Originally posted by Runic
View Post
Erich
-
I'm not sure which Erich you mean, but IMO a high quality jeweler could certainly have made one of these for someone who had the means to commission it. As I noted above, assuming it's period, the most logical scenario would have been that it was privately commissioned.
ErichFestina lente! -
Erich, you are definitely the only Erich I refer to, my friend. Thank you for your response.
Your view is Always, I repeat always, appreciated.
RComment
-
Since the badge at Ailsby, a fellow trying to sell fake disc before, so
1. he may clone another one.
2. he may make a fake entry in Littlejohn's record.
3. that Littlejohn's record genuine? Bormann was not CB winner.Comment
-
Chen,
Don't know about discs, but I'll buy the Littlejohn/Ailsby CB any day of the week.👍🏼💪
RComment
-
To chime in, I'll never buy the red CB. It does not have rock solid provenance.
MilComment
-
-
Thanks, Andreas. I have to wonder whether Jo Rivett -- who apparently made that video -- has something to gain in this "horse race?!"
Cheers,
Br. JamesComment
-
Interesting to know that Miscro Marcro is following the thread!
: )
MilComment
-
Actually a good video. His video skills are exceptional, but I don't see how this "proves" it is real or fake. The video shows how this piece could have been made but does nothing, IMO, to establish when it was made.Originally posted by der-hase-fee View Post
Gary BANA LM #1201868, OMSA LM #60, OVMS LM #8348Comment
-
"...but I don't see how this "proves" it is real or fake."
And that's the real point, isn't it?! Though this thread began with a question about a poorly-made copy of a CB -- IMHO -- it quickly morphed into a discussion of the merits of the elegant silver-and-red-enamel CB which David Littlejohn introduced to the collecting world in his reference book in 1968. And from that point on, the question has always been about proving that that one piece came down to us from the TR era. And thus far no one has been able to substantiate that with any period documentation.
Br. JamesComment
-
Originally posted by der-hase-fee View Post
Certainly another nail in the coffin for the red enamelled Coburg Badge.
Factual information regarding production technique that essentially negates this badge from being crafted by a skilled jeweller. So , who then created this badge ?
Copying an award was bad juju and undoubtedly full of red tape to accomplish in the TR period , not done by jeweller standards , no documentation to support this elevated award , first appeared in print 1968 , thought awarded to Bormann who didn’t receive regular CB ...
Regarding Littlejohns logbook , I question the log entry simply describing the Coburg Badge. It looks as though the other entries usually have an alloy descriptor , bronze ... silver etc. I would think , in comparison to the other entries , this entry would read Coburg Badge - Silver alloy .. enamelled .. possible jeweller ... prototype ... something . This could be just an entry for a regular Coburg Badge . Who can say it is the entry for this badge.Comment
-
The bottom line with this badge is that "It is what it is" and no one currently has any definitive information to prove if it is TR era or post war. All that has been covered/discussed is speculation. If it is post war, was it made in 1946...1956.....1966 or if there are later versions.....1996.
I can't believe this thread has gone on for so long. It is just like numerous other badges that are controversial and has believers on both sides of the fence. Items such as:
1) Juncker 800 Silver Pilot badge
2) Round wreath pilot badge
3) Cloth wound badges
4) Prototype Blood orders
5) S&L DKiGs
6) Dotted DKiGs (although I now believe these are accepted)
7) Bakelite wound badges
The arguments are the same for all of the above badges:
1) Naysayers want pictorial evidence. Believers state that unique or late war badges might not have pictorial evidence. If a picture turns up then the debate is on whether or not the picture was photo shopped.
2) Naysayers state if it is real where are the others. Believers say if fake where are the others.
3) Naysayers ask for authorization document. When one is found then they say "authorization documents are not the same as a production order document" (see cloth wound badge debate).
4) Naysayers will state none has turned up in a veterans grouping. When one does turn up in a vet group then they state it is known that many items in veterans groupings are added post war.
The video shows that this badge required alot of work to make, regardless if it is TR era or post TR era. That would be a lot of work to put forth to sell a fake in the 50s/60s for the relatively low price that TR items brought at that time.
I don't have a horse in this race and would not be able to afford this piece if it did come up for auction. If it did I am sure there are enough believers to raise the price to a rather lofty one.
In the "old school" of collecting alot was based on handling the badge itself and from what I have seen in this thread and other related threads for this specific badge only a few have handled it and they were impressed with the quality. Alot that was made in wars to not follow regulations or the expectations we put on things using our standards of today. Limited run badges were cast, errors did get through the quality control etc.
Just my 2 cents, not advocating for or against the badge.
Gary BANA LM #1201868, OMSA LM #60, OVMS LM #8348Comment
-
Gary B, this has gone on for a VERY long time. Your explanation of the points of view is admirable.Comment
-
Gary, your points and obvervations in paragraphs 1-4, are spot on.
No matter what, nobody is satisfied by the evidence, or the lack thereof.
The most spurious argument for a badge to be considered a repro, that there is no evidence of a badge surviving to be in the hands of a German vet, is the open door to wholesale damnation of original badges.
A poor argument in my opinion.Comment
-
Thanks, Joe & Gary!
Gary BANA LM #1201868, OMSA LM #60, OVMS LM #8348Comment
Comment