Jump to content


Photo

BAD AMCRAFT Flight Surgeon wing!!


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 John Cooper

John Cooper
  • Members
    • Member ID: 227
  • 3,063 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 05 April 2010 - 10:46 AM

All - I have seem a few of these in recent months and wanted to post them outside of the FAKE section to ensure I get folks attention. The following photos are of an example of a wing that would fool many newer collectors due to having raised sterling marks and hand attached posts. I tired to capture enough detail in the following photos to show this is a cast wing that could fool newer collectors.

fake_FS.jpg

Edited by John Cooper, 07 April 2010 - 06:45 PM.


#2 John Cooper

John Cooper
  • Members
    • Member ID: 227
  • 3,063 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 05 April 2010 - 10:47 AM

fake_FS1.jpg

#3 John Cooper

John Cooper
  • Members
    • Member ID: 227
  • 3,063 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 05 April 2010 - 10:48 AM

fake_FS2.jpg

#4 Navybob

Navybob
  • Members
    • Member ID: 9,392
  • 181 posts

Posted 05 April 2010 - 01:01 PM

This kind on stuff is absolutely invaluable. Getting hit on a fake can be a painful experience.
On this wing, I can see that the raised sterling on the wing itself is blurry. Devoid of sharp, defined edges, but is the medical insignia also a fake?
It looks like a real device attached to a fake wing.

#5 flyingfortress

flyingfortress
  • Members
    • Member ID: 6,250
  • 149 posts

Posted 05 April 2010 - 01:28 PM

John,

I'm not a wing expert but its appearance wouldn't fool me at all. The details and sterling hallmark are mushy and the solder workmanship is very poor. An easy fake to detect.

Regards, George

#6 John Cooper

John Cooper
  • Members
    • Member ID: 227
  • 3,063 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 05 April 2010 - 02:47 PM

John,

I'm not a wing expert but its appearance wouldn't fool me at all. The details and sterling hallmark are mushy and the solder workmanship is very poor. An easy fake to detect.

Regards, George



Then you have a good eye George. There maybe slightly better versions of this out there... talking to a fellow collector to see if that is the case.

Cheers

#7 pfrost

pfrost
  • Members
    • Member ID: 1,519
  • 4,123 posts

Posted 05 April 2010 - 03:59 PM

Is this a wing in your possession now? If so, could you put a similar AMCRAFT (and lets not start that old argument over again about AMCRAFT or GEMSCO :thumbsup: ) next to the fake wing, such that the tips of the wings are aligned? Like this.

I suspect that the fake will be a bit smaller that the other one.

As for the sterling mark, they are not ALWAYS sharp and crisp, even when hallmarked. Also, I have seen some pretty bad repairs on clutches that look like what you show. I think you are correct, the fake is pretty good. I would really want to touch this one in person.

P

Attached Images

  • post_1519_1248273963_1.jpg


#8 John Cooper

John Cooper
  • Members
    • Member ID: 227
  • 3,063 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 05 April 2010 - 04:38 PM

Is this a wing in your possession now? If so, could you put a similar AMCRAFT (and lets not start that old argument over again about AMCRAFT or GEMSCO :thumbsup: ) next to the fake wing, such that the tips of the wings are aligned? Like this.

I suspect that the fake will be a bit smaller that the other one.

As for the sterling mark, they are not ALWAYS sharp and crisp, even when hallmarked. Also, I have seen some pretty bad repairs on clutches that look like what you show. I think you are correct, the fake is pretty good. I would really want to touch this one in person.

P


Ask and ye shall receive... oh as far and the GEMScraft discussion that is not over yet ;) I titled this AMCRAFT to avoid bringing it up but now you have done it :lol: ...


So here is a observer of the same pattern...

comparison.jpg

Edited by John Cooper, 05 April 2010 - 04:38 PM.


#9 John Cooper

John Cooper
  • Members
    • Member ID: 227
  • 3,063 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 05 April 2010 - 04:39 PM

comparison1.jpg

#10 John Cooper

John Cooper
  • Members
    • Member ID: 227
  • 3,063 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 05 April 2010 - 04:40 PM

Now what I consider to be fake is actually bigger.

#11 John Cooper

John Cooper
  • Members
    • Member ID: 227
  • 3,063 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 05 April 2010 - 05:20 PM

Now for a more apples to apples comparison...

Here is the same wing in Gold which I feel is 100%

comparison2.jpg

#12 John Cooper

John Cooper
  • Members
    • Member ID: 227
  • 3,063 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 05 April 2010 - 05:25 PM

Now this shows and interesting twist... when compared to the same wing in Gold the "fake" is smaller as patrick thought it would be. I think the photos bring up some interesting points to discuss.

comparison3.jpg

#13 John Cooper

John Cooper
  • Members
    • Member ID: 227
  • 3,063 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 05 April 2010 - 05:28 PM

Last but not least the "fake" wing does not have nearly the detail as what I consider the "good" wing. This is only my opinion but I do hope it helps some folks and stimulates others.

Cheers
John

comparison4.jpg

#14 pfrost

pfrost
  • Members
    • Member ID: 1,519
  • 4,123 posts

Posted 05 April 2010 - 05:48 PM

Last but not least the "fake" wing does not have nearly the detail as what I consider the "good" wing. This is only my opinion but I do hope it helps some folks and stimulates others.

Cheers
John

comparison4.jpg


I got to tell you, I am not 100% convinced that the wing in question is a fake....

These AMCRAFT-style wings do have a fair amount of variation to them. Here are a couple of mine.

Typically, I have always been told that a CAST wing is going to be slightly smaller than the mold that is used to make it due to the physics of the metal shrinking as it cools.

However, I suspect that AMCRAFT (or Gemsco if you want to consider that fallacy :w00t: ) more than likely had more than one die set. Something that is obvious from the different back markings. So, what you may have are a couple of variations of very similar wings.

Again, I have seen worn wings where the marks are not especially clear. I have also seen some wear and tear from polishing (especially if the polishing agent was especially caustic or course) that can cause some damage to the wing.

This is one I would really want to study before tossing it into the dust heap of fakes and repops.

Finally, I sometimes feel that we study the minutia of these things well beyond what is realistic or useful. Sometimes, a crappy mark is just that, a poorly struck or dirty die, and not an indication of a fake.

Just my thoughts.

Patrick

Attached Images

  • bomber_amcraft.jpg
  • observer3.jpg


#15 Gary Cain

Gary Cain
  • Members
    • Member ID: 96
  • 1,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Carson City Nevada

Posted 05 April 2010 - 07:04 PM

I think the fact that they used a officers collar insignia as the medical device damns this one. I have seen that on theatre made wings but not yet on a US made wing.

#16 Paul S

Paul S
  • Members
    • Member ID: 3,515
  • 632 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northeast

Posted 05 April 2010 - 07:14 PM

AMCRAFT has always puzzled me. Their 1940 wing that looks very much like the LGB wing of the same period, was very well done, but none of their later wings shown in this thread show very good craftsmanship.

Some of the makers never really turned out works of art...A.E.Co., for one, never made a wing I've seen that was well done; except perhaps their navigator device which was one of the best. This 1955 article about AECo just before their shutting down is interesting. It shows that when not making wings, AECo made cheap nameplates for all kinds of products.

Attached Images

  • 1955_AECo._Picture.jpg


#17 Wiendolch

Wiendolch
  • Members
    • Member ID: 10,008
  • 96 posts

Posted 07 April 2010 - 12:08 AM

This kind on stuff is absolutely invaluable. Getting hit on a fake can be a painful experience.
On this wing, I can see that the raised sterling on the wing itself is blurry. Devoid of sharp, defined edges, but is the medical insignia also a fake?
It looks like a real device attached to a fake wing.


Good catch Bob, i agree that this wing has a original amcraft device attached to a restrike or i believe a cast wing, you can see the pit marks in the wing from being cast and not struck from a press where it is void on the device. Another note the devise Sterling seems crisp compaired to the wings Sterling mark.

Eric

#18 Paul S

Paul S
  • Members
    • Member ID: 3,515
  • 632 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northeast

Posted 07 April 2010 - 05:36 AM

Here is another one...what do you think?

Attached Images

  • afs_1_83.JPG


#19 Gary Cain

Gary Cain
  • Members
    • Member ID: 96
  • 1,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Carson City Nevada

Posted 07 April 2010 - 04:35 PM

Poorly applied caduceus and sterling on the device itself tells me post war marriage again.


Gary

Here is another one...what do you think?



#20 John Cooper

John Cooper
  • Members
    • Member ID: 227
  • 3,063 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 07 April 2010 - 06:44 PM

Paul - thanks for posting. Here is another photo of the upper edge of the wing. I will let the photos tell the story how does your compare?

Cheers
John

wing_edge.jpg

#21 graham

graham
  • Members
    • Member ID: 4,927
  • 463 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:uk

Posted 10 April 2010 - 10:55 AM

usn_wings_etc_004.jpg usn_wings_etc_003.jpg ]

1930s style AMCRAFT brass snowflake.
One of my early purchaces and currently resieding in my not sure tin.
I dont think this has ever been plated. Could it be that Amcraft saw an oppertunaty to use up their stock of brass by pollishing and maybe clear laquering and 'Bobs your uncle' a 'gold' Flight surgeon.
Or is this a known restrike ???

#22 Paul S

Paul S
  • Members
    • Member ID: 3,515
  • 632 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northeast

Posted 11 April 2010 - 08:18 AM

Here is the base Observer wing used for your Flight Surgeon...looks O.K. from what I can see in your picture.

Attached Images

  • Amcraft_Gold_Observer_pre_repair.jpg


#23 Paul S

Paul S
  • Members
    • Member ID: 3,515
  • 632 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northeast

Posted 11 April 2010 - 08:24 AM

Regarding the original question of this thread about the Flight Surgeon, here is a good AMCRAFT pattern Observer made into a Navigator...the same proposition proposed by the Flight Surgeon. But here the edge shows unmistakable shear marks and are not angled back nearly so much as the FS wings. The sterling mark on this one is sharp as are the pattern details.

Attached Images

  • DSCN7717__Large_.JPG


#24 Paul S

Paul S
  • Members
    • Member ID: 3,515
  • 632 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northeast

Posted 11 April 2010 - 08:53 AM

While I've got this one bumped up, let me ask about the AMCRAFT-GEMSCO fallacy. I've been given to understand that the similar patterns are differentiated by the chicklet field beneath the shoulder where one shows a tight bunch, while the other (GEMSCO ?) pattern runs further down as shown below. I think the attribution comes from having found one or more of the latter on a GEMSCO card. What is the prevailing opinion?
.

Attached Images

  • 1_1.JPG


#25 John Cooper

John Cooper
  • Members
    • Member ID: 227
  • 3,063 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 11 April 2010 - 10:57 AM

Graham - thanks for posting that interesting example. Is there any chance to have a few high res photos posted to see more of the details?

Paul - the navigator you posted really shows the difference between the photo I posted with all the tiny pits vs. the strike marks on yours THANKS. As for the GEMSCRAFT I think the photo you posted shows some of the different points of very similar patterns. This may be a like the discussion on the SMILO wings. The two patterns attributed to D. SMILO have been found often enough in SMILO marked boxes to at least say both were sold by SMILO and to my knowledge I have not seen anyone post evidence that the pattern is made by another company.

Here is a photo I posted some time ago which highlights out several points of interest. Although similar they are not the same... two different patterns from two makers? :think: :dunno:

PS I think Graham's post also shows the difference. AMCRAFT marked at the top with the GEMSCRAFT below.

The thread that started it all! << click the link

Amcraft_Gemsco1.jpg

Edited by John Cooper, 11 April 2010 - 11:20 AM.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users