WSS caps eagle and tk marks

[SScollector]

Hi guys,

The M1/167 eagles are definitely the most distinguishable
of all of the markers. One thing that I would like to share
is that, on any other eagle besides M1/167, (take a look at the close-up posted by Rick), there is one larger, (or longer pointed),
feather near the middle of the breast.
On M1/167 eagles, this larger feather does not exist.
There are many other differences as well.
Thanks! Chris

[SScollector]

Also, I wanted to point out that I don't like the 155/36 eagle.
One reason is that, if you look at the area around the swastika
on the backside, there is pitting or pimpling all over it.
This does not look good to me.
Thanks! Chris

[SScollector]

Hi Martin and everyone,
I also would like to add that, I'm not saying these eagles
are not real because I am certainly no expert and do not
claim to be. I'm just saying that I don't think they are real.
I am always trying to learn more just like the rest of us.
However, I have seen a few real eagles and skulls and
I am always willing to share my opinions that are based
on what I have seen and heard from various experts or
long time collectors and I always try to be accurate and honest with my opinions and if I make a mistake, I'll be the first to admit to it. Thanks! Chris

[Rick Turner]

Well my gut reaction on the #1 eagle (M 1/17) was a good one now that we see the rear. This particular piece is actually cast, not stamp. Check the uneven thickness to the edge and the filled in (small) feather ends from the rear.

It is very likely that a former wartime manufacturer produced these pieces in post-war Germany. Many long time collectors remember them from the 70s and late 60s. The manufacturer that is the suspect origin of these pieces made several construction variations. The maker has indicated they made all manner of medals, badges and insignia and that in order to deal with German law at the time maker marks OTHER THAN THEIR OWN were utilized to deal with the law.

Just off the top of my head, the law was originally created by the West German government to curtail the use of original wartime identification on pieces already being reproduced by post war manufacturers in Germany at the time. I believe the ID law started up in the early 50s, written documentation from manufacturers doing business at the time indicate that everyone making Third Reich items (at the time) started using someone else’s maker mark to get around the law and stay in business.

This switch of identity occurs in metal insignia and awards of all types that were being reproduced in Germany at the time, what a nightmare eh?

The suspect manufacturer was big on using die-cast pieces finished off with a trim or cut-off die (this process was also used by a few German war-time makers). The piece will have what looks like a heavier than normal shear line around its outer edge. Close examination will show this area to be twice as thick as the actual edge, which is typical with this manufacturing process.

This particular piece for me is a “known” reproduction. The jury is still out on the 155/36 but I can say I'm not liking the un-finished metal look or the way the silver color ends along the edge and appears to be totally absent from the rear.

As for repaired pins, has anyone out there ever tried this? The heat required by soft solder is sufficient enough to heat the part all the way through the front and will not only damage the finish but is insufficient to bond the dissimilar materials. The heat from silver solder would severely damage such a thin piece as would an iron or gun held against the part long enough to melt soft solder.

I’ve experimented with damaged and broken pieces in the past, has anyone else ever tried?


Rick

[Rick Turner]

Martin –

Is the 155 eagle magnetic? Is the prong magnetic? Also, have you noticed that the finish on the backside of yours is the same (type and appearance) as the one and only example offered by JeffB so long ago on the GDU forum? Certainly not the same piece but very likely the same maker (whoever that may turn out to be).

Also, I’m going to try to see the mark on my cap eagle again. A friend of mine is going to supply me with a small piece of highly polished stainless steel. Its very thin and very narrow, it may just do the trick.

Rick

[Martin Stiles]

Hi ,Rick, Sorry its been a while,If I may take your points in order
you mention the m1/17 eagle is die cast not stamped,this on its own is not damning of the piece, as you indeed yourself go on to
say that this method was used by war time makers.You mention this is indicated by the small filled in feather ends from the rear,
a feature that you will find on the m/167 eagles made from zinc alloy, or do you not consider that eagle original? I would be surprised as you have one on your protective banded visor
cap. What you go on to mention next is a worrying tale,re-post
war German manufacture, this being the case, if they used original
dies / molds, then surly these would be undetectable indeed almost original ! You mention the documentation from period manufacturers,that alternative codes other than there own were
used, I wonder why not just unmarked, I am sure the GI`s were
not bothered wether the item had a code on ! Which is presumably the market they were intended , or if later then the
early collectors had little or no knowledge of the need for a code.
All very mystifying!
Before you can discard the M1/17 eagle I have shown,First
it would need to be Known that Assmann did not use this
method of production. For me it is not a "known" copy,at least
ways until someone can give manufacturing faults, or period
documentation that Assman did not use m1/17 as a code.
The fact that both eagles are exactly the same detail,apart
from the very very minor differences you pointed out with the
negative photos, Indicates they were produced by the same
manufacturer,is further evidence of originality.
The quality, detailing,dimensions,material, all confirm to period
manufacture,and are indeed very high quality when compared to
either of the eagles posted by yourself,and Chris`s M1/167.
In fact the second eagle which you posted the real high quality
close ups of ,is of way inferior quality, with very poor detail.
I am by no means saying there is any originalty debate with
it, just observing.
To move on to the 155/36 eagle, why dont you like the
unfinished look?Common enough on eagles constructed from
thin brass type alloys, they are only front painted !!
Also if the jury comes back and says guilty, then what did
Assman put on the back of his eagles ?????
I have tried to repair pins,your right solder is hopless
altho this repair artist has had a little more success,however
it did come with both repaired pins and one fell off on first
handling,glue is the only long term answer.
Niether pin nor eagle are magnetic.
Kind regards
Martin
Look forward to your thoughts, all very constructive I believe.

[Martin Stiles]

Hi , Chris, I am a bit lost with some of your comments. Re-155/36
The pitting and pimpiling around the swastika rear,so what ??
It would not make it wrong or right either way !!
Re- M1/17 looks weird and suspicious, then you have shown images on GDC of exactly the same eagle , expressing a liking for
it !
Personally I believe all 3 items you have shown on GDC.

Kind regards
Marin

[Rick Turner]

Hi Martin, everyone-

Just so there is no confusion as far as the use of codes are concerned, I’m not going to make a hard decision about the use of codes based on what we see on certain pieces. I think we should leave that open, its going to take much more research and searching for information before that type of conclusion can be made.

To add to what I stated earlier, I know this is a reproduction because I know its origins. I know who the individual is that searched this out, he was in these post-war factories and not only spoke directly with the owners and operators but saw their shops and what was in them. Original dies were used for a very short time but were replaced by more modern and newer equipment as their operations got back on their feet.

I also had the opportunity (after being pointed in the right direction many years ago) to meet and speak with one of the people that brought them into this country. He showed me his wares at the Great Western show and I saw whom he was selling them to. The eagles were offered to me at a wholesale price of $10 dollars each! (Things were much cheaper back then!)

As far as the number game is concerned, that is not only documented but a portion of that information was published (back in the late 80s) by Bender publications. A copy of some of the original correspondence was also printed. Don’t feel bad; you’re not the first to be puzzled by this information. A moderator over at GDU made the statement after I posted a copy of a letter attesting to this law and method of getting around it by Rudolf Souval (sp?) himself, wondering if what I posted was true. Why would I lie, why would the author lie, why would Bender lie? We’re just trying to help people avoid being burned.

This is the dark side of the hobby that collectors are always suspect of, but, if anyone out there thinks that what I’ve shared is not the truth, contact Roger Bender and ask him about a story written in one of his publications many years ago called “the Numbers Game”. Then ask him a little about the individual that authored the information. I’m not making a decision simply based on the number used, only that the piece offered is in-fact a reproduction, it just happens to be using the number we’re worried about.

Yes I am a proponent of die-casting from about 42 or 43 on so I’ll share a couple more things that will shake up the status quo. I have documentation in the form of a book of standards produced for foundry men in 1944. Not only does it give a complete explanation of die cast methods and what it should be used for, but also gives the metal formula (composition) for aluminum, zinc and yes, even lead based alloy for die casting. Its been noted in the past that lead based alloys were only used in post-war manufacturering, this is simply incorrect. The method was there, it was available at the time, we just don’t know when German industry started using it. I know, just adds to the confusion.

As far as the 155/36 is concerned, the appearance of the finish on the back is troublesome because the same finish has been widely used by southeast Asian reproduction manufacturers and like die casting is hard to pin down as to when the process went into wide spread, world wide industrial use. As far as the piece Martin has offered, it would concern me that the prong(s) are not attached in a skillful manner and the fact that one came off so easily. Remember, these prongs are functional, a person would need to bend them back and forth to install them on a cap and they must be secure enough to withstand normal use.

The zinc-based example that I’ve posted has a considerable amount of wear and soiling as does other elements of the hat like the chin cord. There is evidence to the exterior of the hat that shows it was soiled even partially covered with mud and then cleaned at some point in its life. The surface of the metal shows age discoloration and corrosion (which is typical to zinc) plus traces of soiling.

The jury will be the collecting community on these pieces. I think everyone interested in collecting these pieces can see why its been referred to as a minefield!

Since I no longer collect I’m only offering information and opinions so others can try to decide for themselves. I think as Martin has mentioned many of these items need to be put in a working file until more information becomes available. We still have a long way to go.

Hang in there Martin, we just need to keep at it and we'll figure it out sooner or later.

Cheers
Rick

[Martin Stiles]

Hi Rick and the watchers,
It would seem you know someone I dont ,no surprise!
and he has invauable info,of the period, I would respect
that information and indeed believe your comments.
Interesting that I got the original die bit right ! In my
own amatuer way.
I say a big thanks for making these findings available,
and indeed the numbers game,all these facts are really
quite alarming.
I am pleased my guess that die casting being a correct method
was with your findings also.
The Book you have sounds like the Grail of insignia production !
Your information is fascinating.
Regards the pin attachment on the 155/36 eagle,
these are both replaced post war to include the remaining one
so no clues there.
kind regards
Martin

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

This is purely informative, and each individual is free to make his mind with it, whatever it could be.
It is not directly related to insignia production, but since the thread went to post war production of fakes using original dies in hands of original makers but switching markings to prevent legal issues but keep supplying the market, etc, etc... I will post several photos illustrating some post war activity.
These are not intended to prove anything, and are not a reflect of all activity, but at least the same comments had been also done in the past for dies used to make belt buckles, so fakes been perfect etc...
So here are those photos:

A: Original Assmann (or at least believed Original Assmann) Front.
This buckle belongs to Denis K. and still is in Russia.
The original die is in Belgium.

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

B: Back of the above buckle

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

C: COPY of the above buckle. The main insert was made using the original die before it ended safely now in Belgium.
FRONT
The main interest is to note how the quality of the die strike (after war) is very poor compared to the die strike of the wartime original. We need to keep in mind both were made using the same die!!

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

D: Back of the above copy (C)

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

E: Buckle sold by Overhoff post war. The logo is the well known post war Overhoff logo (the war period was smaller and shape was somehow different.
The main buckle body is a genuine SS Buckle, the exact same as many unmarked from Overhoff between 1943 and 1945.
But points of interest are:
- When this buckle was produced during the war by Overhoff it was unmarked (the ones marked RZM 36/43 SS are seldom seen) but the correct firm's logo had been added on these after the war.
No fear whatsoever, and we are dealing with former production for the SS.
- The buckle is not a re-strike but an original which had been de-nazified for later use, and this was not done just after the war but apparently several years later. So, Overhoff still had some un-delivered SS Buckles when the war stopped and he did not supply the GI's or collectors with them. Apparently they were not destroyed neither. This brings us to the last point.
- Why making fakes to supply the market when originals are still available ?

If one has the answer, good. I don't.

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

And Back of the above Overhoff