Eagle / skull any insight

[Rick C]

I periodically post something to the SS forum to see what I can learn. As a result I'm often disappointed with the insight I get but hey, I'm getting used to finding that I'm not seeing enough or learning enough with regard to this SS stuff so, where my email's down & thus, business at a standstill I figured post something and take my weekly beating.

Eagle & skull - These are stamped NOT cast. The material appears to be a silver plated tombak. It has, I believe, the correct pins on the reverse.

Any insights? Rick C.

[Rick C]

skull

[Rick C]

Eagle

[WalterB]

I believe the lack of an explanation or insight as to why an item is fake would only help fakers try to improve their products. I don't know much about eagles and skulls, but I can tell that what you have is bad. Really bad. I would be willing to eat my hat on this assertion.

[Rick C]

eagle reverse

[Rick C]

Wow, that was quick. Record time on getting a comment beating these like a dog. Here's the back of the skull.

[Wolf100]

The skull is of course bad - ss markings on skulls are a big no,no.

The eagle might be good. Better pics of the backside may show it.

[Rick C]

eagle reverse again

[SScollector]

The skull is a pitiful cast fake. The eagle is also no good.
Similar fakes are discussed here weekly.

Best, Chris

[Rick C]

Okay. I’m hoping you folks will bear with me regarding some (perhaps) dumb questions since I’m still hoping to learn something here.

This skull has been described as: “a pitiful cast fake” so clearly I’m missing something that’s real obvious. I’m not seeing pitting or bubbles in the surface of the metal, even under magnification although I do see finish degradation. What should I be looking for and seeing on this example that so clearly and definitively shows it to be “a pitiful cast fake.” Someone commented (in another thread) that “If it was stamped , the teeth would show on the inside.” Since the teeth are mirrored on the reverse of this skull, would this, in fact, indicate the skull is stamped versus pitifully cast?

Also, an impression I get from reading links similar to this (as well as handling a few cast fakes) is that a characteristic of “cast reproductions” is their weight being significantly heavier than the originals. While I don’t have a gram scale here (haven’t had one of those since my college days thirty years ago) this totenkopf is not heavy. On a postal scale is comes in at 0.2 of an ounce. Is that heavy and representative of a cast fake by your standards?

That brings up the base material. The metal beneath what finish remains appears a coppery color so clearly we’re not looking at aluminum or a zinc. That, I believe, leaves us tombac or cupal & I’m not sure how to tell the difference. I’m hoping for guidance in that regard as well as how often one sees tobac stamped or cast fakes.

[Sayle F]

Fakes again.

I guess poeple are just tired of seeing the same fakes being shown again and again and again. Use the search engine on the site. If you put the markings on the back of your insignia into the search engine you would have had your answer. And Yes those are very bad fakes.

[Robert H]

I just can agree with Sayle F, no effort in self study.

[willysproject]

Well, let's start with this... Why are the pins correct? How do you came to this belief? Do you have compared it to a known original skull with these markings? Please post a pic of this confirmed known original then...

Kind regards,
Gerd V

It has, I believe, the correct pins on the reverse.

[bwanek1]

This skull has been described as: “a pitiful cast fake” so clearly I’m missing something that’s real obvious.

That TK could be described as "pitiful" for any number of reasons. Before even getting to the quality of the casting, I would call it pitiful based on the fact that the overall detail is poor, it bears no resemblance to any original, and it uses a maker mark (including SS runes) which you will find on no original. They didn't try too had to fool anyone but a complete novice [take no offense] with that design.

I’m not seeing pitting or bubbles in the surface of the metal, even under magnification although I do see finish degradation. What should I be looking for and seeing on this example that so clearly and definitively shows it to be “a pitiful cast fake.”

There are plenty of other features which make a casting visibly and obviously different than a die-struck piece. In simple terms, I will just call this one thick and chunky. However, not all castings are as poor as this one; there are some very high-quality castings out there as well. Some much better copies are, in fact, excellent castings made from originals, having no surface blemishes at all and exhibiting none of the clumsiness of this one.

Someone commented (in another thread) that “If it was stamped , the teeth would show on the inside.” Since the teeth are mirrored on the reverse of this skull, would this, in fact, indicate the skull is stamped versus pitifully cast?

Whoever said that is wrong. Several original die-struck styles have smooth backs. That was a function of the design of the reverse die, not the result of the front image "coming through" on the reverse as a result of the strike. Likewise, castings made from or intended to resemble originals with reverse images on the back will display these features, despite not being die-struck themselves.

Also, an impression I get from reading links similar to this (as well as handling a few cast fakes) is that a characteristic of “cast reproductions” is their weight being significantly heavier than the originals. While I don’t have a gram scale here (haven’t had one of those since my college days thirty years ago) this totenkopf is not heavy. On a postal scale is comes in at 0.2 of an ounce. Is that heavy and representative of a cast fake by your standards?

I have never actually weighed insignia. I doubt that is a sound method of determining original from fake. I simply point out that originals are feather-light and, once you have handled a bunch, most cast copies will feel much heavier in your hand.

That brings up the base material. The metal beneath what finish remains appears a coppery color so clearly we’re not looking at aluminum or a zinc. That, I believe, leaves us tombac or cupal & I’m not sure how to tell the difference. I’m hoping for guidance in that regard as well as how often one sees tobac stamped or cast fakes.

It really doesn't matter what is beneath the paint in this case, as it is such an obvious fake. However, for your future reference, very few skulls (and no eagles) of the second pattern were ever made of tombak, which is a bit heavier and stiffer than CupAl. Also, its color is more brass-like yellow, as opposed to the reddish or brownish color the copper in CupAl will display.

I hope some of that helps

[Sayle F]

wholly Mackerel

Damn Brad you are F in good samaritan Great Info for this member! You are much more patient than I and a much better typist