STOKES-KIRK M1892 EGA'S

[hmm161-78/82]

First of all, I would like to say thanks to everyone who runs this web site. You guys do an awsome job. I have learned so much since I found this site. The EGA referance section is the best thing ever! Thanks!!

 

I recently picked up two Stokes-Kirk type m1892 EGA's (Identified thru the ega referance section, Thanks!) that have had the pins removed and a screw post added. knowing that these were made in the '70s I just wanted to post some pics for everyone to see.

Here is the back.

[hmm161-78/82]

HERE IS THE FRONT

[teufelhunde.ret]

A good example of those late era re-strikes. Bobgee, one of our mod's spent a good deal of time evaluating these, as shown in this thread:

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/ind...amp;hl=1892+ega My understanding is, these with the screw post conversion were made for the reenacting crowd. I came across one of these web sites in Europe sometime ago selling these - never paid much mind at the time. Regarding the "flashing" as Bob calls it, it can still be detected when removed. And there are two other characteristics to ID these re-strikes, that did not exist in period originals. Thanks for sharing with us! s/f Darrell

[hmm161-78/82]

A good example of those late era re-strikes. Bobgee, one of our mod's spent a good deal of time evaluating these, as shown in this thread:

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/ind...amp;hl=1892+ega My understanding is, these with the screw post conversion were made for the reenacting crowd. I came across one of these web sites in Europe sometime ago selling these - never paid much mind at the time. Regarding the "flashing" as Bob calls it, it can still be detected when removed. And there are two other characteristics to ID these re-strikes, that did not exist in period originals. Thanks for sharing with us! s/f Darrell

 

 

Thanks for the reply, The thread you linked is the same one that helped me figure out that they are restrikes due to the flash on the anchor tips.

Fortunetly I did not put a lot into them. At first look I thought they were m1914 EGA's. The solder on the anchor ends struck me as funney so I got diging through the referance section. Despite being a former marine I was in the dark on early ega's. I have learned, thanks to this forum, to look at the pin tips on these. I will let you know what he second thing to look for is once I learn it. In the mean time keep up the good work.This site has been a huge help and a wealth of info. Semper Fi!

[usmcaviator]

I feel that this is a much better thread to reference for some insight as to origins of these pieces. http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/ind...p;hl=bannermansI do not agree that these are knock-offs. No one has any proof, all that is presented is speculation at best. Better proof exists that the thin wire version was being sold from the turn-of-the-century into the 1920's as original surplus. Like I have said before, I have many different variations of this 1892 version both officer and enlisted. I think the things that you are chalking up to signs of being fake, are in fact different manufacturer traits, over decades of this version being produced, by perhaps many different makers.

S/F,

Mike

[teufelhunde.ret]

Thanks for the reply, The thread you linked is the same one that helped me figure out that they are restrikes due to the flash on the anchor tips.

Fortunetly I did not put a lot into them. At first look I thought they were m1914 EGA's. The solder on the anchor ends struck me as funney so I got diging through the referance section. Despite being a former marine I was in the dark on early ega's. I have learned, thanks to this forum, to look at the pin tips on these. I will let you know what he second thing to look for is once I learn it. In the mean time keep up the good work.This site has been a huge help and a wealth of info. Semper Fi!

 

Ageed, the existence of this forum has done wonders in advancing the knowledge base for all colectors involved and exposed the truth about repro's - restrikes - copys and counterfeit militaria. And yet there will remain those, whose only purpose will be to confuse and decieve, and seller their "stuff" on the unsuspecting. Sadly despite all the efforts of those who truly contribute and share their knowledge here, this scenario of deception (slight of hand ) will never change.

 

I went back to ebay last night to see how many of these had been sold recently - in the past ten days alone - four were sold on ebay. And five from Manions...

http://cgi.ebay.com/USMC-badge-SAW-era-EGA...3A1%7C294%3A200

http://cgi.ebay.com/EXC-1900s-USMC-EGA-dev...3A1%7C294%3A200

http://cgi.ebay.com/USMC-EGA-Insignia-Hat-...3A1%7C294%3A200

http://cgi.ebay.com/Early-USMC-Stamped-Nic...3A1%7C294%3A200

 

From ebay another showed up last night: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=370230395225 (note this is their second one listed in the past three weeks)

 

As a interested collector of emblems, my suggestion to all "caveat emptor" - without some knowledge of a pedigree or warranty the buyer takes all the risk. s/f Darrell

[hmm161-78/82]

Ageed, the existence of this forum has done wonders in advancing the knowledge base for all colectors involved and exposed the truth about repro's - restrikes - copys and counterfeit militaria. And yet there will remain those, whose only purpose will be to confuse and decieve, and seller their "stuff" on the unsuspecting. Sadly despite all the efforts of those who truly contribute and share their knowledge here, this scenario of deception (slight of hand ) will never change.

 

I went back to ebay last night to see how many of these had been sold recently - in the past ten days alone - four were sold on ebay. And five from Manions...

http://cgi.ebay.com/USMC-badge-SAW-era-EGA...3A1%7C294%3A200

http://cgi.ebay.com/EXC-1900s-USMC-EGA-dev...3A1%7C294%3A200

http://cgi.ebay.com/USMC-EGA-Insignia-Hat-...3A1%7C294%3A200

http://cgi.ebay.com/Early-USMC-Stamped-Nic...3A1%7C294%3A200

 

From ebay another showed up last night: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=370230395225 (note this is their second one listed in the past three weeks)

 

As a interested collector of emblems, my suggestion to all "caveat emptor" - without some knowledge of a pedigree or warranty the buyer takes all the risk. s/f Darrell

 

 

Wow, I see what you mean! I do see minor variations in the a few of the items. On the whole "caveat emptor" and this web site is the best advice that can be given. Thanks to all.

Rod

[usmcaviator]

Ageed, the existence of this forum has done wonders in advancing the knowledge base for all colectors involved and exposed the truth about repro's - restrikes - copys and counterfeit militaria. And yet there will remain those, whose only purpose will be to confuse and decieve, and seller their "stuff" on the unsuspecting. Sadly despite all the efforts of those who truly contribute and share their knowledge here, this scenario of deception (slight of hand ) will never change.

 

I went back to ebay last night to see how many of these had been sold recently - in the past ten days alone - four were sold on ebay. And five from Manions...

http://cgi.ebay.com/USMC-badge-SAW-era-EGA...3A1%7C294%3A200

http://cgi.ebay.com/EXC-1900s-USMC-EGA-dev...3A1%7C294%3A200

http://cgi.ebay.com/USMC-EGA-Insignia-Hat-...3A1%7C294%3A200

http://cgi.ebay.com/Early-USMC-Stamped-Nic...3A1%7C294%3A200

 

From ebay another showed up last night: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=370230395225 (note this is their second one listed in the past three weeks)

 

As a interested collector of emblems, my suggestion to all "caveat emptor" - without some knowledge of a pedigree or warranty the buyer takes all the risk. s/f Darrell

What an absurd statement! So because 30 sets of 1937 pattern enlisted EGAs were sold on E-bay today, they are all reproductions? Quantity sold on E-bay or Manion's has nothing to do with whether or not an item is original or not. Providing some sort of proof that these are modern restrikes would mean more.

 

No one on here has provided any truth to the single prong nickle finished P1892 being a modern restrike. They are by no means uncommon, I agree with that. But the aura of "I'm right, you are wrong" I got from the above post just shows ignorance. The links that I posted earlier don't answer the question, but do show that these were sold as "original surplus" and not "reproductions". To continue outing these as reproductions with no proof, and denying an alternate opinon is "slight of hand" to me.

 

I should respond to every thread with an emoticon and "congrats" to raise my post count so that I can "truly contribute and share knowledge" before my opinion holds any weight around here.

 

S/F,

Mike

[hmm161-78/82]

What an absurd statement! So because 30 sets of 1937 pattern enlisted EGAs were sold on E-bay today, they are all reproductions? Quantity sold on E-bay or Manion's has nothing to do with whether or not an item is original or not. Providing some sort of proof that these are modern restrikes would mean more.

 

No one on here has provided any truth to the single prong nickle finished P1892 being a modern restrike. They are by no means uncommon, I agree with that. But the aura of "I'm right, you are wrong" I got from the above post just shows ignorance. The links that I posted earlier don't answer the question, but do show that these were sold as "original surplus" and not "reproductions". To continue outing these as reproductions with no proof, and denying an alternate opinon is "slight of hand" to me.

 

I should respond to every thread with an emoticon and "congrats" to raise my post count so that I can "truly contribute and share knowledge" before my opinion holds any weight around here.

 

S/F,

Mike

 

Mike,

I'm not saying that you are wrong. I mean no disrespect. I am just trying to learn. I see the points you are making. hopefully one day info will come to light that will give a definitive answer.

 

There is an imense amount of knowledge on this forem and I glad to have come across it.

 

Again, I did not mean to ruffel any feathers.

Semper Fi,

Rod

[usmcaviator]

Rod,

The absurdity I mentioned did not come from any of your posts! You are free to form your own opinions, that is what the forum is here for. I was just disagreeing with the post that mentioned the numbers of E-bay sales relating to authenticity of an item. There have been more pattern 1914 enlisted hat devices sold in a month than pattern 1892s, its apples and oranges. That argument is pretty weak.

 

There have been multiple threads on these 1892 versions (of which I wanted you to be aware of) and the evidence really doesnt lie one way or the other, so to totally out an item as a restrike or reproducton with no hard facts or evidence, at least to me, is not right. I guess the jury is still out, and may out for a long time.

 

Good luck!

 

S/F,

 

Mike

[usmcaviator]

 

 

A good example of those late era re-strikes. Bobgee, one of our mod's spent a good deal of time evaluating these, as shown in this thread:
http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/ind...amp;hl=1892+ega My understanding is, these with the screw post conversion were made for the reenacting crowd. I came across one of these web sites in Europe sometime ago selling these - never paid much mind at the time. Regarding the "flashing" as Bob calls it, it can still be detected when removed. And there are two other characteristics to ID these re-strikes, that did not exist in period originals. Thanks for sharing with us! s/f Darrell

After having a lengthy e-mail discussion with Rod, the originator of the post, I want to put this "flash" thing to rest. The evidence of excess material around the anchor flukes should by no means be used as a sign of the EGA being a restrike. I own 6 original P1876 shako plates that are not Bannerman surplus, and my brother owns an original 1880's drum with drum plate. (By the way, I count 5 versions of the shako shields themselves!) The older versions of the shields and EGA should all be looped backed, as mine are below (The majority of Bannerman shields are painted and were drilled for the prong back version of the EGA, but I think they did sell original loop backed surplus).

Getting to the point.. after examining the EGA on my shields, and my brother's drum, what do you know? All of them have this so called "flash". These shields are not restrikes nor are their EGAs. They are photographed below. This so called "flash" is also evident on many of the single pronged versions being labeled by one forum member as restrikes, and again should not be used as a means to identify a piece as a restrike, reproduction, or fake. It is merely a trait, or flaw, in possibly one maker's dies or production methods.

You dont even want to get me started on how many variations exist of this version of EGA on gear from shields, hats, epualettes, and belt buckles.

Enjoy the pics.

Mike
(BROKEN LINKS REMOVED)

[bobgee]

Mike - Thank you for your additional comments and photographs of insignia from your collection.

 

For the record, I'm the one who first observed and commented on the 'flashing' that I observed on the nickle M1892 emblems in my collection. I noted this as an observation during a lengthy discussion on the question of the vintage of these insignia which has puzzled collectors for a long time. A partial extract of the text of my previous post follows below. Seeing these same flaws on your emblems kicks this theory up another notch. Wish you had had the time to post these earlier as it clearly puts my theory in question and would have pushed this topic down the road.

 

Though, I'm still left to wonder about the very large numbers of these emblems which are still found mint and unused over 100 years after their obsolescence. And the absence of their companions, the "Left-Handed Jakes" (opposites as the late Gary M. referred to them.)

 

A look at the time-line of enlisted insignia might also be in order. The EM shako was worn from 1876 to 1892 and incorporated the USMC (EGA) emblem mounted upon the brass U.S. shield. The enlisted undress cap ornament worn upon the shako plate and as illustrated in the 1875 Uniform Regulations (Driscoll - "The Eagle, Globe And Anchor - 1868-1968" Figures 14& 15, pg. 14 and Fig. 16; pg. 15) is of a different design from the M1892 of which we speak.

 

The Enlisted Shoulder Knot with Corps device, 1892-1904 (Driscoll; Figure 27; Page 25) incorporates these discussed nickle emblems, with both a left & right-facing emblem. Of further note is the exceedingly rare, large Enlisted black helmet Corps device (with the upswept wings), 1892-1904, (Driscoll; Fig. 26; Page 25). Noting that the enlisted end strength of the Corps from 1892 to 1904 averaged only 4,033 Marines annually, one must wonder why we see so few of these "also obsolete in 1904" original helmet plate emblems while the single nickle M1892 shoulder knot emblems proliferate?

 

Regarding the "flash":"Upon close examination of the 4 loose emblems and the 2 on the shoulder boards, I discovered something else. On the emblem that Tim sent me I found 'flash' on the globe in 2 places; both where the tip of the tip of the anchors are next to the Globe. They appear as the 'tip of a pin'. I have tried to mark them on the following pics and with the close-up pics. And again, Lo & Behold, the same 'flash' appears on the 3 EGAs in my collection - but not on the emblems on the shoulder boards. The 'flash' is likely caused by die having developed miniscule cracks and the pressure of the die stamp forces slight excess metal to protrude at the time of stamping. It can easily be removed but is so un-noticeable that it probably hasn't been."

 

Having re-read what I wrote about a year ago I think I'll pretty much stick with the conclusions that I made though I'll withdraw my theory that all nickle M1892 emblems with "flash" are restrikes. Here are those conclusions:

 

"So what does all this mean? My conclusion is that 1) These emblems, designed for the M1892 shoulder boards, and made obsolete in 1904 were NOT commonly worn on the USMC kepis or other headgear of the period. The device properly worn is the stamped heavy brass screw-back emblem in Gilder's metal of basically the same design as the M1892 Nickel Shoulder-knot devices. 2) The emblems posted here are probably Restrikes - that is, made from the original dies, at some point after their obsolesense in 1904. Probably made by Stokes-Kirk in the 1970s or so. They can be identified by the 'flash' as shown. They are not "fakes" but they are not vintage either. They represent to a collector an emblem of the "type" worn way back when the Corps was a very small organization. The genuine version are those found on the 'surplus' shoulder boards that have turned up in the marketplace, made by Horstmann and then sold as collectibles by Stokes-Kirk. There are just too many of these 'Nickel Birds' around to be genuine vintage surplus. BTW The Bannerman firm also listed surplus early EGAs in their catalogs but with only a line-drawing."

 

BTW I don't think the M1892 emblem would correctly be found on the M1876 Shako plates as the shakos were made obsolete in 1892. It's not my intent or habit to 'evaluate' another collector's "stuff" but the regulations do not support those emblems (M1892) on the Shako (M1876). Having said that, making observations about insignia manufactured long before any of us were born is based on documenting facts and comparing known originals. I never wore them. I'm an M1956 guy myself! Unfortunately it is not always possible to do that. Even reputable museums have often been found to have displayed and validated items to a period which later have been proven to have been in error. We all believe what we believe. Sometimes we're even right. But I'm here to learn more. An open-minded discussion of the subjects creates a better understanding for all.

 

I think we may never know how or when these ubiquitous M1892 Nickle emblems came into the collector's market or their actual vintage. Maybe we need to chip in and get a metalurgist to test the materials for age? I think collectors should know at the very least that they are common and not a great investment unless they're attached to an original, unaltered pair of M1892 Shoulder Knots. That's what I think. Just another person with an opinion heard from.

 

Semper Fi.....Bob

[shrapneldude]

I can recall the first time I hit on one of these EGAs out in Gettysburg, PA at one of the antique malls out there and was elated beyond words at the low low $64.95 price tag on it....and since then, I've seen probably close to 100 of them just in the small cluster of antique / militaria shops around gettysburg. Now, there is naturally a heavier concentration of this type of stuff in that area, and the tourist market and dealers there have good reason to keep the stuff on hand. However...the seemingly unending supply of them offered for sale does tell me they maye be questionable in terms of authenticity. Not to use the eBay "there's a dozen of them listed right now" argument...but...for a 100+ year old emblem, dating back to a time when our beloved Corps was very, very small to begin with, to be cropping up all over the place in large numbers and in the same condition -- doesn't add up to me. I won't say one way or another for certain because I just don't know -- but I've had my doubts about a LOT of these EGAs for some time.

 

Another note -- I have seen these type of EGA's soldered to beater WWI Doughboy helmets at gun shows. I don't know the local source of them, but one dealer in particular has had them at several shows recently. So...another thing to keep an eye out for.

[usmcaviator]

BTW I don't think the M1892 emblem would correctly be found on the M1876 Shako plates as the shakos were made obsolete in 1892. It's not my intent or habit to 'evaluate' another collector's "stuff" but the regulations do not support those emblems (M1892) on the Shako (M1876). Having said that, making observations about insignia manufactured long before any of us were born is based on documenting facts and comparing known originals. I never wore them. I'm an M1956 guy myself! Unfortunately it is not always possible to do that. Even reputable museums have often been found to have displayed and validated items to a period which later have been proven to have been in error. We all believe what we believe. Sometimes we're even right. But I'm here to learn more. An open-minded discussion of the subjects creates a better understanding for all.

 

I think we may never know how or when these ubiquitous M1892 Nickle emblems came into the collector's market or their actual vintage. Maybe we need to chip in and get a metalurgist to test the materials for age? I think collectors should know at the very least that they are common and not a great investment unless they're attached to an original, unaltered pair of M1892 Shoulder Knots. That's what I think. Just another person with an opinion heard from.

 

Semper Fi.....Bob

Bob,

Great points. I think confusion lies between the M1876 and M1892 and they have been commonly grouped together and misidentified. They outwardly look the same, the difference is only seen generally in age, material, and method of attachment. I posted my M1876 shields to show that the "flash" as you call it should not be a means to determine a reproduction in either the earlier 1876 and the 1892. In the 3 threads that have been posted on the 1892, they all have M1876 EGAs being used as examples.

 

I agree that we are getting smarter as we continue healthy threads such as these. I also agree that a large amount of the 1892 single prong , if we will call it that, exist. I also know that their is a very modern reproduction of which no one has posted a photo of, and the Bannerman stock should not be confused with it. The modern reproduction is very cheap looking, very shiny, with very new looking solder. I attest that the 1892's I have been selling (I had purchased a small lot of about 15 of them and have sold 5 or so in the past few months on E-bay) are not the same as these new reproductions. The 1892's that I have been selling display age and detail consistent with that of EGAs found on the P1892 shoulder boards. There are inconsisticies that shed doubt on their origins, and facts that also point to them being vintage, but one thing is certain...... and that is that they simply can not be dismissed as restrikes or reproductions until further evidence suggests so. I see that there is much work to do as new examples and new light (like Alec Tulkoff's find of double prong attachment on epaulettes) come to the surface.

 

Mike