Turkey Strange TWM

[Stogieman]

How's this for odd?

[Stogieman]

Not impressed?

Look again!

[Stogieman]

I think we have a Turkish-made enameled example?? Your thoughts??

[Guest Rick Research]

This is the second one like this I have seen. I have scans that our Jens posted pre-here (on 171203) of this exact oddball, front and back-- only right sides UP.

Bad quality, but the plates affixing the pin and hinge make me think 1930s+.

[HeikoGrusdat]

this is mine..... as you said, bad quality but turkish made enameled piece!!!

[HeikoGrusdat]

reverse...

[Stogieman]

Very cool Heiko! Thanks for the detailed scans!!

[Tim Tezer]

I've seen a few of this type, and I owned one at one time. I couldn't say whether they are Turkish or German made, as the tughra mark on the back has nothing to do with the manufacturer, other than showing that careless workers were employed in their shop. One of these was pictured in an OMSA journal article once with a mention of the tughra stamp on the back, but that's not what we're seeing. If you look closely at the tughra on the back, you will notice it is in fact reversed - a mirror image. This is the result of what coin collectors refer to as "die clash". It means the die, which had both obverse and reverse elements, was operated without a metal blank in it. The result is that the reverse die was impressed with part of the design from the obverse, producing the faint tughra that appears on the back. I guess because the only visible damage was to the reverse die, they figured it didn't matter.

Tim

[JensF.]

What do you think about this one? It is brutally vaulted.

Edited May 17, 2006 by JensF.

[Guest Rick Research]

Actually, these were made by Steinhauer & L?ck-- identifiable from their "strawberry seeds" enamel pattern and the "snail and Easter egg" tughra:

[attachmentid=39832]

From their January 1939 catalog, whose engraved illustrations are precise ly done from photographs.

So this is one of the very few unmarked examples that we CAN identify and date a maker on.

I must have been having a bad day when I didn't make the identification on my earlier reply.

[Les]

Actually, these were made by Steinhauer & L?ck-- identifiable from their "strawberry seeds" enamel pattern and the "snail and Easter egg" tughra:

<snip>

From their January 1939 catalog, whose engraved illustrations are precise ly done from photographs.

Rick,

I'm not certain how reliable line drawings are at times. In the exact same S&L catalogue, is this graphic showing two WWI type fligth badges. Here's the drawing..... Note the pilot's badge with the angled lines in the upper left hand part of the badge. The observers' badge has sworls on the badge body, and there are short lines shown on the enamelled signal flag attachment.

Is that an exact rendition, or an artist using a little leeway to allow certain details to be shown better?

Now...please look at the next post.

[Les]

In the photo here, is a badge that almost everyone calls a post-WWII reproduction (and a bad one at that). Now, look at the two lines in the upper left hand corner of the badge. Is this a bad repro based on a bad line drawing from an S&L catalgoue, or is it a badly made pre-war badge that looks like a fake item...?

In an old 1960's copy of Cross and Cockade, one of these same exact badges is shown in an article. The article claimed it was owned by a former German flier who got it as a replacement (sometime around the start of WWII) as a "replacement" badge to wear instead of his original 1914-1918 badge. I was inclined to write the story off as exactly that....a story.

If we accept the idea that the 1939 S&L catalogues were based on actual photos and that rendering of details is accurate, then what about the two parallel lines on the pilot's badge? Are those really present on some S&L badge, or are they merely artisitic "license" used to enhance the drawing? Is the attached badge shown in the photo here representative of a real type, or...a fake?

Comments appreciated. :-)

Les

[Guest Rick Research]

Les: that's very interesting and worthy of its OWN topic rather than going off subject on the Turkish star here.

That is indeed a MONSTROUSLY bad fake pilot badge, and absolutely laughable that some maroon copied the simple artistic device of representing polished reflection "shine" as actual badge features!

I will see about getting your posts split off to start a new one for anything ELSE as ridiculous out there. I can't split threads.

[Les]

Les: that's very interesting and worthy of its OWN topic rather than going off subject on the Turkish star here.

That is indeed a MONSTROUSLY bad fake pilot badge, and absolutely laughable that some maroon copied the simple artistic device of representing polished reflection "shine" as actual badge features!

I will see about getting your posts split off to start a new one for anything ELSE as ridiculous out there. I can't split threads.

I hope that was taken mostly as tongue in cheek, and that I wasn't claiming a new type of badge.....

There's limits to how reliable line drawings when comparing them to actual badges. The artist (or more likely a draughtsman) at times makes specific decisions to enhance features by increasing the amount of shadow or line-work...or even whether to add what passes for reflected light. The person doing the line drawing makes certain decisions on what to enhance, play down, and subtly or not sets up an image of what details he is trying to get the viewer to see...or not see.

I'm not interested in a spin-off thread of carrying the point any further, other than to say there are limits to the uses of line drawings and we should be careful saying that renderings are "exact" or precise enough to use as the basis for claiming new types, or claiming justification for a type that might not exist at all.

That's it. No more from me on that subject within this thread, unless someone else wants to move it and there's an interest in continuing the general problem of line drawings and "reality" elsewhere.

Les