Tiffany Reserve Military Aviator wing

[pfrost]

Just to rile things up, I am posting a wing from my collection. Bought off of ebay a number of years ago, I had assumed it was a fake or reproduction. In hand, though... I eventually became convinced it was good and I was happy with it in my collection. I've studied it very carefully, compared it side to side with a handful of Tiffany wings, and shown it to my "wing-ding brain trust" for their input and advice.

 

The hallmark is the same font and size of other Tiffany wings, but it doesn't have the small "m" mark that most Tiffany items tend to have (but not all Tiffany made items did use the "m" mark.

 

The wing doesn't appear to be cast and all the dimensions of the shield and the wing are the same size as other Tiffany wings.

 

The US has been sloppily soldered onto the shield and there is a bit of residual gold solder here and there.

 

The finish is not a "patina in a can" chemical treatment and it matches other Tiffany wings I handled.

 

I believe that the RMA wing is rather rare (much rarer than the MA Tiffany wing), as I have only every seen one or two on the internet (never one in person).

 

It has the "Tiffany-style" catch.

 

To be fair some of the experts like this wing, some don't.

 

Weigh in and let me know what you think. You won't hurt my feelings but I figured it would give us something to talk about on the forum.

[pfrost]

Some more pictures.

 

I can provide more photos if you all are interested.

 

P

[pfrost]

Here is a "fake" casting of an RMA that was discussed in the past. http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/277482-tiffany-junior-military-aviator/?hl=%2Bcasting+%2Bwwi+%2Bwings&do=findComment&comment=2233296

 

 

In this cartoon if you look at an original badge from the side, you will see that the gold "US" is frequently (BUT NOT ALL WAYS- some of the Dallas wings have a small platform for the US), attached directly to the underlying shield of the wing. When a fake mold is made of this wing, the US is then incorporated into the pattern, and the US shows up in the cast badge as being integral to the shield. Then, another gold "US" is attached to the shield, overlaying the cast US pattern from the original. Frequently, the new gold "US" is not an exact fit and you can see signs of the old cast in silver US and the new overlay gold US. The best way to see this is either from directly above or at an oblique angle from the side.

 

Two things to look for are marked by "*".

 

* Usually, when a second gold US is added to the wing, the gold is much thinner than in an original.

** Usually, you can see the signs of the old cast in US from the side or top.

 

 

P

[The Rooster]

Hi Patrick. I was just wondering why I cannot see the marks on the edges from the Die Strike...

Is that something Tiffany would take the time to buff out?

I dont see em, but my eye seems to see faint marks, very faint, like the edges have been polished.???

Cool wing !

[5thwingmarty]

I'm curious if these were made from unique RMA dies or if they took MA wings and cut them down. If cut down it would explain the edges being cleaned up leaving no die strike marks. I think it is a very nice looking wing.

 

On a similar note, the same issue you point out with the cast copies of these types of wings is also true for many other types of cast copied wings like the Lampl (observer-based) bombardier and alphabet wings. There should be visible voids behind the attached devices, but the fakers are not wasting their time casting the base wings separately and then attaching the devices to be more accurate.

[cwnorma]

Is that something Tiffany would take the time to buff out?

 

rooster77,

 

The short answer is yes. Tiffany, more so than any other WW1 maker of wing badges considered themselves a high end jeweler first, and perhaps, insignia maker second. Consequently the fit and finish exhibited by products (including wing badges) from that firm are of the highest (bespoke jewelry) quality. You should never expect to see something so crude as die marks on a Tiffany made badge.

 

Patrick,

 

Taking what you said at face value, specifically; that the badge dimensionally conforms to other Tiffany examples, I am curious as to upon what exactly the experts who have declared reservations over this badge hinge their argument?

 

Because, I observe that:

1) The badge appears to be fully dimensionally conformal with other Tiffany badges (taking your word that it is).

2) The findings are consistent with other Tiffany badges

3) The lack of John C. Moore II's mark indicates that he wasn't there the day this particular badge was finished for his final inspection

4) The shape of the "US" appears consistent with other Tiffany badges

5) The badge appears to have been plated with pure silver as a final finish (wear to this finish visible around the hallmark)

6) The hallmarks are consistent with other Tiffany wares

 

I presume the US is indeed gold and not some other yellow alloy?

 

I do note a certain sloppiness to the soldering of the US to the shield. This sloppiness would not be generally expected in a product of Tiffany. However this can be easily explained by subsequent repair. I can imagine a scenario where a pilot, in relatively hard, military use knocked one or both of the US letters off of the badge. A local jeweler could have repaired the badge but soldering two different metals together is notoriously tricky. This could account for the sloppiness.

 

I can also imagine a less likely scenario where the badge failed John C. Moore II's inspection (Hence no inspector mark and possibly due to the sloppy solder work) and a Tiffany employee "lunchboxed" the badge... I doubt that though--Tiffany was not that kind of company. But stranger things have happened.

 

If the badge were a casting, the metallurgical properties of silver would inevitably produce some shrinkage as the casting cooled. To produce a product of correct dimensions, the "mold" would have to be 10-15% larger than the final, cooled, and finished product.

 

In summation, considering all the above, and your photographs, on balance what I see is a Tiffany-made badge that exhibits some unusual, sloppy solder work. I do doubt it left Tiffany's retail showroom like that, I but can easily see how a badge could come to display that apparent flaw though use and repair.

 

To paraphrase Duncan; If everything you said about dimensionality of the badge is true, I too would have the badge in my collection.

 

Cheers!

 

Chris

[pfrost]

Hi Chris and Rooster.

 

I had been told by another collector (David Hill who is working on a large book on US wings) that he thought/was told that Tiffany wings were made by die FORGING as opposed to the more familiar die-stamping process. In die forging, the metal is heated up to red hot temperatures and then placed in a forging mold and the item is stamped out that way. This technique of die forging (apparently) has some benefits and drawbacks when compared to die stamping. Because the forging process doesn't use the high pressure of a stamping, the processing of the final project isn't quite the same as a stamping (including the generation of shear-marks. As I understand it, many WWII German insignia were also made using die forging processes. I don't know if this is true or not, but handling the Tiffany wing makes me think that this is totally possible.

 

Also, while Tiffany had its own studios, I did find a fair amount of documentation that various other jewelers in NYC made items for Tiffany. Thus, Tiffany was using what they called "jobbers" to make items, and so maybe Chris' thought that this particular wing didn't pass muster may have some weight.

 

When we (the wing brain trust) were discussing this wing, the biggest issues seemed to be the relatively soft detail in the shoulder.

[cwnorma]

Patrick,

 

Interesting! I suspect that whatever method Tiffany used to strike (or forge?) their badges (I honestly have no insight into this), would be subject to varying levels of success. Perhaps the natural vagaries of Tiffany's chosen processes could account for any slight muddiness apparent in the detail. Would a hotter planchet equate to more or less detail in the finished product?

 

For me, as long as the badge is conformal size-wise with other known Tiffany badges, and given the findings, markings, etc, that practically eliminates the possibility of a casting made from an original. Metallurgical properties would make it extremely challenging. Metals alloyed with the silver (Copper, Tin Nickel, even Gold) all inject variances that affect the shrinking property of sterling--making it notoriously difficult to guess exactly how much a casting will shrink without careful control of the alloying processes. I guess with the preceding control of the alloy and some sort of laser scanned three-dimensional CAD-CAM mold making process a faker could theoretically produce a mold large enough for a correctly sized resultant badge to be produced. But without that level of control over the entire process it would be guesswork otherwise to try to estimate the exact size at which a resulting casting would land. Then after all this work, the faker would still have to source original findings, acquire or make forgeries of Tiffany's hallmarks, and hand-cut gold US's to solder to the face of the badge. Thats a lot of work (and expense!) for a faker.

 

I still believe I see a good badge. Does it exhibit some sloppy solder work? Yes. Was it a lunchbox special? Could be--I don't know.

 

If the sloppy solder can be attributed to repair work, was the badge buffed and cleaned by the repairing jeweler prior to re-soldering the US? That cleaning process could also account for lessened detail in the high points of the shoulder.

 

At any rate, my estimate stands. If the dimensions are correct as you say; I still like this badge!

 

Chris

[pfrost]

Hi Chris,

 

I have the same thoughts that you do about this wing. Thanks

P