What caught my attention was Allan's comment including the words "soft details" - I'm no wing expert but have watched these threads for 18+ years, having been an art museum curator with some involvement in casting vs die-struck artifacts. So, in my opinion, his observation might well be germane as to deciding authenticity.  Unless a die is highly primitive (i.e., a feature not ordinarily associated with die making), anything struck with one will be crisply defined on the edges and throughout. Recasting of metal objects from an original almost inevitably results in a poor reproduction or facsimile (as to size and detail), at best, and signs of that are relatively obvious to the naked eye; which is what I believe Allan noticed. For example, to my personal knowledge, there is no "pitting" which can be associated with die-struck metal objects.   It may well be that the wing in question had been or is genuine, a fact I'm not able to discern. But, as to his point about "soft details" I would have to concur by the measure of visual evidence. 

Wade20th- Thanks for posting the pics. ludwigh1980- I am in total agreement.  SKIP

I purchased this coat and I'm trying to identify what unit this Soldier would have served with in the 82nd? I believe the lighting bolt, the L, and the Recon would give enough insight but I havent had much luck other than the 3rd brigade saw combat near the Cambodian border.   I was also wondering if this could be a modern fantasy patch or if its theatre made? I'm also wondering what type of shirt this is.    Thank you for your help!

Hi,   I am one of Tex's nieces. He was married to my mom's older sister, whose name I also share. In your 2nd post you have a picture of items that include what might be a driver's license or I.D. card of my aunt. Also under some ribbons is a family picture taken outside my grandfather's house that is probably my mom, her sister (Tex's wife) and my grandfather. I have a copy of Tex's large Captain's photo in your 1st post and I have Tex's Naval Academy graduation ring. If you still have the pictures, and any others, would it be possible to get copies of them? My email is beecherrg@aol.com. Thank you, Miriam Baker Beecher

It does look like there is some pitting on the reverse of the wings which is a sign of casting so it does look like I was wrong.  

Thanks for posting.  I do like how the leather was added for extra gripping. Yes, it's all about the buck.  

Unfortunately, I have found re-tailers are starting to rely more and more on AI and google lens to price and place their items on online retail platforms. More and more are getting into the biz and know next to nothing about what they are actually buying or listing and it is getting worse. So many are trying to make a living and the competition at yard and estate sales, thrift shops, antiques shops are getting a bit overwhelming at times. Most of them, don't know or don't care about the history and only see the dollar signs. Compounding the situation, Ebay allows sellers to have more negative feedback these days so there is no incentive to improve accuracy. 

Maybe close-ups of the wings used for reference could help... Regards, Dominique 

In your opinion what would be the differences in eagles wings and the reference photos I uploaded. 

I would have to agree, Allan... die-struck is very very precise, crisp, retinally obvious vs cast from.