http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/ind...1830&st=100

 

Please see post #102 in the above thread. I also saved photos of this wing in my fake files. Well, guess what has re-appeared on ebay pinned to a tunic...

 

 

 

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/WWI-US-Air-Corps-Obser...=item35b195875e

 

If someone will be so kind to post the photos from the auction, it would be most appreciated as I cannot seem to be able to save them.

 

This uniform was supposedly an "Original WWI group obtained from the estate of the vet years ago." Here is the best part from the auction as well..."All items guaranteed to be original. Nothing added, nothing left out, nothing altered." really????? the background is identical, matter of fact, these are the same photos. i suspect the seller either didn't sell these fakes the first time around or he was duped, found out and is now trying to make up for his loss...

 

Buyer beware.

I figured out how to do it...Pics from the auction below.

 

I have contacted them asking how a fake wing appearing as a lone item two years ago was suddenly "original" on a uniform obtained from the vet "years ago"... their reply was......moron.

 

The uniform...

And as a comparison from the attached thread from two years ago, here is the photo of the wing from the auction listing...

Other Pix.

A question and an observation: seems strange to me that they would use screw posts on a uniform badge (regardless of whether it is a repro). Aren't these typically cap badge fasteners & wouldn't they be awfully hard on the uniform? Observation: that's a pretty spanking new looking Sam Brown. Hope I look that good when I'm almost 100 years old.

A question and an observation: seems strange to me that they would use screw posts on a uniform badge (regardless of whether it is a repro). Aren't these typically cap badge fasteners & wouldn't they be awfully hard on the uniform? Observation: that's a pretty spanking new looking Sam Brown. Hope I look that good when I'm almost 100 years old.

 

Hi David,

 

Screw post fasteners were not common, but were definitely used. I know of several attributed custom made wings in the possession of a few members here that were obtained directly from the family with period studio shots showing them in wear. As far as the belt, I agree. I am not well-versed on these but I am pretty sure that it is from in between wars if it is not a reproduction. The wings are definitely added, no question there and it is pretty safe to say that the rest is pieced together as well. I seem to remember seeing this label in the uniform somewhere in the past but can't be sure.

Actually, several makers used screw posts. Dan Dunham, Robbins, Guant are among some who made use of them. Are they more common than pinback? No, but still they were used. As far as the tunic goes, in my opinion, it is cobbed together. If you look at fancy uniforms two groups in the AEF really stick out for fancy uniforms. The Air Service, and the Motor Transport Corps. Figure both were new-fangled things in 1918, and the members were really proud of it. Look at the way that SSI is attached. Just plain sloppy work. All the aviation tunics that I own with SSI's which is 4, all the needle work is neat, and the tunics are first rate. I have two EM observers, and both are officer quality tunics, with officer quality SSI's and devices. Then again, I have a complete group to a stateside pilot who has a Phila issued tunic. But, it also has screwpost Robbins wings, which when purchased were kind of the middle of the road. This observers wing on this tunic roughly resembles a wing done by a Texas jeweler near the end of the war. So, the timeline for an overseas tunic and this wing alone don't fit. Add up the sum of the parts, post-war belt, the way the aero roundel is attached, and the fact that this exact wing has been seen before and determined to be fake = Somethings fishy!!!! I haven't checked, but does the name show up in Gorrell's or any other early publication?

 

John

 

 

Hi David,

 

Screw post fasteners were not common, but were definitely used. I know of several attributed custom made wings in the possession of a few members here that were obtained directly from the family with period studio shots showing them in wear. As far as the belt, I agree. I am not well-versed on these but I am pretty sure that it is from in between wars if it is not a reproduction. The wings are definitely added, no question there and it is pretty safe to say that the rest is pieced together as well. I seem to remember seeing this label in the uniform somewhere in the past but can't be sure.

The Sam Browne belt appears to be the correct British type, though it is in great shape. British belts typically have the flat hook as shown and two D-rings as shown. Post war US belts will have provisions for a detachable D-ring and a chromed chain hanging from it.

 

G

Please see post #102 in the above thread. I also saved photos of this wing in my fake files. Well, guess what has re-appeared on ebay pinned to a tunic...

 

I think it was with a uniform (unfortunately, no photo...) when it was originally being sold, as per pfrost's post:

 

Another couple of fake wings. At least the top one is being sold as a reproduction on ebay.

 

It is interesting as it looks to be silver plated brass on with a die struck wing.

 

The bottom one is part of a uniform grouping also currently on sale on ebay. :thumbdown:

 

The bottom wing is one of what I have always felt is part of a "family" of similar style of handmade fakes (lots of examples of this family can be found on this thread--ie post 21 and post 27). They are usually hand cut and hand chased. The feathers are typically very sharp and pointy. They sometimes have this kind of thick and heavy built up style of construction. The pins are all over the place, from proper style WWI barrel catches to screw backs to hand-made "English-style" bent pins.

 

Note that they overdid the "wear" on the fabric around the edges.

 

Patrick

Out of curiosity, can someone explain how I can tell these wings are fake? I'm not trying to buck the system or anything, but if I saw those at a flea market with a $100 price tag, I'd shell out the dough, thinking I found a good wing. I am NOT a WW1 wing expert by any means...I've owned about a half dozen real ones and they were all in bullion, and I've got a pretty good handle on authenticity for those. I have *no* experience with metal ones, other that what I've seen on the forum.

 

Thanks

 

Dave

Anyone?

 

Still looking for education on how to determine this wing on the uniform is fake...please...

 

thanks

 

Dave

Anyone?

 

Still looking for education on how to determine this wing on the uniform is fake...please...

 

thanks

 

Dave

 

Dave,

I can't speak for other members but for me I would not wish to put this wing in my collection.

There are several flags that pop up for me. The backing appears to be velvet, I have never seen velvet used on a WW1 wing. The wing itself is crude in its construction and cheaply made. As you are aware pilots are a very proud bunch of individuals and to wear a badge of this quality and design just would not have been done during the period for fear of being laughed off the base (my opinion of course). The majority of aviation offices wore bullion so they would appear to be older pilots/observers and not the new guy on the block. Metal wing badges were few and far between for this reason. But there were several mfg that made beautiful metal on wool badges of high quality for those officers that wished to go that route. These cost around $3 during WW1, why would a man buy this ugly badge when really beautiful badges were available? The screw post on the back are the same size as those on the collar disc. The few badges that I have seen with serew post have a smaller, thinner post and a much smaller nut. The sewing of a piece of wool on the back was not consistant with construction of the period, I have found that this was usually done to hide the solder and construction of the back plate and attachment of the wing to the backplate. The O is just a flat piece of metal possibly silver, crudly cut, the wing is a three piece construction soldered together to give it depth and like the O very crude in its design with little distinction in the feathering.

These are just a few things that concern me. Having handled a number of legit WW1 wings one gets a feel for what is right and what is wrong and I feel this wing is wrong in every sense of the word.

As for the uniform itself I feel that the patch is not a period patch, it like the wing is crudly constructed and does not have the age look it should. Don't know where he found these Cpt bars but I have never seen a flat bar such as this. The NG collar insignia also raises questions, by the time the air service patch came into being the army had gone to wearing the US only (GO 73, 7 Aug 1918), the NG, Reserve etc had been phased out. If he was an Air Service Observer he would have been wearing the wing and prop not signal flags. If he was detailed as an observer from one of the divisions he would wear his branch insignia and unit patch. Since he is wearing a air service roundel he should be wearing the wing and prop. All in all I feel this entire uniform is boggus which also adds to my belief that the wing is fake.

Terry