Caveat Emptor

[pfrost]

I really don't like commenting on auctions but I think this is one that is worthy of a heads up.

 

https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/177080374_wwi-exceptionally-rare-usas-fighting-observer-s-uniform

 

 

[KurtA]

A WW1 era uniform with a ribbon (WW1 Occupation) that didn’t come out until 1941 strikes me as problematic 

And Duncan Campbell “popped a few threads” to look behind the wing???? 

[pfrost]

Awksully... they didn't say Duncan Campbell, they just said "Duncan".  It could have been Duncan D. Onuguts, as far as we know.  LOL

[KurtA]

5 minutes ago, pfrost said:

Awksully... they didn't say Duncan Campbell, they just said "Duncan".  It could have been Duncan D. Onuguts, as far as we know.  LOL

I noticed that.   But gave them the benefit of the doubt.
 I wonder if they have a COA on this from  Mr Onuguts?    

[cwnorma]

Well the lot passed and apparently the four bids that had it up to $2400 earlier in the day were withdrawn.

 

Begging the question:  Did this thread spook the early bidders or was it shills bidding it up to generate interest?  Given the cagey description and Mr Onuguts' apparent "blessings" of the tunic, it could go either way. 🧐

[cwnorma]

For posterity, I saved off some photos of this auction:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAIR USE NOTICE: Material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a 'fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 106A-117 of the US Copyright Law.

[manayunkman]

What kind of wing is that with a torch, instructor?

[pfrost]

Thanks Chris,

First, this is an excellent place to point out that this discussion is intended to fall under the Fair Use Doctrine. Fair use permits a party (us) to use a copyrighted work without the copyright owner's permission for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.

 

There are some learning points for collectors. Many things can be said about this uniform (specifically the wing), but I will only touch on a few. I hope that others will weigh in with their thoughts and observations.

First, when dealing with bullion wings, they are relatively easy to reproduce. Often, old bullion is recycled from cheaper items (like USN ratings) and used to make "rare" items.  Depending on the person's skill, it can be hard to tell from a vintage original bullion insignia, especially since the techniques are basically the same.  In a nutshell, small strips of bullion threads are sewn onto a cloth backing, which can be done the same way today as it was 100 years ago.

The main drawback is when the patina and color of the bullion threads used from harvested and recycled insignia do not match. This will give the bullion a mottled effect as some pieces are darker while the adjacent ones are lighter.  In vintage bullion, ALL the threads have been next to each other and exposed to the same conditions, so they have a uniform patina.  In this piece, you can see an undeniable range of dark and light threads intermixed without any rationale.

 

Compare that to another vintage wing; you will see that all the bullion share a similar tone.  Not that the bullion will be STRICTLY uniform, as there may be some subtle variations but you can see the difference with practice and experience.  Handle enough vintage bullion and you will begin to see the signs of recycled bullion threads.  This is one of those situations in which you do have to let the trees get in the way of seeing the forest.

 

[pfrost]

16 minutes ago, manayunkman said:

What kind of wing is that with a torch, instructor?

It is supposed to be a fighting observer wing.

[pfrost]

One of the interesting things about this wing is that I have the sense that it may have started out life as a USN bullion aviator wing.  If you look closely, the shield, which is in golden bullion is more acorn-like.  In fact, it is very similar to a WWII bullion navy aviator wing.  I suspect, but am not 100% sure, that it started life out as a USN wing.  Then someone removed the golden wings and the anchor and used the backing and shield as the base for the rest of the "new" wing. 

 

 

As an example, look at this example of a WWII USN wing (typically cost about 50$).  If you were to pick out the top and bottom anchor, and the wings, you would have a very similar shield as the wing in question.

 

 

I think that is what they did (or something similar) then added the torch and the wings using repurposed bullion. 

 

[pfrost]

Another aspect of bullion is the aging process. Bullion pilot insignia in WWI was not worn very long (first authorized in 1917, and then made obsolete by 1919). It was obviously more fragile than metal wings, and I suspect that if the bullion was damaged, it would have been quickly replaced or repaired.  That being said, there is lots of evidence that these wings were worn on every day uniforms and likely were exposed to the elements.  But one thing that is also hard to reproduce is the subtle wear that insignia and uniforms would develop over time. Basically, they would have to "match".  Its unlikely that a beat up uniform would have a pristine wing on it or a mint uniform would have a manky wing on it. 

 

Also, uniforms would be exposed to certain things, like mothing, water damage, mouse nibbles, etc when stored for long time periods.  In some cases, if a uniform was worn outside for a long time, it could also become sun bleached. 

 

On the other hand, many wings were made with a fabric backing that was often colored using aniline dyes (synthetic dyes derived from coal tar). These dyes have distinctive properties that tend to fade when exposed to sunlight or air. This means that the fabric side of a wing facing the environment will often fade to greyish or purple color whilst the protected side of the wing will maintain its deep rich black or blue coloring.  Wings on a uniform that was only "rarely worn" and stored in a trunk or a closet wing NOT BE exposed to the elements and not fade. That is why you find many WWI bullion wings that are in good shape (and some not so well maintained). For this uniform, they present photos (due to "Duncan D. Ouhgnuts") popping some threads.  What they want you to see is that the underlying material of the uniform is "darker" (NOT I would argue LESS FADED), than the surrounding fabric.  Hmmm.....  More on that in a sec.

 

In this example you can see that the front backing of this wing has faded to that grayish purple color. I don't have the reverse picture but the back of this wing is dark black.

 

 

 

But also not that the wing in question doesn't have any fading on the front OR back of the wing.  The backing fabric appears to be the same color....

 

However, logic tells us if that wing was on that uniform long enough to protect the uniform fabric from fading... than the FRONT of the wing should have faded....

 

So again, we have a disconnect. A "faded" uniform and a non-faded wing....  Since the fading on the uniform is supposedly CAUSED by the presence of the wing, then by inference... the wing should be faded as well...  Look at the front AND back of the wing.... The backing is the same color.

 

[pfrost]

As far as I know, artificially giving the front and back of a wing different fading patterns is impossible. That can ONLY be done by time and exposure to air and light. I suspect you COULD put a wing under a very powerful light (many fabrics in museums are protected from UV lights to avoid this problem), but that is the only way I can think of faking this effect.

 

Also, while the uniform appears to show a darker area under the wing, it's not clear to me that it is due to the protection provided by the wing. Rather, it looks like the area under the wing is just DIRTIER.  The patch guys probably know more about this than I do, but it is my understanding that a dilute mixture of tea or coffee can be added to fabric to make it look dirtier and aged.  So, if it is "dirt" then it is intended to deceive. Simple as that.

 

Since the rest of the uniform is near mint, the impression of dirt may make it look LESS faded rather than actually faded.  In my experience, finding a uniform (especially a nice one like this) with a faded area under the patch is often rare. They do exist but it is often much less obvious. 

 

Here is a uniform from my collection that shows The shadow of its wing.  I don't think it is so much a protection from fading, but rather some of the color from the backing plate of this nice wing leaching to the fabric. From a distance and in the right lighting, it is obvious, but up close... not so much.  Also look closely at the fabric of the backing plate, as it also has evidence of the wing impression there as well. 

 

 

 

[cwnorma]

 

 

Prior to WW2, almost all raw bullion coils and bullion threads (used in bullion embroidery) in the western hemisphere were singularly manufactured in factories in Lyon France.  Like other cities with a oligopolistic industry, trade secrets were jealously guarded by the bullion factory workers of Lyon.  This oligopoly maintained its western dominance until the Germans commandeered the factories in WW2.  

 

Before the war, with such a long standing oligopoly well cemented, most bullion manufacturers in the west were satisfied purchasing bullion raw materials from the firms of Lyon.  After the Battle of France, supplies of Lyon-made bullion disappeared.

 

Prior to WW2, the bullion factories of Lyon made a type of faceted bullion coil that had eight bends or facets per turn.  The resultant coils made by this machinery tended to have an appearance that could be described as looking similar to a round jewlers file.  After the Germans invaded France, and with the US military rapidly mobilizing, there was a sudden need for bullion insignia for the burgeoning US Armed Forces.  American firms like M.C. Lilly stepped up and with typical ingenuity invented a better way to make similar faceted bullion.  The American-made bullion had 3 bends per turn with every two turns in the coil completing six bends.  The result was bullion with slightly larger facets that produced more sparkle.  When examined under a loupe, this type of bullion has a "zig-zag" look that is very different from the earlier Lyons-made bullion.

 

FAIR USE NOTICE: Material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a 'fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 106A-117 of the US Copyright Law.

[pfrost]

Chris, I envy you that you were able to smoothly incorporate oligopolistic industry into a web post!  You, my friend, are a highly learned and literate he-devil.  When Dr. Frost finds the need to google a vocabulary word (that isn't strictly speaking, profanity),  you have achieved a major accomplishment!

[pfrost]

I have had all sorts of difficulty in finding information about the "Fighting Observers," although they seem to have been a cohort of observers trained at Ellington Field.  Not sure exactly what they were trained to do or why they felt they deserved their own insignia that was distinctly different from the "regular" observer wings.  Its not even clear to me that this was something that the "brass" approved of, so it may have been something locally done by the individual class. It seems that the fighting observer wings were even less "approved" than the WWI bombardier wings (which I believe I have actually seen pictures of them being worn). 

 

I have read somewhere that there were only a few (maybe 30) individuals from this class, but I have never seen any indication in any of the Ellington Field yearbooks that this was even an approved course, ALTHOUGH there are Dunham Catalogs showing this wing.  Its kind of a mystery.

 

 

 

I have seen two versions of the metal fighting observer wing, one made by Dunham (perhaps the most common of these super rare wings) and the Linz Brother's wings (maybe with 1 or 2 versions existing).

 

 

Both Dan Dunham and the Linz Brothers were located equidistant from Ellington Field. Its not hard to imagine someone reaching out to these companies with a request to make a special product. The Linz wing version of the flighting observer (I couldnt find a good picture yet) looks like this with a golden torch added just under the shield.

 

The Dan Dunham wing uses a golden shield and has the top and bottom of a torch (image attributed to Cliff Presely as illustrated in Bob's site). I  believe that this was their DELUX version.

 

 

It is also my understanding that these wings were likely produced late in 1918 and into 1919.  I HAVE seen photos of the bombardier wing being worn, but to my knowledge (or at least I do not recall), I have never seen a photograph of these wings being worn.

 

Frankly, I have no idea what the "fighting observers" were supposed to be doing that rated their own badge.  I have always wondered if they felt like they were going to be used as instructors or something similar because historically, observers were not really seen in the same light as pilots (thus the half wings!).  Its a head scratcher to me.

 

Still, I would suspect that only about 50 of these were made plus any stock that may have been left over from Dunham, making them rather on the rare side of WWI wings.

 

Finally, I have only seen one or two bullion versions.  Like the bombardier wings, I suspect they may have made a bullion version, but I remain skeptical of the ones I have seen.  Certainly this one in the OP doesn't instill much confidence.

 

 

 

 

[cwnorma]

Just to round this discussion out, Here are two types of Fighting Observer badges observed:

 

Linz Brothers of Dallas, Texas

 

Dan Dunham of San Antonio, Texas

 

Period photo showing the Dan Dunham badge in wear

[pfrost]

I figured if anyone had a photo, it would be you!  You, are, as they say, an oligopolistic industry of all things related to WWI wings!

 

 

[manayunkman]

Very interesting subject.

[pfrost]

I want to add some more information to this thread with something really neat. It's on an eBay auction (which I have absolutely no vested interest in, one way or the other, but I am just being totally transparent).

 

The exact role and function of Fighting Observer ratings, and to some extent, the Bombing Military Aviator (BMA),  has never been clear to me.  I wasn't even sure that they were actually approved USAAC ratings.  But Chris Norman (who is perhaps one of the smartest people I know when it comes to WWI wings), assured me that it was an official rating.

 

If I had to guess, I would think that late in WWI and just after, many returning officers and pilots were coming back to the USA from overseas and bringing new ideas and concepts to the Air Corps.  Lessons learned and all that.

 

I would expect that certain changes in training and procedures were being implemented, and perhaps one of those things was a reanalysis of what the observer was doing in the back of the plane. Perhaps they realized they could do more than just fire a machine gun or take pictures.  Also, I suspect that many senior pilots had gained critical experiences that were more appropriately applied to larger aviation concepts than just flying a plane hither and yon. The Americans seemed to realize early on that experience and time as a pilot could (and should be recognized) be indicated by unique insignia (think jr/RMA vs MA, and later senior and command ratings). This is pretty different than what the English RAF and French Armée de l'Air were doing.

 

These new ideas may have been established at the flying schools late and post-war, like at Ellington Field, thus explaining why the Fighting O and BMA arose from small cohorts of these newly trained pilots and observers. I am pretty sure that the cadets didn't decide, en masse, to give themselves their own new ratings, especially since none of them would have actually SEEN any combat.  More than likely, newlyHowever, finding actual "real" documentation about these new ratings has been hard for me.  Compounding this is the fact that by 1919, the Air Corps brass seemed to have had it with the "wild west" approach of insignia and standardized badges (AKA the new Adams design).  I suspect that sometime during this time period, USMA graduated regular army pukes in Washington went to inspect some of these Air bases and were appalled by the wide range of wings and ratings being worn by the plebes.... LOL. 

 

So I was excited to see this, an Air Service rating certificate for a fighting observer! I suspect that this card actually dates  from 1920, and his rating dates from post-war (December of 1918).  That puts it right into that 1919-1920 time frame.