Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello Gentlemen,

I have had this little beauty for some time. I never knew the Luftwaffe were issued the fewest number of this particular campaign shield. Too bad the wool backing has some damage. The color is Luft blue. Could not get a better quality photo!

Are these tough to find? Any idea on a fair market value?

Happy Hunting!

Vince

luftnarvikqj1.th.jpg

luftnarvikbackyr8.th.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen a few, but I just started looking for them, too. Prices I've seen range from $400-$800, but at the higher end they don't currently seem to be moving.

Ian

Hello Ian,

Please drop me an e-mail at vindog86@cox.net

Thank you,

Vince

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No need to be rude. I am only trying to help. This is what a real one looks like from this maker.

Rude is not at all what that was. This is a just perfect example of a person (you) who has no idea what you are talking about telling someone (me) an unsubstantiated claim that their item is a fake. Your's sir is the fake, and I will list the reasons why so you can compare them side by side to see what I am talking about.

1. The lower section of the laurel wreath containing the swastika is flattened and does not show the clear detail as seen on my example. Poor workmanship found on known cast fakes.

2. The letters N, R, & K are flawed. Common in known cast fakes.

3. The edelweiss flower has no sharp details as can be found on mine, another sign of poor casting.

4. The upper corner near the number 40 has a casting flaw, extra material commonly found on poorly cast fakes.

5. The steam of the edelweiss flower is also not clearly defined as is the upper section of the anchor, again the sharp details found on real pieces has these details where your cast copy does not.

6. The center of the propeller is not a clearly defined hollow circle, again a perfect example of a cast fake.

7. The rings on the propellers are also not sharply defined, a casting fault.

8. The entire right side of your cast badge below the word NARVIK is loaded with extra material and lacks the sharp details as found on original pieces.

9. The rope on the anchor shows no fine details in regards to the twisted rope as found on correct pieces.

I could go on buy frankly I find this an exercise in futility. Details my friend, details! If they are not there is a poorly cast copy. I suggest you place the photos side by side and read my notes. When a side by side comparison is done there is other conclusion a knowledgeable person can come to other than yours is a poorly cast copy.

I have been doing this for over 40 years now and unfortunately do take offense when someone who has no idea of what they are talking about has the gall to call one of my items a fake.

I hope this will help you in your quest for knowledge. You need it! If you think this is rude you need to grow up. Just for your information, the members on this forum are some of the most knowledgeable people in this hobby. It is just common courtesy and respect not to snipe at other peoples property and try to justify it by saying I was just trying to help. No one appreciates it and when you have no idea of what you are talking about it reflects poorly on you.

There will be no charge for this lesson!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather a heated answer there, Vince. :unsure:

Joe has given an honest opinion based on his experience. Perhaps a little less indignation and more of the ?helping hand? approach would be more appropriate? :(

You have given your reasons as to why you think your shield is original? perhaps Joe will be good enough to post some comparisons and give us his reasons for putting this one down as a fake.

Both sets of photographs are a little less than ideal, hence my reluctance to comment either way. I will say, however, that ?detail? is not always the best indicator of an original piece. There are some very highly detailed fakes out there.

So guys let's get those cameras out and post some clearer pictures.

:cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comparisons, John. Here's quite a wellworn example of the naval version of the shield, clearly struck on the same set of dies as the Heer/Luftwaffe version I posted above. I cannot remember who sent this to me but if the owner is looking in, I am sure he shan't mind my using it for discussion purposes here. The asymetric plinth is one point to look for. So is the dropped "9" in "1940". Vince's shield conforms more to a type attributed to the maker JFS. I will check my reference files as I believe I have some photos of JFS-marked examples.

PK

Edited by PKeating
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Narvik shield that started this post is often referred to as the "small 4 fake". I will try to post better pictures of mine. In the meantime you can read this thread, it pretty much sums up my point.

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/sho...highlight=small

Yes, I guess that means that there is only one manufacturer! That is why I no longer collect badges. There are 1000 fakes for every real one, and no one has the fakes!

End of story here Gents!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were three or four different makers. That much we do know. However, there are about fifteen variations at any given time offered by militaria dealers and "private" dealers. In other words, the majority of shields on the market are questionable.

PK

Edited by PKeating
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I guess that means that there is only one manufacturer! That is why I no longer collect badges. There are 1000 fakes for every real one, and no one has the fakes!

End of story here Gents!

All the shields posted on this thread are good except for yours. Also, for an individual who has been collecting for 40 years you sure have posted many fakes in the last week. Who are you to judge me?

Edited by Joe D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the shields posted on this thread are good except for yours. Also, for an individual who has been collecting for 40 years you sure have posted many fakes in the last week. Who are you to judge me?

Not a probationary member with a bad attitude. I hope you have a nice day. :cheeky:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Blog Comments

    • As a theology student my professor, a much published former Naval chaplain, set us an essay, saying that if we could answer that successfully we would be guaranteed  a good degree "Which of the gospel writers was the biggest liar, discuss."   I got a good mark, but  don't want to be burned for heresy.   P
    • As my father used to say: "Tain't so much Pappy's a liar - he just remembers big."  
    • Brian: First, let me say that I always enjoy reading your blog and your "spot on" comments.  Another fine topic with such a broad expansion into so many different facets.  I had watched this a week or two ago and when reading your blog, it reminded me of this great quote.   There is a great video on the origins of "Who was Murphy in Murphy's Law"   Anyway, about mid way through this video, there is this great quote and I think it sums it up quite well to your statem
    • I've received word from the Curator that she has permission to re-open this summer.   We're already making plans for a November event at the Museum.   Michael
    • I recall I did the same on hot days at Old Fort York back in 1973-74 - wool uniforms, and at 90F they would let you take your backpack off.   Michael
×
×
  • Create New...