Patchcollector Posted September 13, 2014 #101 Posted September 13, 2014 Wow,except for the condition differences,it does look alot like the example on the WW2 Wings site,even down to the "U" in the "U.S" (Maybe that's a "tell"?) Thanks for all the help guys
pfrost Posted September 18, 2014 #102 Posted September 18, 2014 I think the final price was actually pretty good for this piece (relatively speaking). I suspect that the catch turned some people off. The last one I saw on ebay went for well over $2K.
skypilot6670 Posted September 19, 2014 #103 Posted September 19, 2014 Is this bracelet a WW1 I.D. bracelet. I think I've seen one before. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Aviators-Collar-Insignia-ID-wristbracelet-and-Over-There-wings-/191333604503?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c8c5f1c97 Fraternally Mike
doinworkinvans Posted September 20, 2014 #104 Posted September 20, 2014 What do you guys think about this ATC wing....fantasy piece? I do believe it to be period at least, but wanted to hear some other opinions! THanks Daniel
skypilot6670 Posted September 20, 2014 #105 Posted September 20, 2014 It sure looks like it has been an ATC wing all it's life.Ive never seen one before so I wouldn't buy it without some very positive input from the more experienced collectors. Mike
doinworkinvans Posted September 20, 2014 #106 Posted September 20, 2014 THanks Mike! Yea, it looks like its been this way forever. I just know its not an "official" ATC wing. Just wanted some others thoughts
bschwartz Posted September 20, 2014 #107 Posted September 20, 2014 I think what you meant to say is a Ferry Command wings as the ATC wings are a different style: http://www.ww2wings.com/wings/usaaf/usaafatc.shtml What this wings is trying to be is an early Ferry Command wing: http://www.ww2wings.com/wings/usaaf/usaafwasp.shtml This isn't the official pattern but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not a period piece. However I have seen people take the fairly common DI that is the center piece and affix them to a period wing such as what is shown. When that happened is always the tricky part. These kind of wings make me a bit nervous as I don't know if someone did that in 1943 or in 2013. The early Ferry Command wings are pretty scarce and also highly faked. So what I would say you have here is a period Gemsco wing and a period Ferry Command DI and when they got together is anyone's guess.
BROBS Posted September 20, 2014 #108 Posted September 20, 2014 I am not familiar with that Gemsco hallmark.. (that doesn't mean a thing, really).. but the reverse of the whole thing and wings on the obverse look like a Gemsco ww2 period strike. Note the small boxes that show where the pin or clutches are to be attached... and the "scallops" on the top shoulder of the wings with very full lower feathers under the center piece. -Brian
pfrost Posted September 20, 2014 #109 Posted September 20, 2014 These are two WWII-vintage pieces, but Bob is correct, there is no way to tell for sure if this was done in 1942 or 1982.
Allan H. Posted September 20, 2014 #110 Posted September 20, 2014 For what it is worth, the "DI" on the front of these wings is NOT a common WWII era DI. The DI was actually a bit larger and did not have the raised squares on the upper left quadrant of the shield. I believe that this is a good sign that this isn't your standard faked wing. Allan
BROBS Posted September 20, 2014 #111 Posted September 20, 2014 Allan, I noticed the same thing about the raised portion on the DI but I am not familiar with that DI's variations. - Brian
bschwartz Posted September 20, 2014 #112 Posted September 20, 2014 Everyone's definition of "common" is different so I guess I should have phrased that more carefully. I define "common" as something I see at a majority of the militaria shows I go to. I agree that the standard DI variation with the enameled border is much more prevalent than this style but I have seen these as well and fairly often. I don't know every manufacturer of the original style wings but the Robbins pattern is the most frequently seen (and most heavily faked as well). That wing also has the initials "A. C. F. C." for Air Corps Ferry Command on the wing which is not present on this wing. Like the early WASP wings where there were custom made variations this could easily be a period variation as I fully agree that both the center piece and wing are period pieces. All I'm saying is that I've never seen Gemsco make an approved Ferrying Command wing and, in my humble opinion, there is no way to know when the center piece and wing came together. Am I saying it's bad, certainly not, I'm just saying that these types of wings always warrant further investigation before jumping in. I will refrain from using "common" in the future to avoid misinterpretation.
doinworkinvans Posted September 21, 2014 #113 Posted September 21, 2014 Sorry for the confusion, i certainly know that this is not one of those ferry command wings! Those are way out of my league!!! WHat stuck me on this one was the stike looked good and the raised squares looked unique as well. Its certainly different and for sure not just a DI that someone applied. Appears to be a unique piece! Thanks for the comments fellas! Daniel
bschwartz Posted September 21, 2014 #114 Posted September 21, 2014 Definitely a unique piece Daniel and sorry if my comments caused more confusion than intended.
B-17Guy Posted September 21, 2014 #115 Posted September 21, 2014 Personally, I really don't care for the piece and would steer clear of it. John
501stGeronimo Posted September 21, 2014 #116 Posted September 21, 2014 Personally, I wouldn't mind to add it to my collection. It's just a odd piece.
Allan H. Posted September 21, 2014 #117 Posted September 21, 2014 Bob, Next time you come across one of those DI's like what is on the wing, please let me know. I'd be happy to buy one or more of them. Allan
bschwartz Posted September 21, 2014 #118 Posted September 21, 2014 Roger that Allan. Although with two kids I don't get to shows very much anymore. My money goes to college funds, Pokeman cards and karate lessons.
CliffP Posted September 21, 2014 #119 Posted September 21, 2014 Personally, I really don't care for the piece and would steer clear of it. John I agree.
501stGeronimo Posted September 21, 2014 #120 Posted September 21, 2014 If you like it, does it really matter? The answer is NO.
pfrost Posted September 21, 2014 #121 Posted September 21, 2014 Just to be the devils advocate, I like it myself. I wouldn't toss crazy money at it, but nothing gives me terrible heart burn about the way it looks. But without provenance, its just a put together wing. P
doinworkinvans Posted September 22, 2014 #122 Posted September 22, 2014 Bob, Next time you come across one of those DI's like what is on the wing, please let me know. I'd be happy to buy one or more of them. Allan I agree - Never seen an ATC DI like this for sale, or ever. Would love to add one.
skypilot6670 Posted September 24, 2014 #123 Posted September 24, 2014 Came across these wings on eBay. It has the three-finned bomb and target that is very similar to Cliff's Navajo. The craftsmanship is not as fine or well executed. Is this another Cliff's Navajo or a reproduction? Comments please.
skypilot6670 Posted September 24, 2014 #124 Posted September 24, 2014 Someone liked it and used buy it now ,or it was pulled.If a forum member owns it please post some close ups . Thanks Mike
CliffP Posted September 24, 2014 #125 Posted September 24, 2014 Came across these wings on eBay. It has the three-finned bomb and target that is very similar to Cliff's Navajo. The craftsmanship is not as fine or well executed. Is this another Cliff's Navajo or a reproduction? Comments please. Russ Wilson once mentioned a few cast copies were made a few years ago which were smaller than the original ones that have turned up so far. Yes, the one for sale on eBay today is also shorter but by all appearances it may actually be good because the bomb was made separately. But why is the wing shorter? It may have been made (1) very early before the craftsman had refined the design or (2) it was made just before he stopped producing them? My met would be number #1. Cliff
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now