Let's Review: Clemens Wagner Logos & Characteristics

[nonameno]

Hello Gentlemen,
I want to thank everyone who participated on this thread, especially Stonemint and NTZ for their support, and even JT for opening the discussion. It is so easy to let our heart and desires get in front of our intellect and not see a problem. That is why it is alway helpful to get the eyes and opinions of other knowledgable collectors, who can offer sound advice and balance viewpoints. This Forum is often an arena for this discussion.
Thank you and best wishes,
Curtiss

[NTZ]

This is a good gentlemanly discussion and we should keep it going. I have to be honest. A few years ago I thought these were bad also. For most of the reasons JT already mentioned. Since then I have seen a few more that had traits the were unmistakably Clemens Wagner. That is why I have the stance I have now. I flip flopped once with a bit more evidence I could do it again. I would like to hear more members chime in. Maybe someone has one with provenance? As of now I stay firm on period visors. As my tag line says, I search for the truth. Anyone else?

[NTZ]

This little piece of material is what I seen to sway me. This is an unmistakable trait of CW. They used this on all their visors with the Erel type sweatband.

[giorgio]

Hello Gentlemen,
I want to thank everyone who participated on this thread, especially Stonemint and NTZ for their support, and even JT for opening the discussion. It is so easy to let our heart and desires get in front of our intellect and not see a problem. That is why it is alway helpful to get the eyes and opinions of other knowledgable collectors, who can offer sound advice and balance viewpoints. This Forum is often an arena for this discussion.
Thank you and best wishes,
Curtiss

Giorgio

[juvatwad]

Ok, I'll bite. I'm not a dedicated cloth headgear collector, so when I wanted a visor for display with my flight gear, I picked this one up from a reputable dealer:

[NTZ]

I like this one too. I admit the stamp is odd but like I said. I am not sure it is meant to be a cap date.

[sturmbannfuhrer]

Great news with a third one, keep them coming guys.

Does anyone have one with a different date to "Apr 42"

J T

[stonemint]

This is on what I believe to be a post-war DRB visor:

[nonameno]

Hello Gentlemen,
I too really like the most recent CW Luftwaffe officers visor. I think NTS's theory about the parts being made in batches makes a world of sense. It seems very reasonable that then these parts are assembled into the desired end product. Then, depending upon the customer's order, parts are taken and assembled to order.
Thank you,
Curtiss

[Rick C]

With regard to premise of this thread - ”textbook” CW logos and “fake” logos - I ponder by what criteria certain statements of ‘fact’ are made regarding some of the logos pictured. Unlike the case of a logo representing a firm that never existed (which is researchable and documentable) or where a known manufacturer’s logo is produced with the wrong address or similar error, I guess I’m missing how we accept making the jump in logic from a certain logo being present in a reproduction cap to this logo being a fake or fantasy without some kind of evidence more than a statement. Playing the devil’s advocate for a moment, while, clearly, there are faked logos, there are likely ‘variants’ of logos as well, due, simply, to the need, over time, to cut a new template replacing a worn silk screen or logo template. These replacement screens may have, even likely had, subtle differences.

As pointed out above, without considering how certain inks ‘behave’ when applied to different types of cloth (silk, rayon, cotton, etc.) linings, a “blurred” logo (or the lack of ‘perceived’ precise spacing between wing feathers) may well be assumed to be a bad logo. So we have various inks with varying viscosity levels, we have these various inks being applied to various materials having varying porosity values contingent upon the weave of said materials, you have varying pressure exerted by the screener himself in applying the inks and, quite likely a variety of screens used over the duration of the Reich’s existence. Then there’s the difficulty in telling (from a photo) if the diamond or sweatshield is acetate, celluliod or a post war plastic, pursuant to how the flash of the camera hits it, peer review may deal the subject cap a death blow with the simple comment “looks like plastic to me...”.

Here are subtle differences in the BWM logo. Subtle differences does not (necessarily) infer a counterfeit rather, it demonstrates that variations were ‘accepted’ over a period of time.

So, because I’ve never seen logo number three on a Beemer does it make the car on which it’s affixed (automatically) other than a Beemer if every other aspect of its construction and materials used in its construction indicate a product made from to known standards developed by this manufacturing firm? Were I to conclude that logo four (non blue highlights) was used on a mock up car professing to be a Beemer but construction and materials indicated a Chevy Vega, would I then conclude that this logo were ‘a sign’ of a counterfeit Beemer?

[Rick C]

Speaking on another cap, Sturmbannfuhrer correctly noted: “Until the so called "silver version" of this "particluar mark" is shown, a cap should not be discounted solely on the basis of the colour of the mark. It should be discounted on the materials and workmanship basis first.

A piece that exhibits all the correct manufacturing traits of the time period (apart from the colour of the mark in this actual instance) is in danger of being discounted and made worthless by "experts" who are not telling the whole story. Just because someone else said it, is not enough.”

Were we not to know that Schellenberg had numerous sweatshield shapes, numerous color variations of their logo and, in fact, various logos all together, one (not having seen them all) might be prompted to claim (or accept the word of someone posting here) that one (a commonly seen) logo was authentic while certain variants are fantasy logos.

I believe folks need to be a bit more ‘inductive’ in their thinking than ’deductive’ considering the variety of material produced during the war and the changing based materials seen used as the fortunes of war effected manufacturing. While deductive reasoning usually is a credible and 'safe' form of reasoning, it is based on the assumed truth of the rule or law on which it is founded.

While a logo or sweatshield variation (of any maker) might be seen on a reproduction cap from time to time, it does not (necessarily) mean that all caps having this particular logo signals a reproduction all the time. To quote Sturmbannfhrer again, the cap “should be discounted on the materials and workmanship basis first. ...A piece that exhibits all the correct manufacturing traits of the time period (in the present case having a variant logo type) is in danger of being discounted and made worthless by "experts" who are not telling the whole story.”

[NTZ]

Were we not to know that Schellenberg had numerous sweatshield shapes, numerous color variations of their logo and, in fact, various logos all together, one (not having seen them all) might be prompted to claim (or accept the word of someone posting here) that one (a commonly seen) logo was authentic while certain variants are fantasy logos.

Good example. I have buying up and studying Schellenberg’s for some time now. Every time I turn a corner something new comes up. About all I can put together with them are a few consistent construction traits. As for logo, god knows how many more are out there. I have lost count already. In recent years we have also proved the dreaded late war Schellenberg to be correct via a period photo.

[sturmbannfuhrer]

This is on what I believe to be a post-war DRB visor:

You guys are going to love this, I found the following two pics on the estand from a cap in the following thread

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=308013


Pic 1 is the back of the sweatband: Wagner marked 1938 in the style of Minty's one

[sturmbannfuhrer]

Pic 2 is the front of the same band with a Bangert stamping.

1 sweatband supplier, the other the cap maker? you decide my heads hurting

[NTZ]

Carl Bangert ran out of sweatbands and bought a bunch from Clemens Wagner until his order came in.


This is not the first time I have seen multiple maker marks on a contract cap sweatband before. I don't know what to make of it to be honest but my first guess is the above answer.