I picked up a Latvian Volunteer shield on eBay - guaranteed original - and when I got it, it looked great. But when I put it under a UV light, the back lit up like a Christmas tree, and there were glowing dots on the front where the bobbin thread was peeking through.
I immediately returned the patch, although the seller was a bit hesitant - the old 'original patches often glow' controversy. Then, by pure chance, I picked up a Latvian volunteer shield at an antique shop just a few days later. It looks absolutely identical to the one I returned, but this one is completely dead under a UV light.
Pictures posted below are of the non-glowing patch.
My questions -
(1) - I have encountered several patches that react MILDLY to UV light, yet I consider them to be original. They have what I call a "mild detergent/whitening agent glow" as opposed to the Neon glow of a polyester thread. My rule of thumb has always been to avoid any patch that is dead on the front but glows on the back. It doesn't seem logical that brighteners would only be used only on the back, unless it was because the postwar maker didn't want to waste his precious no-glow thread on the back of a patch.
Any opinions on that, or are there already 100 threads out there on this same subject?
(2) - If the patch that glowed on the back was a repro, who is making these, and how long have they been out there? It sure looked good.
I immediately returned the patch, although the seller was a bit hesitant - the old 'original patches often glow' controversy. Then, by pure chance, I picked up a Latvian volunteer shield at an antique shop just a few days later. It looks absolutely identical to the one I returned, but this one is completely dead under a UV light.
Pictures posted below are of the non-glowing patch.
My questions -
(1) - I have encountered several patches that react MILDLY to UV light, yet I consider them to be original. They have what I call a "mild detergent/whitening agent glow" as opposed to the Neon glow of a polyester thread. My rule of thumb has always been to avoid any patch that is dead on the front but glows on the back. It doesn't seem logical that brighteners would only be used only on the back, unless it was because the postwar maker didn't want to waste his precious no-glow thread on the back of a patch.
Any opinions on that, or are there already 100 threads out there on this same subject?
(2) - If the patch that glowed on the back was a repro, who is making these, and how long have they been out there? It sure looked good.
Comment