Jump to content

woodwork 29th rangers patch for review


NKina91
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey everyone. I was recently able to purchase this 29th rangers patch that was found in Virginia. The colors are sharp and it does not appear to have ever been on a uniform. Researching the limited number of known originals, this shares the same black backing material and lettering as those examples along with matching font and size of type 1's. It does not glow under black light at all. Just curious to see what others think on this very seldom seen patch. Thanks and enjoy 

IMG_0630.JPG

IMG_0631.JPG

IMG_0633.JPG

IMG_0632.JPG

IMG_0634.JPG

IMG_0635.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My .02: 

 

While it looks very nice, almost pristine— my feeling is that it is a well-made repro. If it is real, it is one of the best-preserved examples I’ve ever seen, maybe the best overall. It would have to have been hermetically sealed for almost 80 years to retain that condition. I have photos of some very-good to near-mint examples with ironclad provenance of who earned them (one is still in the family’s possession) and I see differences in those from the example posted in the thread. Others may have different opinions than mine, so we’ll see. As many have said before.....’your mileage may vary’........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, everforward said:

My .02: 

 

While it looks very nice, almost pristine— my feeling is that it is a well-made repro. If it is real, it is one of the best-preserved examples I’ve ever seen, maybe the best overall. It would have to have been hermetically sealed for almost 80 years to retain that condition. I have photos of some very-good to near-mint examples with ironclad provenance of who earned them (one is still in the family’s possession) and I see differences in those from the example posted in the thread. Others may have different opinions than mine, so we’ll see. As many have said before.....’your mileage may vary’........

It sure does look like a match to other WW2 era British made 29th Ranger tabs that have surfaced over the years.  Granted this is the best preserved example that I have seen but if this is a copy then the ones that other collectors have posted have to be copies as well.  You mention some subtle differences that you see with this example and the one that has provenance which is still in the possession of a family member of the veteran.  Would you mind describing these differences?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, everforward said:

My .02: 

 

While it looks very nice, almost pristine— my feeling is that it is a well-made repro. If it is real, it is one of the best-preserved examples I’ve ever seen, maybe the best overall. It would have to have been hermetically sealed for almost 80 years to retain that condition. I have photos of some very-good to near-mint examples with ironclad provenance of who earned them (one is still in the family’s possession) and I see differences in those from the example posted in the thread. Others may have different opinions than mine, so we’ll see. As many have said before.....’your mileage may vary’........

Of the very few originals i was able to see, this one shares a lot of the common characteristics with one of the only differences is the base of the start of the N. Do you happen to have any photos of the originals you know of so we can reference? I appreciate your input 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have photos (below) of a badly moth eaten WW2 era British made 29th Ranger tab that supposedly has provenance once belonging to John Robert "Bob" Slaughter, 29th Provisional Ranger Battalion.  This tab in my opinion matches the one posted by NKina91.  I found another photo (see below) of a very similar WW2 era British made 29th Ranger tab that while doing side by side comparisons looks slightly different.  The lettering in the second pair of photos look slightly thinner and maybe a little elongated.  I don't know if maybe the tab was stretched through wear and repeated laundering or something along those lines but this is the only difference my eyes have noticed.  

 

My understanding from what others have written about these tabs was that there were two batches handed out to graduates as there were only two training cycles.  Some say there were two different batches produced on standard British military tab producing equipment.  Supposedly there is a difference as the numbers "29" in the first batch are the same size while the the "9" in the second batch is slightly smaller than the "2".  I have never seen this in any of the tabs that have surfaced so far.  In addition there is supposedly no proof that there was actually two batches produced instead of one large batch.

 

 

 

 

29th Ranger Tab Moth Eaten (2).jpg

29th Ranger Tab Moth Eaten (5).jpg

29th4.jpg

29th5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Tonomachi said:

I have photos (below) of a badly moth eaten WW2 era British made 29th Ranger tab that supposedly has provenance once belonging to John Robert "Bob" Slaughter, 29th Provisional Ranger Battalion.  This tab in my opinion matches the one posted by NKina91.  I found another photo (see below) of a very similar WW2 era British made 29th Ranger tab that while doing side by side comparisons looks slightly different.  The lettering in the second pair of photos look slightly thinner and maybe a little elongated.  I don't know if maybe the tab was stretched through wear and repeated laundering or something along those lines but this is the only difference my eyes have noticed.  

 

My understanding from what others have written about these tabs was that there were two batches handed out to graduates as there were only two training cycles.  Some say there were two different batches produced on standard British military tab producing equipment.  Supposedly there is a difference as the numbers "29" in the first batch are the same size while the the "9" in the second batch is slightly smaller than the "2".  I have never seen this in any of the tabs that have surfaced so far.  In addition there is supposedly no proof that there was actually two batches produced instead of one large batch.

 

 

 

 

29th Ranger Tab Moth Eaten (2).jpg

29th Ranger Tab Moth Eaten (5).jpg

29th4.jpg

29th5.jpg

The moth eaten veteran attributed example is one of the ones I looked closely at in comparison with mine. The thread coming off the end of the 2 to the 9 and the 9 to the T are identical. The second example matches the same thread between those numbers and letter and the same lettering with the leaning hook of the G. I think the example I have matches the second example you posted almost identically. Again, I completely agree that the example I have is in incredible shape and that alone with such a rare patch is a red flag. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Airborne-Hunter

If the OP is a repro its remarkably good. I'd hazard to lean that its identical to tonomachi's 1st one...they're identical. If the example presented by Tonomachi is real then we have an answer. I have never personally handled one of these and know they have been reproduced for decades. I also know someone is pumping super fakes of very rare patches...saco/oss/ect... I think member Tredhed might be the best person to ask on this one. Best ABN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NKina91 said:

Of the very few originals i was able to see, this one shares a lot of the common characteristics with one of the only differences is the base of the start of the N. Do you happen to have any photos of the originals you know of so we can reference? I appreciate your input 

Here is one photo that I have of an example that still is in the possession of the veteran’s family, a soldier who served in E/175th and had training in the Ranger Battalion; sorry for the pic not being the best but it’s all I have of this example......

0D3E3BD0-5F2D-437A-A8DA-4204C9273D05.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another, this example came from the family of a soldier who served in L/116th, shown in comparison with a 29th SSI. This one has a more of a ‘wooly’ appearance to me with the red foundation having a bit more knap to the material. I think in the end I’d want to know as much as possible about where the tab in the OP came from, it would make me feel better to have a trail of custody back as far as possible.

C8893FD7-499A-4E02-A0E3-3FF364CDF7F2.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, everforward said:

Here is another, this example came from the family of a soldier who served in L/116th, shown in comparison with a 29th SSI. This one has a more of a ‘wooly’ appearance to me with the red foundation having a bit more knap to the material. I think in the end I’d want to know as much as possible about where the tab in the OP came from, it would make me feel better to have a trail of custody back as far as possible.

C8893FD7-499A-4E02-A0E3-3FF364CDF7F2.jpeg

Unfortunately I dont have any info on the veteran. I just know it came out of Virginia which is not any help. I did a collage between my OP patch and the less wooly example you posted for comparison. The bottom of the N is the only real difference I can spot. Im not sure if that can be from the patch being on a uniform and the OP not having been on one? I circled the similarities in black and the difference in white. I appreciate you guys posting examples as reference 

comparison.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If the original post is not real ,"Houston we have a problem." The only negative given is that it is too good. I will buy it if for sale!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tab that started this thread is a nice original. The one highlighted by 'Bill the Patch' with glue and remnants of having paper under the letters on the back I don't believe is original.

 

Attached are two photos of original tabs.

 

Paul

29th Rangers No 1a.jpg

29th Rangers No 2a..jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BILL THE PATCH
This is currently on ebay, thoughts? 748d74d3c84580ae866ca5b13d3d1c49.jpgebffb395a37819f3efb58144a8f953c3.jpg

Sent from my moto g(7) play using Tapatalk


I've been watching it, and it's up to 104.00. I didn't like the red felt on this one . Or the back missing the black stabilizer material. Someone is going to get burned on this one.

Sent from my moto g(7) play using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well,if someone was burned on the one with the glue on the back,I guess someone was burned long before.See the link - it's exactly the same tab as the one on ebay.

 

 

It's only an assessment,nothing more !!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the easiest way to distinguish was quite simple and you did not need to look at the back. Just look at the spacing between each letter. On  the accepted original with a black back the letters are near touching or actually touching, while on this example in question there is definite spacing between the letters. The only question then, is the black back truly the only version?,because when you look at this "reproduction" example if you had no information on the black back what would make this example a fake.? Just asking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...