SS pin

[Panzer Rob]

reverse:

[clevischi]

Thank you for the pictures, Rob - gratz for this nice pin. We could see the numbers could have diferent pattens.

Here more pics:

[RaymondG]

Hi Carlos

Thanks for the better images.

Is it my eyes, but on the maker mark, does it read 'Hoffstatter' or Hoffstätter'?

Raymond

[Panzer Rob]

Hi Carlos

Thanks for the better images.

Is it my eyes, but on the maker mark, does it read 'Hoffstatter' or Hoffstätter'?

Raymond

Raymond-

It looks as though the umlaut is missing, which - IMHO - sends up another red flag.

Rob

[RaymondG]

Hi

I am not sure if it is my eyes again, but it also look like the pin actually passes through a hole in the back, rather than it being affixed to the back.

I think the time has come to get the old eyes tested again

Raymond

[clevischi]

Thanks for the help again guys.
The A do not have a umlaut... agree about the redflag.

[RaymondG]

Hi Carlos

I thought so. That makes it grammatically incorrect, unless I am mistaken.

That, for me, is a big red flag

Raymond

[RaymondG]

Hi Carlos

It it does not have the umlaut, as I thought, then it is wrong.

A big, red flag in my opinion.

Raymond

[Mike Clayton]

Raymond,
Did you notice that it has the classic shaped "3" in the serial Nr. that the Hoffstatter pins have? Do you think that makes it any more creditable?

Mike Clayton

P.S Thanks for all your help today!!

[clevischi]

Not only the 3, the others numbers has the same pattern.

[RaymondG]

Hi chaps

Thought I would do a side-by-side comparison between a textbook original pin and the one posted up.

If I can ask that you look at the style and presentation of the maker mark.

Raymond

[Panzer Rob]

Not only the 3, the others numbers has the same pattern.

Carlos-

Actually, IMHO, they don't. If you study and compare the three images you posted in post number 11, I think you will find that while the '3' is very similar, it is not exactly the same. Furthermore, I see no resemblance between the other numbers in the two images you posted as a comparison; surely not to those on the back of the pin Raymond just posted.

Simply put, this is definitely not a pin I would feel comfortable with having in my collection. I personally don't like owning anything that I need to try and convince myself is 'good' - especially when it compares unfavorably to known originals in several aspects and when experienced collectors are expressing concern.

But, to each his own...
Rob

[clevischi]

Agreed with you Rob, the pin is all the way back to seller.

[John T]

Is the first pin posted hollow? Why does it have an outline around the back?

John

[RaymondG]

Hi John

Given the way the pin assembly disappears into the badge, then I have to assume that it is.

There are all kinds of red flags with this badge.

I always come back to a point I make many times: why would a company change production techniques for a short production run? In this case, to a more difficult, expensive process?

I am not a manufacturing man, but it would not make sense to me. I am sure it did happen, but in this case, I doubt it.

We are talking about a mass produced pin which retailed at less than 1RM.

I am always open to learning new things about these pins, but would need some overwhelming evidence to change my initial thoughts on the subject, and this pin in particular.

Best wishes

Raymond

PS - I would really like to see what is behind the front part of the badge, by removing the 'backing plate'. Carlos, I suggest you do not does this yourself.