Luftwaffe Assmann Observer - Marked 800

[Tom D.]

Hi guys,

I have been asked my opinion about the interesting Assmann Obsever badge featured in Stephen Previtera's new book on Luftwaffe badges. It is shown on page 162 & 163. What makes it interesting is the fact that the swastika has an 800 silver mark on one of the legs. Before replying to this collector, I figured it would be good to open up a discussion on this badge and see what other opinions are out there aside from my own.

Here are the pages from Stephen's book, hope he doesn't mind. I am sure most Luft. collectors already have this excellent book in their library, so I am just showing here for reference. I was also able to locate some additional pics of the badge I had in my own database saved many years ago.

Looking forward to everyone's thoughts on originality.

Thanks guys.

Tom

[Tom D.]

2nd page

[Tom D.]

Obverse

[Tom D.]

Reverse

[Tom D.]

800 Mark

Thanks guys.

Tom

[J Temple-West]

Hi Tom

I've come across a few of there over the years and have never liked them. The raised maker mark version (due to a replacement of the reverse die) appears on both late production buntmetal into early zinc production pieces. The one and only example of an this "800" stamped Ob's badge I've had in hand turned out to be a casting of a badge from this timeframe, having this hinge/catch style.

Even if the eagle, after assay, turned out to be "fine silver" I wouldn't be putting any pennies on the table for it.

[Steve K.]

Tom,

Interesting badge. However, the use of 800 silver for qualification badges has always been suspicious to me. I tend to avoid them (unless its an Army Paratrooper presentation badge -- then I perk up).

Steve

[Tom D.]

Hi guys,

Thanks for replies. I was hoping a few more Lufty guys would participate, but either way this will be a great thread for future reference.

As you already suspected, this is a well made reproduction in my opinion. I think the most telling comment was from John and I had the same reaction when I first saw pics of this badge..."there are a bunch of things that immediately come to mind that are wrong with this badge".

The hinge and catch are the first things that jump out at you, totally unlike any Assmann product made by Assmann. The folded hinge, with thick side barrels can be found on many fakes, most notably the 2-dot PAB fake and a score of other Luftwaffe badges. The catch is very flimsy, its size and shape are nothing found on original badges by Assmann. As was mentioned, the rivets are close, but not good enough. Clearly an attempt to copy the textbook Assmann rivet, but they fell short.

Another thing that immediately jumps out is the soft maker mark. Original Assmann's are crisp and well defined, whereas this one is muted and likely the result of a casting.

Also pay attention to the entire left side of the wreath when viewing from the reverse. Its contours and shape on both the inside and outside edges are much less defined on this reproduction than we find on original Assmann badges. Another example of the fakers concentrating on getting the rivets right, but not paying good attention to detail on small aspects like the wreath contouring.

The 800 marking is likely what throws most collectors off when looking at this. As Larry pointed out, its mere appearance makes collectors 2nd guess their experience with what an Assmann badge is supposed to look like and opens the door to this being a "jewlers copy". However, this is definately not the case as there are other reproductions that are identical to this, but with different hardware and even different maker marks!

I also have a feeling that something in Stephen Previtera's gut was telling him that something was wrong with this badge. If you read his description in the book, he mentions a few times how much it differs from originals. Some of his terms are:

1. "This is an unusually heavy badge"

2. "There is nothing common about this example"

3. "Some elements of this badge fly in the face of known Assmann types"

All these incorrect aspects of the badge were telling Steve "something is wrong", but he went against his gut instinct. Something we have all done in the past but in this case, his gut was exactly right, this is a well made reproduction meant to deceive.

Despite all this evidence, there is still more! This is where a good database of reproductions comes in handy and I found several in my files that were made by the same fakers. The wreath and eagle are an exact match and irrefutable proof of this reproduction. We will start off with another Assmann Observer that matches exactly the wreath and eagle. Even down to the flimsy hardware, but with different style of rivets.

Tom

[Tom D.]

verso

[Tom D.]

mark mark. Notice the same softness at the 800 marked badge

[Tom D.]

Catch closeup. Notice the same flimsy material and same weird shape.

[Tom D.]

Here is another FAKE badge, this time a Pilot/Observer badge marked B&NL. It uses the EXACT same wreath as found on these 2 Observer FAKES.

[Tom D.]

reverse of B&NL fake. Notice the same small block hinge.

[Tom D.]

And now for the icing on the cake.

The 2 obsevers have the EXACT same wreath and same eagle. On the back of the eagle next to the maker mark, there is a small triangular mark that is found on both fakes. They clearly came out of the same fake die.

[Tom D.]

Not only are the eagles the same, but the wreaths are too. Notice both obsevers have a pecular dot pattern on the left reverse of the wreath. They are in the exact same configuration on both wreaths and was clearly part of the reverse die the fakers used. IMO, this eliminates the possibility of "jewler made piece", or anything else other than a FAKE.

[Tom D.]

And finally, the obverse of the wreaths also share the same flaws. Here is a compare of the Observer wreath with the FAKE B&NL PO badge shown above.

I just want to add that this should in any way diminish Stephen's excellent book. It is by far the BEST Luftwaffe reference book ever produced and every book ever printed has its share of mistakes, including my book on the Close Combat Clasp. The best an author can hope for is that these mistakes are minor and in that respect, Stephen has succeeded in that regard.

Thanks

Tom