smwinter207 Posted October 4, 2016 Share #1 Posted October 4, 2016 This variation sold very well recently. Would you say it is pretty rare? I may have seen another a few years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vintageproductions Posted October 4, 2016 Share #2 Posted October 4, 2016 I have never owned that variant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smwinter207 Posted October 4, 2016 Author Share #3 Posted October 4, 2016 It is like a cross btw the Bi-Mi-Ga(43) and the early LLDB(9). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefighter Posted October 5, 2016 Share #4 Posted October 5, 2016 Variation that I have never seen. Any pics of the back? The tiger is going down with the 3 stars like the 1st design and the shield shape with the 2nd design. Tigers face and body looks weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smwinter207 Posted October 6, 2016 Author Share #5 Posted October 6, 2016 The back is messed up with glue. It went for 400. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefighter Posted October 6, 2016 Share #6 Posted October 6, 2016 It could just be me, but I'm not digging it.The front looks alright but I don't like the design and back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Scott Posted October 6, 2016 Share #7 Posted October 6, 2016 I had one a couple of years ago and if I remember right it went for very good money.Scotty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smwinter207 Posted October 6, 2016 Author Share #8 Posted October 6, 2016 Bill, I bet your patch was the one I'm thinking of. Any idea on its origin? That is a fat tiger. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vintageproductions Posted October 6, 2016 Share #9 Posted October 6, 2016 I would have paid $400.00 in a second for that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwb123 Posted October 6, 2016 Share #10 Posted October 6, 2016 Judging by the loose threads on the back view, it looks like it has actually been worn. I've seen printed patches done like this, but most of them looked suspect. This is the first time I have seen this actually silk woven. And it does not look like the normal fake silk woven ones. There are dozens of patches from the Vietnam War that have yet to be documented... this could be one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefighter Posted October 6, 2016 Share #11 Posted October 6, 2016 I would have paid $400.00 in a second for that one. Bob what am I missing here? Was this a short lived patch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vintageproductions Posted October 6, 2016 Share #12 Posted October 6, 2016 I'll bet it was a one run shot, and then it was corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefighter Posted October 6, 2016 Share #13 Posted October 6, 2016 I'll bet it was a one run shot, and then it was corrected. Probably why there is no reference to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolfi Posted October 8, 2016 Share #14 Posted October 8, 2016 Surprisingly this patch doesn't seem to appear in Cecil Smyth's books. It does appear in Major John Waring's ID Pamphlet No. 8 and in a supplement to the Formation Sign 62 (the journal of the Military Heraldry Society) of 1966. RW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolfi Posted October 8, 2016 Share #15 Posted October 8, 2016 ...and what is this, same design different colours, appeared in a 1971 issue of the Trading Post: (the image is a mock up based on a sketch and a written description) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefighter Posted October 8, 2016 Share #16 Posted October 8, 2016 ...and what is this, same design different colours, appeared in a 1971 issue of the Trading Post: (the image is a mock up based on a sketch and a written description) Same looking tiger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ocsfollowme Posted October 9, 2016 Share #17 Posted October 9, 2016 Same looking tiger Same patch. Just photoshopped do match discripton in TP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vintageproductions Posted October 9, 2016 Share #18 Posted October 9, 2016 Mis-identified in the Trading Post as LLDB would never have had a red background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smwinter207 Posted October 9, 2016 Author Share #19 Posted October 9, 2016 Interesting. So does this prove it's not real? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolfi Posted October 9, 2016 Share #20 Posted October 9, 2016 I've been intrigued by the grey and red patch listed in the Trading Post for years, never seen one and still looking. Is there any evidence for it being a mis identification, it was posted by David Bruce, usually a reliable source. I agree the LLDB wouldn't have used it but the So Lien Lac did use a grey tiger on a red shield albeit a very different design. I did think that it was possible the text description next to the drawing was typo, that it relates to a So Lien Lac patch however the listing before is for just that patch and has the correct text alongside. P37671 and P38671 if anyone wants to check. Maybe a phantom but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basic Rifleman Posted January 19 Share #21 Posted January 19 On 10/7/2016 at 8:08 PM, rolfi said: It does appear in Major John Waring's ID Pamphlet No. 8 Do you have a copy of this or know where I could find one? I've been searching for a while now for No. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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