LAH cyphers

[Julius]

Hello everybody,

I search more documentation about this nice set of LAH cyphers. If somebody have pics of a same sample. Thanks for all your comments !

[Julius]

.

[Julius]

Opinions are welcome too !

[wh014d4394]

i think you will find.there the new fakes that are poping up.heres mine 100pc right

[wh014d4394]

heres the same nasty fake if im right

[Julius]

Thanks guys!

Any more informations?

[Bobwirtz]

I believe that wh014d4394 is correct. Here is a photo of an known original and you can see the differences between it and the one you posted here. Also this one and the original of wh014d4394 match up very well.



Bob

[derka]

hello,

as LAH slip-on is not realy my area,
i would like to ask few questions.
it seems that there are variations in design of those cyphers;
in some cas the embrodery is larger than in others wich have sharper angles.
i did a lttle research on the forum,
and i might didn't understand correctly.
in this thread, Mike Davis presented a slip-on in #7 as original for comparizon :
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...light=lah+slip
and in this thread, sdkf7 247 showed a several wiews of slip-on, and particulary in #22, for wich there was a dicussion :
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...light=lah+slip

i tried to compare those pics with the one in the present thread :
julius pic :

Mike Davis pic #7 :

sdkfz247 pic #22 :


the differences between those don't jump clearly into my eyes.
they belong to the "thin" embrodery varation, obviously different from the larger shown in the present thread by wh014d4394 and Bobwirtz.

i think they differ too with the litlle one shown on the pic in #5 of the present thread ; for intance the "A" and the "L" clearly don't touch themselves,
but it seems there is almost no space between those 2 letters in the embrodery in #5.

so my questions are :
is the "thin" embrodery variation automaticaly a fake ?
in this case, is it a recent fake as said by wh014d4394 ?
and if not, is it possible to recognize an original "thin" one without seing wiew of its reverse ?

thanks by advance for your comments.
derka

[wh014d4394]

heres better pics for you. left one ok.right one is a nasty fake.see the differance in size???.to me the main give away. is the cheep and nasty cloth the fakers are doing them on.feels nothing like an original one.if your lucky and have a good one in hand.you will never get took with a fake.same goes with badges???

[Panzergrenadiere71]

so my questions are :
is the "thin" embrodery variation automaticaly a fake ?

No

in this case, is it a recent fake as said by wh014d4394 ?

No

and if not, is it possible to recognize an original "thin" one without seing wiew of its reverse ?

Sometimes yes,sometimes not.A hands-on inspection is always the better tool to give a proper judgment.Photos can deceive especially if they are not soo good

thanks by advance for your comments.
derka

Best
Emilio

[derka]

re,

thanks for the wiews, wh014d4394.
the one shown by Julius is not like your right one fake IMHO.
and thanks for your reply, Panzergrenadiere71.

derka

[Julius]

Hello and thanks for your comments.

I am agree with Derka, the fake example is different. Moreover the material seems different.

[derka]

re,
just thought to it when coming back work,
if it is possible, it would be interesting to have exact sizes and a wiew of the reverse of the embrodery of the fake presented by wh014d4394.
derka

[Julius]

I put 2 more originals LAH slip-on took on an other website.

The wh014d4394 good one is the 3rd, the one I present is in 4th position and the fake is the last one. We can see an objective difference I think.