forensic evidence to prove stickpin 13185, is either a fake, or that the raised Hoffs are original as I have maintained all along.

We are all waiting for Jo Rivett's final, forensic microscopic evidence, from 13185 or 13376, as to a determination of originality or reproduction of the raised Hoffstatter, maker marked SS civil stickpins, based on the absence or presence of "micro-patina" on either stickpin. You must remember Jo told us that it is not "humanly possible" to create a fake micro-patina.

[J. Wraith]

Neither the front nor the back of these are the same from the raised pattern to the impressed pattern. Yeah, on a glance at a table you need to pick one up but it ends there. Books and forensics and just ducky but the collectors or those who have questions need to get out of their chairs and get pieces through their hands in order to understand what is out there. You probably run an average of anywhere for 10-20x as many raised Hoffs as you do the impressed. The enamel is not the same nor is the process for which it is made. Jo can put up whatever he wants and that is what he does as an academic study but you really do not need it as it can be seen with the naked eye on a close examination.

[Gary Symonds]

Neither the front nor the back of these are the same from the raised pattern to the impressed pattern. Yeah, on a glance at a table you need to pick one up but it ends there. Books and forensics and just ducky but the collectors or those who have questions need to get out of their chairs and get pieces through their hands in order to understand what is out there. You probably run an average of anywhere for 10-20x as many raised Hoffs as you do the impressed. The enamel is not the same nor is the process for which it is made. Jo can put up whatever he wants and that is what he does as an academic study but you really do not need it as it can be seen with the naked eye on a close examination.

Mr. Wraith, I can only quote Jo Rivett's prior statement in this thread, that the obverse of the raised Hoffs are identical to the impressed Hoffs. If you are correct that the fabrication and enameling is different, and can be spoted at a glance, this only proves that if Hoffstatter could change the reverse and use a raised maker mark, Hoffstater could also change the enameling. So what?

Jo Rivett's forensic evidence is not mere acadamia as you make out, but it is the conclusive answer, good or bad, on the raised Hoffs that you continually claim are fakes.
Jo's answer could prove you 100% correct, and I am dead wrong.

We await fellow WAF member and author, Jo Rivett's forensic evidence on the presence or absence of mcro-patina, on questioned, raised maker mark, Hoffstater SS civil stickpins 13185 and 13376.

[Gary Symonds]

Gary says: "As far as I'm concerned, his attention was misdirected. 13185 is a Rosetta Stone for the raised Hoffs. If this is indeed a fake, no further inquiry need be made to examine 13376, or logically speaking any raised Hoff."

That's what I have known from beginning. Is it so? All the raised Hoff are fakes or not?
Thanks
Val

Jo, Valsente is waiting for your answer.

[SiPo]

Jo has the forensic evidence to prove stickpin 13185, is either a fake, or that the raised Hoffs are original as I have maintained all along.

Gary,

Just for the sake of balance and to help put the matter of raised Hoff's to bed, could you please post any evidence you possess that proves the raised Hoff's are original.

G

[Gary Symonds]

Gary,

Just for the sake of balance and to help put the matter of raised Hoff's to bed, could you please post any evidence you possess that proves the raised Hoff's are original.

G

Yes, certainly. Please look at post 30. If we apply Jo's standard for originality as being "use" there it is. Stickpin 13185 has been through the mill and then some. How did all this "use" get on this pin?

However, Jo has the micro photos of both stick pins that either show no "micro-patina" in which case 13185 and 13376 are fakes or it is present and the raised Hoff are original.

This is not rocket science, and Jo can prove this issue of the raised Hoffs once and for all.

That is why I sent them to Switzerland for his revue. He had them for two months.

What did he learn that he can share with all of us?

[Wim Vangossum]

Hi Gary,


The micro patina aside, I have a problem/big concern for the chubby and very uniform lettering on these Hoffstätters. It is not what we are used to see on period badges. On period badges ,albeit how delicate the work sometimes was done, it still has some crude appereance when compared it to the very smooth, machine like-look on the raised maker mark examples??? It must have been a robot-like die cutter.


Regards, Wim

[SiPo]

Yes, certainly. Please look at post 30. If we apply Jo's standard for originality as being "use" there it is.

Not quite the evidence I was hoping to see.

[Gary Symonds]

Not quite the evidence I was hoping to see.

Sipo, if we use Rivett's basic assumption per his book that originals were "used" originals show "wear." Reproductions were not "used," reproductions do not show "wear." Clearly the stickpin at post 30 shows massive wear and usage.

As I have previously pointed out, this usage could have been faked, at a great deal of effort, such as somehow, without damaging the entire badge, chipping out and removing nearly all the enamel from the outer ring. Countless hours would be spent rubbing the sliver wash from the reverse. Or it could mean that somebody used and wore this stickpin for 10 years or so.

Mr. Rivett has micro photos of both of my raised Hoffs. If in fact he his bound by his published claim that micro-patina can not be "humanly faked," he has the evidence. The micro-patina is there, or it is not. The evidence does not lie.

I could be proved 100% wrong, and the raised Hoffs, as perfect as the obverse is, are fakes. You and the rest of the WAF were right.

[Jo Rivett]

Post 13
If posts are not read, we are doomed to repeat our questions. Over and over and over. Reading & understanding, slowly, correctly. Glove in hand job that is, glove-in-hand.