SS CAP EAGLE, unmarked and MAGNETIC!!!!!

[wolfslair]

Yes, I have experience and my experience tells me that there are cast flaws all over this eagle. Also, the chunk that is missing between the feathers show that this was cast from an original, as this die flaw is found on the originals, but not that deep. The rest of the points and pitting are too obvious.

Best, Chris

Chris, If you think that this is a cast moulded eagle then the one I purchased from bwanek1 is also a casting. What's your thinking on this one bwanek1?
What's the difference in production method and materials which were never used in the TR regarding the example are you refering to? How does the example I purchasd from you and the example that m-e-h-t has shown differ in manufacture? His "cast" example has FAR greater detail than mine.
What production method are you refering to?
Wolfslair.

[John Pen.]

I've been thinking (a dangerous thing).......... perhaps a die was cast from an original bird and this bird was rolled(stamped) from the cast die.

Is this possible? If so, that would explain most theories put forth here.
Best,
Jp

p.s., my thoughts were sparked by SScollectors(Chris) post 37, where he points out flaw in between feather tips.

[m-e-h-t]

The best sources of stuff are, when they come "out of the woodwork".

This eagle came from the deepest woodwork, you can expect.

A buddy of mine clears old houses, when the owners died. This eagle was in an old tool box, untouched since decades. It is 100% period. I do not trust any storys about sources of items, but from that one I know it pretty sure. Period!

If fakers would order such a quality die, they would do many of these eagles, and one of us would have been walked over one other of this style. But no one did, who read this thread.

[dhunter93]

The best sources of stuff are, when they come "out of the woodwork".

This eagle came from the deepest woodwork, you can expect.

A buddy of mine clears old houses, when the owners died. This eagle was in an old tool box, untouched since decades. It is 100% period. I do not trust any storys about sources of items, but from that one I know it pretty sure. Period!

If fakers would order such a quality die, they would do many of these eagles, and one of us would have been walked over one other of this style. But no one did, who read this thread.

First off stamped fakes have been around for a long time. As the value of these item went up so did the quality of the fakes (Just look at some of the buckles) Look at some of the past threads and the fakes posted, some are quite good..

Collectors Beware, for as long as there is money to be made the fourth Reich will live on!

[Daniel Hockey]

The whole issue here is the fact that it is magnetic, the details are common to many original eagles.

Ian

If the issue of magnetisim had never been raised, how many people would have not questioned this Eagle's originality?

[RobertE]

I'd like to see the magnetic eagle posted along side the one Brad sold.

[wolfslair]

I'd like to see the magnetic eagle posted along side the one Brad sold.

I'm buying a better camera tomorrow, (with better zoom lens).
I'll post close up pictures in the next couple of days of the eagle I bought off
Brad. (Again, no disrespect to you Brad)
Wolfslair

[John Pen.]

If the issue of magnetisim had never been raised, how many people would have not questioned this Eagle's originality?

The surface texture on front would have raised red flags for many....IMHO.
Jp
p,s, in post #40, RobertE may have a good explanation(if preriod) though when he's says; " ........... looks almost like a leeching of the ferrous metals. "

Also, maybe measurements would help here because whenever a "cast" is made (eagle or die) there is, as George Castnanza would say; "shrinkage".

[RobertE]

I think we almost get paranoid - to the point of distraction - on SS insignia like this. The entire discussion centers around the fact the eagle is made from a magnetic metal, and surface flaws some interpret as being the sign of a cast piece.

Otherwise, it sounds like this eagle would have been acceptable.

Most collectors outside of SS have the tin tabbed army and luftwaffe visor cap eagles in their collections, which have surface "casting flaws" like this to varying degrees. I won't speculate anymore as to how the die or device got this way, but this is NOT uncommon and would not raise an eyebrow were it not a higher-value SS eagle we were discussing.

[Arran]

It would be a mistake to assume that all castings shrink...there are new(er) non-shrinking molding materials out there. I personally do not believe this piece to be cast...an ultra-magnified image (which this is not) can tell any metallurgist if a piece has been cast or struck...

[bwanek1]

I'd like to see the magnetic eagle posted along side the one Brad sold.

I looked for saved photos on my computer and I believe this is the eagle we are talking about. There is nothing unusual about it. It is a typical unmarked zinc Assmann, which was sold via the estand.

[wolfslair]

Yes this is the one I purchased from you Brad.
I need to clarify why m-e-h-t 's example is deemed un-authentic?
The reason for my concern is as follows:
Both these eagles are the same in production method (pressed/die strike).
( Sorry to inform you all, but this is not a casting )
Both have similar pin attachment methods (soldered/braised)
Both are similar in weight.
Mine is non magnetic/ the other is.
Both have no makers mark.
m-e-h-t's example has far greater detail.
In your opinion, why is m-e-h-t's example a repro? What production method
differs from my examples production method?
If m-e-h-t's eagle is indeed a repro given the above concerns, then what's to say mine is not original?

[bwanek1]

Yes this is the one I purchased from you Brad.
I need to clarify why m-e-h-t 's example is deemed un-authentic?
The reason for my concern is as follows:
Both these eagles are the same in production method (pressed/die strike).
( Sorry to inform you all, but this is not a casting )
Both have similar pin attachment methods (soldered/braised)
Both are similar in weight.
Mine is non magnetic/ the other is.
Both have no makers mark.
m-e-h-t's example has far greater detail.
In your opinion, why is m-e-h-t's example a repro? What production method
differs from my examples production method?
If m-e-h-t's eagle is indeed a repro given the above concerns, then what's to say mine is not original?

Perhaps to your eye these appear to be the same, but to mine, they are worlds apart. The "greater detail" you observe in m-e-h-t's example includes features which should not be there on an original late-war Assmann, like the breast feather lines and the shoulder ribbing (the faker apparently added these incorrect details in an effort to make it look more convincing and compensate for the lack of detail elsewhere). His example, in addition to being made of the wrong material, lacks any of the correct silver wash, which almost always remains to some degree on the originals, as it does on yours. Some may try to argue that m-e-h-t's example could be a rare original style that represents a short (possibly experimental) production run, but there can be no question among knowledgeable collectors as to the authenticity of your example. Stop worrying!

[SScollector]

Thank you, Brad!

[Thorsten B.]

From what I can read here - and see! - I cannot believe that the eagle of m-e-h-t is called a fake.