Jump to content


Photo

NAVIGATOR WING


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#26 KurtA

KurtA
  • Members
    • Member ID: 322
  • 7,452 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 February 2007 - 02:27 PM

The aircrew is not WW2. Can't tell on the pilot for sure, but don't think it's WW2. However, that observer wing is outstanding. Really nice original WW2. I like the feather detail on it.
Kurt

#27 Nack

Nack
  • Members
    • Member ID: 333
  • 2,166 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 24 February 2007 - 04:45 PM

The aircrew is not WW2. Can't tell on the pilot for sure, but don't think it's WW2. However, that observer wing is outstanding. Really nice original WW2. I like the feather detail on it.
Kurt


Thanks Kurt. I did notice that the observer wing is really detailed up close.

Is the aircrew wing repro, or just post war? It came on a ww2 ike, if that makes any difference.

As to the pilot wings, repro or post war? Is the problem that the pilot and aircrew wings are clutchback?

And I apologize to everyone for the newbie questions.

#28 Nack

Nack
  • Members
    • Member ID: 333
  • 2,166 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 24 February 2007 - 04:54 PM

Here is a better shot of the pilot wings. I rather liked them -- they looked real to me. Unfortunately, I'm realizing that I don't know all that much. http://www.usmilitar...tyle_emoticons/default/blushing.gif

Attached Images

  • pilot___jpeg_2.JPG


#29 cpatrick

cpatrick
  • Inactive
    • Member ID: 548
  • 851 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NYS

Posted 24 February 2007 - 04:54 PM

Hi Nack,

They did use clutch back wings, and other devices during WWII, however, determining if they are WWII, or post war can be a little tricky. The clutches should be smoothed faced, with no dimples. The dimpled variety came about in 1946, and was designed to be an improvement on the previous model. The key with these, is the posts should be a little shorter than post war models, and the clutches should be pretty much flush with the face of the wing. Many people shy away from these, and opt for the pin back, but truth be told, clutch back was used on wings as early as 1943, perhaps a few months earlier.

The pilot wing looks like a restrike, and likely a reproduction. Not only does it lack detail, but it is pretty much a solid cast, and lacks the "sterling" hallmark.

Chris

#30 Nack

Nack
  • Members
    • Member ID: 333
  • 2,166 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 24 February 2007 - 05:23 PM

Hi Nack,

They did use clutch back wings, and other devices during WWII, however, determining if they are WWII, or post war can be a little tricky. The clutches should be smoothed faced, with no dimples. The dimpled variety came about in 1946, and was designed to be an improvement on the previous model. The key with these, is the posts should be a little shorter than post war models, and the clutches should be pretty much flush with the face of the wing. Many people shy away from these, and opt for the pin back, but truth be told, clutch back was used on wings as early as 1943, perhaps a few months earlier.

The pilot wing looks like a restrike, and likely a reproduction. Not only does it lack detail, but it is pretty much a solid cast, and lacks the "sterling" hallmark.

Chris


Thanks Chris. The snaps are the flat-back type and the posts are suprisingly short. The pilot wing does indeed not have a lot of detail, but does have some convincing patina. I have also been told that a lack of the "sterling" mark isn't dispositive. As to "casting," were wings minted or cast?

#31 Nack

Nack
  • Members
    • Member ID: 333
  • 2,166 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 24 February 2007 - 05:34 PM

Here is a shot of a pair of pilots wings an independent seller confirmed as kosher compared to the questionable wings. The suspect wing looks a little less detailed, but not much. This seems to be a rather tricky area I've stumbled into...

Attached Images

  • pilots___comparison.JPG


#32 Paul C.

Paul C.
  • Members
    • Member ID: 182
  • 2,007 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana

Posted 24 February 2007 - 06:45 PM

Actually the wing on the bottom is a Fox, (repaired posts looks like) I have been told that Fox is actaully a post war maker!

#33 cpatrick

cpatrick
  • Inactive
    • Member ID: 548
  • 851 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NYS

Posted 24 February 2007 - 07:15 PM

I believe, but may be wrong, that all silver of a certain grade had to be hallmarked in accordance to law.

Chris

#34 KurtA

KurtA
  • Members
    • Member ID: 322
  • 7,452 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 February 2007 - 06:08 AM

Thanks Kurt. I did notice that the observer wing is really detailed up close.

Is the aircrew wing repro, or just post war? It came on a ww2 ike, if that makes any difference.

As to the pilot wings, repro or post war? Is the problem that the pilot and aircrew wings are clutchback?

And I apologize to everyone for the newbie questions.


I'd agree with Chris that the pilot wing is a cast repro. I think the aircrew is "legit", but just rather modern.
Don't worry about the "newbie questions." I've been collecting for 40 years and I'm still perplexed by many wings. In fact, the fakes are getting so good, I won't buy them at militaria shows any longer.
If you want to study some really nice legit WW2 wings, check the wings Andrew Lipps of Wartimecollectables had for sale in this forum yesterday. The reason they all sold is they were all good (and it certainly didn't hurt that the prices were extremely reasonable).
Kurt

Edited by KurtA, 25 February 2007 - 06:09 AM.


#35 Paul C.

Paul C.
  • Members
    • Member ID: 182
  • 2,007 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana

Posted 25 February 2007 - 07:01 AM

Nack,
I think we need to define terms, I think that the pilot wings in question are NOT 're-strikes" or "repros". Some collectors seem to forget that this wing is still used today. These wings are most likely just real, post WWII pilot wings( possibly Korean War?). Check the posts, if you can see solder under the posts they are probably WWII if not they are post war. As to whether they are cast or not, I would have to look at them under a loop to tell. If you collect wings you need a 10X or better loop. Wings are hard, and I have found that the makers don't always follow the "rules" we collectors follow. And yes Andrews wings are good examples ( I bought one) Here is a great reference site if you haven't found it yet: http://www.ww2wings.com/main.shtml He's not updating anymore but it still great, and of course I have a few on my site

Paul

#36 aaf8

aaf8
  • Members
    • Member ID: 133
  • 287 posts

Posted 25 February 2007 - 07:08 AM

Bob,
Your info would be correct if you were talking about Meyer made wings as the originals open to approximately 90% and the restrikes "flop" open to a full 180 degrees. I think that David B. effectively proved that point with his ORIGINAL Amcraft wing (anyone want to try to dispute the originality?).

We need to be VERY careful here to ensure that the info that we put out here on the forum is accurate. Too often, collectors fall into the trap that statement to specific items get blown into unsubstantiated sweeping statements that end up hurting the collecting community as a whole.

I do agree that $45 for an original PB sterling navigator wing is indeed a steal.
Allan



Allan, is correct. That rule generally applies to Meyers wings only. The Nav wing is 100% correct. Buy it!

#37 Nack

Nack
  • Members
    • Member ID: 333
  • 2,166 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 25 February 2007 - 08:02 AM

Nack,
I think we need to define terms, I think that the pilot wings in question are NOT 're-strikes" or "repros". Some collectors seem to forget that this wing is still used today. These wings are most likely just real, post WWII pilot wings( possibly Korean War?). Check the posts, if you can see solder under the posts they are probably WWII if not they are post war. As to whether they are cast or not, I would have to look at them under a loop to tell. If you collect wings you need a 10X or better loop. Wings are hard, and I have found that the makers don't always follow the "rules" we collectors follow. And yes Andrews wings are good examples ( I bought one) Here is a great reference site if you haven't found it yet: http://www.ww2wings.com/main.shtml He's not updating anymore but it still great, and of course I have a few on my site

Paul


Thank you Paul and others. Looks like this is an area where 10 people could have 10 different opinions. I checked out that website--looks good. I do see that there is a "Fox" set of wings listed, but I didn't see equivilents for the aircrew and generic pilot wings. http://www.usmilitar...tyle_emoticons/default/thumbdown.gif

So, I guess the long and short of it is that the observer wing is good, the Fox wing is most likely good, and the others are legit, but post war.

Looks like the best option is to just leave these wings on the tunics they came on. Thanks for all the help guys -- I guess I ought to steer clear of wings in the future.

#38 Paul C.

Paul C.
  • Members
    • Member ID: 182
  • 2,007 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana

Posted 25 February 2007 - 08:14 AM

No No No !! Wings are great, you just have be careful! :)

#39 Nack

Nack
  • Members
    • Member ID: 333
  • 2,166 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 25 February 2007 - 08:57 AM

No No No !! Wings are great, you just have be careful! :)


Could you direct me to a thread here or at another forum, or to a website that discusses the finer points of wing construction, what to look for, etc?

#40 Nack

Nack
  • Members
    • Member ID: 333
  • 2,166 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 26 February 2007 - 11:33 AM

Not to hijack the forum, but can someone tell me whether genuine WW2 AAF wings were 1) cast 2) pressed 3) minted? Perhaps all? Thanks again.

#41 Paul C.

Paul C.
  • Members
    • Member ID: 182
  • 2,007 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana

Posted 26 February 2007 - 12:45 PM

Nack,

Genuine WWII wings are almost always die struck, unless they are theater made, then they are cast. The bad fakes are always cast; the better fakes are also die-stuck. Several of the WWII manufacturer’s dies have been purchased by companies who are turn out fakes. Of course Meyer wings have been faked for any years, so you have to be careful, watch the pins. I have not heard that the 9M hallmarked Meyer wings are being faked yet, so if you want 1950’s era wings, they can be a great bargain. Also LGB and Orber dies are out there so you need to be careful with these too. Again, watch the pins and look for wear patterns, the sharpness of the strike, etc. Also WWI wings are a minefield, as most were jeweler made in the first place, so only buy from people you trust ( watch estate sales, they still turn up from time to time!).

Paul

Edited by Paul C., 26 February 2007 - 12:46 PM.


#42 Nack

Nack
  • Members
    • Member ID: 333
  • 2,166 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 26 February 2007 - 12:56 PM

Nack,

Genuine WWII wings are almost always die struck, unless they are theater made, then they are cast. The bad fakes are always cast; the better fakes are also die-stuck. Several of the WWII manufacturer’s dies have been purchased by companies who are turn out fakes. Of course Meyer wings have been faked for any years, so you have to be careful, watch the pins. I have not heard that the 9M hallmarked Meyer wings are being faked yet, so if you want 1950’s era wings, they can be a great bargain. Also LGB and Orber dies are out there so you need to be careful with these too. Again, watch the pins and look for wear patterns, the sharpness of the strike, etc. Also WWI wings are a minefield, as most were jeweler made in the first place, so only buy from people you trust ( watch estate sales, they still turn up from time to time!).

Paul


Thanks--still trying to figure out the terminology.

When you say die struck, you mean minted like coins, correct?

#43 Paul C.

Paul C.
  • Members
    • Member ID: 182
  • 2,007 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana

Posted 26 February 2007 - 03:42 PM

Right!

Paul

#44 Nack

Nack
  • Members
    • Member ID: 333
  • 2,166 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 27 February 2007 - 06:11 AM

Right!

Paul


Right on--thanks Paul. Starting to get it...


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users