Eagle / skull any insight

[Arran]

I would also add that there appears to be very visible casting residue in the top of the right eye socket in post #6

[Arran]

I would also add that there appears to be very visible casting residue in the top of the right eye socket in post #6

[bwanek1]

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

I don't claim to be an authority, but I spend a lot of time studying these things, so I try to share what I have learned with others who are trying to learn themselves. In this case, he truly seems eager to learn and not just get a quick yes/no answer.

I can also be impatient with people who don't seem willing to do their own homework, and the fact that he didn't discover on his own that those markings are entirely bogus tells me that he needs to do a better job at it, but the fact that he referenced an older thread (albeit incorrect) about reverse side markings tells me that he is trying to do some study on his own.

Let's cut him some slack.

[SScollector]

Noticeable pitting does not always appear on cast fakes, although they have a different look from the originals. Here is an original for you to compare.The markings are different, but I believe this is the maker that they were trying to copy.

Best,
Chris

[Rick C]

Well, hmmm - I understand you guys have participated in many discussions on various related topics and, after a time, perhaps everything blurs into one haze of common responses thus your complete and total lack of responsiveness to the questions I posted.

Saye’s comment was I should search out the markings which, of course, I did prior to posting the photos and acknowledge that this skull (and eagle both) have the infamous contract number (373/43) that’s on the list from hell circulated herein. Presuming I’m stupid enough to not even attempt to search any criteria before I waste my time posting examples (or yours in looking at them) is a bit disappointing and not on point to my query. Robert’s comment that I’ve put “no effort in self study” seems arrogant enough to not warrant a response. You don’t know me Robert or the amount of “self study” I’ve done or not done. That said, both responses fail to address my questions above which I honestly would appreciate some guidance with.

As for the contract number known to be used on fakes, I too have seen some real doozies having this contract number. I’ve also seen junk having more acceptable contract numbers or RZM codes; I’m just wondering if ‘assumptions’ are jumped to because of being on “a list”.

My questions were to the construction (which does NOT appear to be cast in the present case), the weight differential of cast versus stamped, and material identification in the examples presented. None of my questions posed above fall into the categories which may be construed to help the ‘fakers’ tweak their wares therefore are not state secrets to be guarded by the membership herein.

If anyone can shed light on these questions your answers would be appreciated. As for the comments alluding to my being a lazy neophyte, with all due respect, I can do without your running up your counter at my expense.

[bwanek1]

...your complete and total lack of responsiveness to the questions I posted.

My questions were to the construction (which does NOT appear to be cast in the present case), the weight differential of cast versus stamped, and material identification in the examples presented.

If anyone can shed light on these questions your answers would be appreciated.

I guess you were dissatisfied with my attempt to answer each of your questions in post #14.

I went to the time and effort to give you answers and then I went on in a later post to defend you and suggest that others "cut you some slack." Based on that last post of yours, I am now regretting doing both.

[Rick C]

I guess you were dissatisfied with my attempt to answer each of your questions in post #14.

I went to the time and effort to give you answers and then I went on in a later post to defend you and suggest that others "cut you some slack." Based on that last post of yours, I am now regretting doing both.

Fact is when I hit reply you must've been already posted as when I started writing I didn't see any more reponses than Robert's.

I very much appreciate your detailed comments. They were articulate and clear. Sorry if I came across the wrong way - I just got a bit bent out of shape when I spend hours reading posts in researching and get told I'm not trying to learn.

Again, my appologies.

[Robert H]

Brad, are you getting paid

[BenVK]

It's all about research. If you take the time to trawl through old threads, you'll usually find the specific answers to your questions, especially about SS visor cap insignia. If you don't, the very least you'll find are the experts in this field, like Brad and Chris who are always willing to offer their expertise and you really should listen to them!

[Anders S]

It's all about research. If you take the time to trawl through old threads, you'll usually find the specific answers to your questions, especially about SS visor cap insignia. If you don't, the very least you'll find are the experts in this field, like Brad and Chris who are always willing to offer their expertise and you really should listen to them!

Agreed 100%