Technical Observer wing.

[graham]

It has been a long while since I added a wing to my collection. The TO was one I hadn't managed to acquire. 

I would appreciate some opinions. Is this a good one.

Thanks.

Graham.

 

[pfrost]

There are so many fakes, reproductions and restrikes of this wing, that it is almost impossible to reach a consensus opinion--especially on those wings that don't already fall into a very narrow number of "known good ones".  All that we have to work with in this example are the sterling mark and the pin/hinge findings.  My advice is to ask youself if this wasn't a TO wing, but a regular combat observer/aircraft observer wing, could you live with it as a vintage example?

 

Again, for every wing, there will be at least 4 opinions.  But if this were an NS Meyer hallmarked badge, the sterling mark would be "OK" (more or less), as it is closer to the more correct (more or less) size and font of the originals.  Its not a deal killer, but I would have less angst if the hallmark was excised rather than incised.

 

The pin doesn't look to be the "more" correct cammed style that only opens up to about 90 degress.  That would be a fatal flaw in a NS Meyer wing, but this may not be an NS Meyer wing, and other manufacturers didn't necessarilly use the cammed pin. So all things considered, not a deal killer, but a source of concern.

 

On the other hand, this wing is not obviously like many of the other NS Meyer restrike wings, as it has a nice flat back.  Its pattern is very similar to some of the combat observer wings that you see from that era that were probably not made by Meyers.. That is a good sign--as the tells for a NS Meyer restrike don't always apply to non-NS Meyer wings.  But there have been MANY iterations of various NS Meyer restrikes in these rare ratings (like the TO, balloon and airship) and so there can be arguments made that this is just one of those restrike variations.

 

So, it could be good, not ALL Tech Observer wings are fakes.  And if this were just a plain observer wing, I don't know I would have too hard a time accepting that it were a vintage piece.  Thus, if the price were ok, and I liked it enough to have it in my collection AND I really didn't need for everyone else on the forum to give it a thumbs up, I would consider it.  But its your collection, not mine.

[graham]

Thank you for your comprehensive reply.

Graham

 

[graham]

The TO wing sold for about $99. I decided not to bid. Instead I went for a nice safe Bell pattern Navigator and an Orber Flight Nurse.

Thanks again Patrick for your comments. 

Graham.

[pfrost]

Not a horrible price, but then again, no one really knows.  These TO wings were not that popular a rating and you rarely see them being worn.  People often talk of this rating as if it was used pre-war, but I am pretty sure it was first authorized in 1942. Cliff has a very nice write up on the TO wings and IIRC they were primarily intended as sort of a rating for more senior officers who were involved in observing and developing tactics and strategy for the Air Forces.  A hard rating to find to add to a collection, and some of those variations can be very expensive.  NS Meyers was one of the companies that made them AND one of the companies that then were talked into making restrike versions.

 

I know I finally added one to my collection and immediately found myself in some controversy between various highly educated and respected collectors.  So even in that case, you never find yourself on 100% consensus ground.  But you probably made a good choice if you weren't 100% satisfied for yourself.

 

P 

[5thwingmarty]

Technical Observer was established at the same time as Command Pilot, Senior Pilot, Pilot, Senior Balloon Pilot, Balloon Pilot and Balloon Observer became the official AAF ratings in early 1940.

 

I agree with Patrick's thoughts on TO wings.  When I found my Bell TO, it looked good to me and another forum member who saw it at the time.  It was obviously made by modifying another type of wing, so no one can ever claim it was actually converted by Bell.  Later other experts looked at it and declared it an outright fake, even questioning whether it was made from a real Bell wing and suggesting it was a JoeW special.  I don't care, as I can tell it was made from a real Bell base wing, it is the only Bell TO I have ever seen, it didn't break the bank to buy and in hand looks nice.  Like Patrick said, we have to make our own choices, and then hopefully we can then be happy with them down to road.

[pfrost]

Well said Marty.  And I seem to always be off on my dates.

[5thwingmarty]

I don't have the dates memorized.  I have a spreadsheet of the ratings, regs and documents that I have found that say when the ratings were introduced or re-named.

 

I had started previously to add some something about TO wings that people would't question the authenticity of, thinking about my AECo TO.  But even that one, also being made by modifying another wing no one can swear was truly made by AECo.  It looks more like a factory conversion, is more cleanly done than the Bell and is much less obviously a conversion, but since mine is the only one I have seen I have nothing to compare it to.

 

My first TO was a Meyer and I only got it because it was offered in a trade from an advanced collector I trust.  He pointed out all the details that indicated it was a good vintage one, not a cast copy or restrike.  

 

[chief4af]

I thought I would share my TO Meyer Wing. The Capt Bars and Wings came together. As received.