Jump to content

USMC Squadron patch


TLeo
 Share

Recommended Posts

I picked up this patch at a military show today and am having a few second thoughts on it being real or not. It is very thin leather and large 5 inches across. I have dealt with the guy who sold me this in the past with no problems but when I got home and had a chance to check Millstein's book it doesn't show this one as being leather. The colors of the bomb and eagle are fading and retain a hint of yellow per the book and the red letters and number are fading as well. It has been removed from a jacket that was in very bad shape according to the seller. Could this just be an early version before swithching over to embroidered patches since leather Marine squadon patches are not common from WW2 or did I get ripped off?

 

IMG_1616.jpg

 

IMG_1617.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wat you "might" have is a PX patch,they were silkscreened onto canvas like material and sold on bases and at times were worn on uniforms,usually they were a "souvinier" to be sent to a sweetheart at home,but again at times they were worn,usually had a outer border sewn around egde but I'm not sure if this was a common practice, other wise it looks pretty close to the overall design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wat you "might" have is a PX patch,they were silkscreened onto canvas like material and sold on bases and at times were worn on uniforms,usually they were a "souvinier" to be sent to a sweetheart at home,but again at times they were worn,usually had a outer border sewn around egde but I'm not sure if this was a common practice, other wise it looks pretty close to the overall design.

 

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm certain the material is leather and looks to have been machine sewn onto a jacket judging from the holes left from removal. There are several pieces of thread remaining so I think I'll try the burn test on them and see what happpens.That might at last give some indication about it.

 

Any other opinions from the knowledgable patch guys out there???? Anybody ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm certain the material is leather and looks to have been machine sewn onto a jacket judging from the holes left from removal. There are several pieces of thread remaining so I think I'll try the burn test on them and see what happpens.That might at last give some indication about it.

 

Any other opinions from the knowledgable patch guys out there???? Anybody ????

just checking by......everybody stumped like me?? ( I am leaning toward fake/ripped off but hoping to be wrong)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just checking by......everybody stumped like me?? ( I am leaning toward fake/ripped off but hoping to be wrong)

 

TLeo, nobody ever wants to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm going to go with fake. However, there's no way to prove that it wasn't reproduced by a veteran that lost or never received an original. The earliest version of this patch was produced on wool in limited numbers in Australia as depicted in Millstein's book. There was also a US fully-embroidered version made (after the first tour according to at least one veteran source). The only WW2 leather squadron patches that I've seen from the USMC are decal on leather. Likewise, the only PX patches that I've seen are silkscreened on canvas with a somewhat sparcely-embroidered edge (supposedly to reduce fraying of the canvas edge). Other than those two facts, I also believe you have a repro on your hands because of the lack of detail in the design (bomb tail and eagle wings look rounded off or too "swirly" in a way that I've never seen on any military design). In addition, there are other fine lines and details missing from your patch that are part of the original design. I also believe you may be seeing the effects of water (likely an attempt to age the patch) that has caused the red letters to fade in a manner suggestive of the use of magic markers or water based paint. I've seen a pretty good "bloody hands" patch that was touched up with marker and fooled another experienced collector until he got it home and carefully examined the patch under bright light and a magnifying glass. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, but these days I'd be leary about purchasing any USMC squadron patches that are already well documented in Millstein's book. That whole "removed it from the jacket because the jacket was in bad shape" story only works when coming from the veteran or unknowing family member in my book. Any dealer worth dealing with would know a ratty jacket will only add to the patch's authenticity. Treat every deal like the first deal. The fake alert forum is full of stories guys that sell some good pieces right along with the fakes. Hope you didn't put a lot into it. Better yet, take it back and let me know how it turns out. That's my humbly submitted opinion. Jeffro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TLeo, nobody ever wants to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm going to go with fake. However, there's no way to prove that it wasn't reproduced by a veteran that lost or never received an original. The earliest version of this patch was produced on wool in limited numbers in Australia as depicted in Millstein's book. There was also a US fully-embroidered version made (after the first tour according to at least one veteran source). The only WW2 leather squadron patches that I've seen from the USMC are decal on leather. Likewise, the only PX patches that I've seen are silkscreened on canvas with a somewhat sparcely-embroidered edge (supposedly to reduce fraying of the canvas edge). Other than those two facts, I also believe you have a repro on your hands because of the lack of detail in the design (bomb tail and eagle wings look rounded off or too "swirly" in a way that I've never seen on any military design). In addition, there are other fine lines and details missing from your patch that are part of the original design. I also believe you may be seeing the effects of water (likely an attempt to age the patch) that has caused the red letters to fade in a manner suggestive of the use of magic markers or water based paint. I've seen a pretty good "bloody hands" patch that was touched up with marker and fooled another experienced collector until he got it home and carefully examined the patch under bright light and a magnifying glass. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, but these days I'd be leary about purchasing any USMC squadron patches that are already well documented in Millstein's book. That whole "removed it from the jacket because the jacket was in bad shape" story only works when coming from the veteran or unknowing family member in my book. Any dealer worth dealing with would know a ratty jacket will only add to the patch's authenticity. Treat every deal like the first deal. The fake alert forum is full of stories guys that sell some good pieces right along with the fakes. Hope you didn't put a lot into it. Better yet, take it back and let me know how it turns out. That's my humbly submitted opinion. Jeffro

I have pretty much reached the same conclusion as you. I was hoping someone might know of this different version being out there. I let my previous dealings with this seller influence my decision even though I was a bit unsure from the start. I should have listened to my first, gut instinct-- which I will from now on. The problem with taking it back now is that I probably wont see this guy again until the january show. I used to have his contact info around here but I think it got lost or put away somewhere. Thanks.

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...