Naval Aviator Wings...opinion

[USMCRECON]

These wings came with a Navy LCDR khaki uniform that I got from eBay recently. They have no maker's marks whatsoever and look as little thin to me in cross section so I thought I'd post them here for opinions on authenticity....or not. Any and all comments/opinions are welcome. I'm going to post the pictures at higher than normal resolution to show as much detail as possible so may only get one or two pictures to a single post.

[USMCRECON]

Pics #2

 

 

[USMCRECON]

Pics #3

 

[pfrost]

Pics #3

 

 

I don't think you should have any worries about that wing. IMHO, 100% WWII vintage.

 

:thumbsup:

 

Parick

[CliffP]

Any and all comments/opinions are welcome.

:think: Maybe yes, maybe no. :dunno:

 

Was the uniform advertised as being from WWII? If yes, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the wings might be okay... but it certainly isn't a quality made badge.

 

If from WWII, my question is, "Why would any Navy LCDR allow himself to be seen wearing such a cheap set of wings rather than a nice set of easy to obtain and still inexpensive quality made wings? While that question is certainly open to broad debate, one response might be because if worn on a less than formal khaki uniform rather than a set of fancy dress blues who would care?

 

Personally, I think most any Navy LCDR would care and suggest that unless the uniform and wings were accompanied with a matching photograph of the officer wearing them to substantiate the sellers claim... I would have given the set a pass.

[USMCRECON]

:think: Maybe yes, maybe no. :dunno:

 

Was the uniform advertised as being from WWII? If yes, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the wings might be okay... but it certainly isn't a quality made badge.

 

If from WWII, my question is, "Why would any Navy LCDR allow himself to be seen wearing such a cheap set of wings rather than a nice set of easy to obtain and still inexpensive quality made wings? While that question is certainly open to broad debate, one response might be because if worn on a less than formal khaki uniform rather than a set of fancy dress blues who would care?

 

Personally, I think most any Navy LCDR would care and suggest that unless the uniform and wings were accompanied with a matching photograph of the officer wearing them to substantiate the sellers claim... I would have given the set a pass.

 

Yes, the auction for the wings and uniform was entitled: "WW2 ORIG US NAVY PILOT UNIFORM NAMED, IDENTIFIED, WINGS"

 

The description read as follows: WWII ORIGINAL AND HARDER TO FIND NOW, U.S. NAVY OFFICER KHAKI UNIFORM, RANK of LIEUTENANT COMMANDER, JACKET AND PANTS--BOTH ARE NAMED TO PILOT FROM R.I, RIBBONS GONE-BUT WINGS WERE IN ONE OF THE POCKETS.........MEMBER of VBF-98........JACKET HAS LABELS AND HANGER WEAR AS SHOWN = GOOD-, PANTS IN GOOD SHAPE, EXCELLENT NAVAL PILOT WINGS ARE PINBACK, NICE NAMED & IDENTIFIED SET TO A FIGHTER PILOT!!!!! ......SUPER NICE FOR DISPLAY IN YOUR COLLECTION!

 

THANX & GOOD LUCK

[USMCRECON]

:think: Maybe yes, maybe no. :dunno:

 

Was the uniform advertised as being from WWII? If yes, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the wings might be okay... but it certainly isn't a quality made badge.

 

If from WWII, my question is, "Why would any Navy LCDR allow himself to be seen wearing such a cheap set of wings rather than a nice set of easy to obtain and still inexpensive quality made wings? While that question is certainly open to broad debate, one response might be because if worn on a less than formal khaki uniform rather than a set of fancy dress blues who would care?

 

Personally, I think most any Navy LCDR would care and suggest that unless the uniform and wings were accompanied with a matching photograph of the officer wearing them to substantiate the sellers claim... I would have given the set a pass.

 

Thank you for your input on the wings I posted. I would assume they were made with knowledge of Naval Aviation wings and I accept them as such.

 

Please don't take the following as an impingement of your opinion on the wings in question; I appreciate you offering it. My only counter-comment is regarding the question of why a LCDR would wear cheap wings. You pointed out that khakis were considered "working kit" and I agree with that. However, I think there's more to it than that. Throughout my 30 years of combined military service I've seen many field-grade officers who wore nothing fancier than standard, issue grade items, even on their most formal mess-dress uniform....me included.

 

Had I been a Flag-Grade officer it might have been more important to me but I'll never know about that. :crying:

[cwnorma]

It is a common misconception for people who have never served to over-romanticize what it means to be in the military service. It is also common for those who have served to project their personal feelings regarding the propriety of wearing basic-type insignia onto the feelings of others.

 

The truth is of course that the military is a very large organization, and as such is comprised of personnel who run the gamut from the very best, to the very worst that humanity has to offer (with the vast majority ranging somewhere in between).

 

I am certain that Cliff's comments were meant in the spirit of assisting a fellow collector.

[Jack's Son]

This board never ceases to amaze my with the diversity of thought.

While Cliff's line of thinking never occurred to me, it has a strong point to it. Obviously one that I would not have thought about, (thinking out of MY box at least).

 

Mod's point well stated. Seldom, if ever have I seen a member rip into another for asking a question.

Or make a comment to demean a service member.

:thumbsup:

[USMCRECON]

It is a common misconception for people who have never served to over-romanticize what it means to be in the military service. It is also common for those who have served to project their personal feelings regarding the propriety of wearing basic-type insignia onto the feelings of others.

 

The truth is of course that the military is a very large organization, and as such is comprised of personnel who run the gamut from the very best, to the very worst that humanity has to offer (with the vast majority ranging somewhere in between).

 

I am certain that Cliff's comments were meant in the spirit of assisting a fellow collector.

 

Yes....I'm sure they were.....and that is exactly how I took them. I asked for comments and he was kind enough to provide one; I am grateful for that; I believe I thanked him for providing them. And I assure you...there was no conceit, common or otherwise, intended.

 

In fact, I mentioned before I wrote the rest of my reply that they in no way intended to impinge his comment whatsoever. Why would I ask for comments and then immediately besmirch the comment or belittle the individual who was kind enough to offer it? I don't play those games.

 

As I indicated in the original posting, I wanted legitimate, honest, opinions and I believe I got them. All I was trying to do is mention that, as you yourself recognized in your comment, not everyone went out and bought the fanciest accoutrement's available. That was the sum total of the intent of that comment and it was not intended in any other manner.

 

I took his comment about authenticity totally in the spirit in which it was provided with no attached baggage. That said, it is possible my comment about the high-end accoutrement's was not unambiguous enough or not expressed clearly enough. I have been sick with a bad cold and sinus congestion; perhaps it impaired my ability and my words did not impart the intended meaning.

 

For Cliff: I truly do appreciate your comments. My reply was not intended to rebuke or belittle. If you took it as disparaging of your comment, then that is my fault for not expressing myself clearly enough and I apologize to you. I meant no disrespect whatsoever.

[USMCRECON]

This board never ceases to amaze my with the diversity of thought.

While Cliff's line of thinking never occurred to me, it has a strong point to it. Obviously one that I would not have thought about, (thinking out of MY box at least).

 

Mod's point well stated. Seldom, if ever have I seen a member rip into another for asking a question.

Or make a comment to demean a service member.

:thumbsup:

I just saw these last two posts when I came back here to post a little additional information on the uniform these wings came with in another thread and I am greatly puzzled by both the content and the insinuation of them. For most of your comment, please see my comment to cwnorma above.

 

Specifically to Jack regarding "ripping into Cliff: I hardly "ripped into" him. I made an honest and not unkind counter-point to his comment and even gave credence to his suggestion about the khaki uniform being working kit. Believe me, I've seen ripping into someone on the forum and you know it when you see it. My words, even if grotesquely misconstrued or misunderstood, do not come close to that sort of thing, nor were they intended to. They were hardly "ripping" words; they were not even unkind words.

 

I am puzzled you would take away from what I wrote an idea even so far afield from the intent. "Ripping into" Cliff was absolutely the last think I intended in my relpy.

 

Again, TO CLIFF: If you took anything in my comment about the quality issue as any sort of personal slam on you, or "ripping you" it was absolutely not intended as such. If you took it that way....again, I apologize to you.

[cwnorma]

OK.

 

I think this one has run its course.

 

There is plenty of room on the forum for multiple opinions and no one is pointing fingers.

 

Lets all be friends and go back to talking about wings.

 

Your friendly moderator.

 

Chris

[pfrost]

If I get time, I'll scan my version of these wings from my collection. In the meantime, here is a similar wing from Bob's webpage:

 

http://www.ww2wings.com/wings/usnavy/pilot...wosklarge.shtml

 

I know that this pattern wing is also in the Wings of Gold book. Sometimes it is attributed to Coast Guard aviators, but I have serious doubts about that.

 

For what it is worth, I think that these are typical WWII vintage wings, just on the more pedestrian/working insignia part of the gradient. Having grown up in the Navy and living on naval bases from the Cubi Pt, Philippines to NAS Rota in Spain, (as well as knowing my fair share of both pilots and LCDRs), conditions don't always lend themselves to wearing one's finest uniforms and insignia. Perhaps the Air Force pilots need to prove something because they wear lead colored wings.....

 

In fact, it was always my experience as a kid that leather flight jackets with squadron patches and cool sun glasses was the typical finery of US Navy aviators when they were preening--and I got to see a lot of that type of behavior as a kid as well.

 

That being said, and with all due respect to Cliff, I do still think that these wings are 100% legit.

 

Best

Patrick (Navy brat)

[USMCRECON]

If I get time, I'll scan my version of these wings from my collection. In the meantime, here is a similar wing from Bob's webpage:

 

http://www.ww2wings.com/wings/usnavy/pilot...wosklarge.shtml

 

I know that this pattern wing is also in the Wings of Gold book. Sometimes it is attributed to Coast Guard aviators, but I have serious doubts about that.

 

For what it is worth, I think that these are typical WWII vintage wings, just on the more pedestrian/working insignia part of the gradient. Having grown up in the Navy and living on naval bases from the Cubi Pt, Philippines to NAS Rota in Spain, (as well as knowing my fair share of both pilots and LCDRs), conditions don't always lend themselves to wearing one's finest uniforms and insignia. Perhaps the Air Force pilots need to prove something because they wear lead colored wings.....

 

In fact, it was always my experience as a kid that leather flight jackets with squadron patches and cool sun glasses was the typical finery of US Navy aviators when they were preening--and I got to see a lot of that type of behavior as a kid as well.

 

That being said, and with all due respect to Cliff, I do still think that these wings are 100% legit.

 

Best

Patrick (Navy brat)

Thank you, Patrick. In addition to "lead wings" I also wear a pair of Marine Corps gold ones.

 

Thank you all for your comments.....all of them.

 

As an aside; I'm gonna' be away from the forum for a little while. Be back in 4-5 days or so. If there are any comments for me in the meantime, I'll address them when I come back.

[CliffP]

Hey, what happened?

 

 

Until just a few minutes ago I had not looked at this thread since posting my response yesterday to Bill's (USMCRECON) request for some opinions on the wings that came with the Navy LTC khaki uniform.

 

Bill, I would like it to be clear that in no way do I interpret any of your comments to be the least bit discourteous or intended to rebuke anything I said beforehand. Therefore, while I am sorry that you thought an apology might be necessary for any misunderstanding, I truly appreciate your being such a fine gentleman about it.

 

With respect to those particular wings being 100% legitimate. I don't disagree with that and have a set in my own WWII collection; however, they were a poor quality, late WWII manufactured item that saw limited distribution until after the war when privately owned ARMY & NAVY SURPLUS STORE businesses began to mushroom rapidly across the country and vendors began to clamor for a wide variety of goods to fill their display cases. It should be noted that a lot of the metal insignia sold after the war in those stores did not come from the government, it came directly from the manufacturers.

 

Cliff :wink2:

[USMCRECON]

Hey, what happened?

Until just a few minutes ago I had not looked at this thread since posting my response yesterday to Bill's (USMCRECON) request for some opinions on the wings that came with the Navy LTC khaki uniform.

 

Bill, I would like it to be clear that in no way do I interpret any of your comments to be the least bit discourteous or intended to rebuke anything I said beforehand. Therefore, while I am sorry that you thought an apology might be necessary for any misunderstanding, I truly appreciate your being such a fine gentleman about it.

 

With respect to those particular wings being 100% legitimate. I don't disagree with that and have a set in my own WWII collection; however, they were a poor quality, late WWII manufactured item that saw limited distribution until after the war when privately owned ARMY & NAVY SURPLUS STORE businesses began to mushroom rapidly across the country and vendors began to clamor for a wide variety of goods to fill their display cases. It should be noted that a lot of the metal insignia sold after the war in those stores did not come from the government, it came directly from the manufacturers.

 

Cliff :wink2:

 

No problem, Cliff. It was a miscommunication with a couple others but we've gotten it sorted out. I've apologized via PM to them for misinterpreting what they'd written.

[CUBUSMC]

OK, back to the original question! This pattern wing is fully attributed to the WWII time period, that being said, I have seen a lot of these exact wings being sold on Ebay as of late. Some weeks more than one and they are always in this shape. I got a pair for 20 bucks a month or so ago and I still feel I got a great deal if they are real. Does anyone know if these are being reproduced? I just feel like I have seen too many of these in great condition lately. Thanks - Jeff

[teufelhunde.ret]

Does anyone know if these are being reproduced? I just feel like I have seen too many of these in great condition lately. Thanks - Jeff

Highly unlikely - just too many around.

[pfrost]

Not so fast, they are being reproduced.

 

You can find "collector copies" of this pattern: http://www.1903.com/World-War-II/US-Navy-a...plate-p596.html

 

On the other hand, they are a relatively common pattern and (ironically) you can more than likely find the vintage wings for less than what is being asked for the collector copies with a bit of patience.

[CUBUSMC]

Boy that is a dead ringer for these. The reason I ask, is that I got my first set of this style wing a long time ago and they are produced very cheaply. Almost a painted on finish that easily chips off. Very cheap, but they did come with uniforms from a vet that I knew received them long ago. Now just recently, I have seen several of this same pattern, but they are all very clean and all look perfect. That is what makes me suspect they are current repros. The only thing that puzzles me is the fact that they are selling for 65 bucks on his web-site, hmm, much more than I paid for the current set on Ebay? Just curious. Thanks - Jeff

[pconrad02]

Just an FYI, I know that a large quality of these ( WWII period , new old stock) surfaced about a year ago from an closed surplus shop, if I remember. The grandson was selling them for about $20 a pop.

[pfrost]

Well, the ones made by Joe W are (if I am reading his add correctly) are gold plated sterling copies. You are correct, the originals are usually found in a pot metal with a kind of gold painted finish (at least mine are). I also believe that a large number of these wings came out of the Wosk cache of insignia. The Wosk sisters sell alot of their father's old stock here and there, and I recall seeing some near mint wings that I believe were out of that shop.

 

You do see a range of WWII USN wings, from the nice sterling silver (or even gold) and gold plated wing; say made by LGB and AMICO--that typically sell retail in the 100$ range-- to the mid-quality non-silver gilt wings of Imperial and H&H fame (that may sell around the 50-75$ range) to the even lower quality wings like the one in this thread that (with luck) can be found in the 20-50$ range.

 

Imagine if you were an aviator on a carrier or flying patrols off of some isolated coral atoll in the Pacific somewhere. It is unlikely you really wanted a pair of expensive wings on your work uniform. I expect you had a handful of cheap insignia that you wore for your day to day duties.

 

Patrick

[armillary_journey]

Let me share some things I see different about the wing posted than I do in the 9 Navy wings I have. And all 9 of mine have been positively authenticated by others who know more about wings than I ever will, before I purchased them. The Navy wing anatomy in this post I am refering to can be seen on page 12 of Unites States Navy Wings of Gold, by Willis and Carmichael, a treat to own and read I'd like to add.

 

It is very interesting in the posted wing that the line does not come throught the Jew's Harp. Even from my 2 3/4 wings down to my 1" Navy Aircrew hat badge, the line comes through the Jew's Harp.

 

The posted wing's line comes through the open fluke and touches the becket, in every one of my 9 the line crosses the anchor midway between the becket and shield, or nearer the shield.

On this wing from the line touching the becket it travels down to the very tip of the shank coming out of the bottom of the anchor before going around the anchor. 7 of my comparison wings the line comes out of the open fluke and around the anchor well before touching the shank. The two aircrew don't show that detail.

 

The posted wing has berries that are noticeably asymetrical, as compared to six of my wings that have berries which all are very symetrical.

 

The top of the shield somehow just don't leave me comfortable if I was considering a buy on this wing, but, that could be the photography.

 

The beckets are overly large, and not detailed as in all my 9 Navy wings, 2 aircrew wings have small fouled anchors in the center, and they have sharper detail under a thirty power loupe in reference to the beckets.

 

The inside winglets on the bottom bilaterally from the shield out to midwing are asymetrical as well. Different from my 7 Navy pilots.

 

Not only have I made these observations to my wings, I went to the esteemed www.ww2wings.com website and spent about thirty minutes reviewing the Navy wings there before I wrote this.

Yours are different than the ones there in the same areas I have mentioned here.

 

They may very well be authentic wings. But please take no offense, they are not wings I would buy, simply because in my lack of wing knowledge I would fear them not be "good" wings, and I really don't find them attractive. If one of the known "wing kings" told me they were a good rare wing, then of course I'd buy them and marvel at all the differences.

 

Thank you for 30 years of service, however I am disappointed to hear that you would have such a lackluster approach to being strike, or being sharp in your presentation of yourself and the U.S. uniform you represent(ed) and not wanting to look your very best.(Everyday, all the way....Airborne...) Cliff's comment about an Officer buying a nice wing that was so inexpensive is so right on my ears are still rigning. I am thankful the 101st NCO's and Officers I encountered were always strike, and they'd gladly put a boot up in us if we weren't. I sadly only spent three years active duty and three years in the reserves, maybe it was just proudly being at the 101st just post Viet Nam, everyone looked very sharp always, I can't imagine an Officer with the idea that anything besides strike would be acceptable. But, thankfully that was was General John Wickham inspired into each and every one of us.

 

Interesting wing, and thanks for sharing as we all learn from each other. (salutes your service)Air Assault sir!

 

AJ

[MikeK]

I picked up one of this style wing a while ago (the middle example in the scans below), and two other similarly designed (but not the same) wings (top and bottom examples in the scans - both the same obverse design but different hardware). From what I can see, the basemetal appears to be a brass/bronze material on all of them, not something I would call pot metal and from what I understand would indicate earlier 40s construction. The gold finish on my examples seems to be more of a plating which, apart from the lower example, appears to have aged well. The obverse details are crisp, although maybe not as detailed as designs from other makers. Both variations exhibit shear marks along the edges, indicating that they have been die struck (or at least die trimmed). Unfortunately non of my examples are attributed, but reading about some of the other examples in the thread puts my mind at ease regarding their timeframe. Imo they are honest examples, if not aesthetically pleasing.

 

Regards

Mike

[MikeK]

Reverse...