Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Here are two badges. The one on the left is typical in finish and features for a GWL. The one on the right is essentially identical with respect to weight (44.85 vs 44.82) and measured dimensions. The only obvious differences are the finish, lack of obvious "fingerprint", and a slightly more round catch on the latter. Thoughts on the originality of the one on the right, anyone?






Link to comment
Share on other sites

The badge on the right raises only 2 conserns for me:

1) the finish; Both on the eagle and on the wreath

2) the pin catch; while it follows the correct style, it is not quite right.

I only have 1 GWL flight badge (pilot) but the one on the left matches it in every way, including the catch. I would only expect to see variation in the rivets and maker-mark (i.e. the intensity of the break in the ring)

If I were looking for a GWL pilot, the one on the right would not be for me. I would only consider, in this case, the text-book one. These are only my opinions.

To further analyse the example on the right, you should also check dimensions in case it's a good casting using an original as a mold. It could well be an original that may have been corroded, then cleaned up and re-finished.


Edited by Richard Gordon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Measured with the calipers:

Wreath height: 52.7

Wreath width: 42.7

Wing span: 63.5

Swas diagonal: 16.6

Hinge width: 6.2

Length from hinge to catch: 47.5

These measurements are all well within published specs for a GWL. I've attached a few more close-ups as well. There is after all a hint of the "fingerprint" bounded by the red arrows. It's very faint and I didn't see it until I put the badge through various angles in artificial light. I don't see any evidence that the rivets have been tampered with, and no evidence of cross contamination on either the eagle or wreath from a potential refinish.

I lean toward this being one of two things: A late war badge with short cuts taken in the finishing process, or the best fake ever seen. Obviously, I hope it's the former, but I welcome all opinions on this one.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

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

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.


  • 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...