very light ? - British & Commonwealth Military Badge Forum

davec2 · #1 13-07-12, 12:26 PM

Hi folks,

I recieved a badge this morning which I believe to be 100% kosher but I still need assurance, I won it for less than a third of the price being asked for a similar badge by a forum member/dealer but that is I suppose, academic.

My uncertainty and it is only a very slight doubt, is that the badge photographed weighs just about half of a KC version also on lugs although the lugs on the QVC model are brass ?

Would I be right in assuming that the older badges were or could have been, stamped out of thinner ( lighter ) sheets of brass ??????

Thanks in advance.

Dave.

JimD · #2 13-07-12, 12:40 PM

Dave

Looks Ok to me, but then again I have never weighed any of my badges, now I'm wondering if I should be? I also cant say I have noticed any substantial difference in metal thickness between QVC and KC.

Cheers
Jim

davec2 · #3 13-07-12, 12:44 PM

Thanks Jim,

I'm sure it's OK, I don't make a habit of weighing my badges either but when I felt this one, it was noticably lighter and appeared to be thinner ??

All the best.

Dave.

JimD · #4 13-07-12, 12:47 PM

Dave

Sounds like a manufacturer trying to diddle the system more than a dud badge.....

Cheers
Jim

Jeff Mc William · #5 13-07-12, 04:40 PM

Hi Dave
Yours looks fine to me. Here's mine I had some time ago it is 53mm (h) X 23mm (dia) and weighs approx 14g.
I always used to weigh them but never photo'ed the backs...big mistake in retrospect but too late now. Regards Jeff

R.Fus (Vic).jpg

ANGLE IRON · #6 13-07-12, 05:30 PM

I have come across a few Victorian badges and some as late as WW1 period that have been thinner and lighter than the norm but all genuine.

davec2 · #7 13-07-12, 06:27 PM

Thanks gents,

After a recent clanger ( don't tell Malcolm or Andy ), I thought I was being clever ! I just needed that little nudge towards my comfort zone, if you follow ?

Regards.

Dave.

PS, that's a nice example Jeff, a quality piece for sure !!

Fatherofthree · #8 13-07-12, 10:08 PM

Greetings chaps.
Now what a coincidence this is.

Earlier today I was talking to a forum member and discussing badges and one of the topics that was discussed was genuine badges that are discounted as such, purely because they are made in a thinner metal and consequently, are not accepted as being the real thing.

(He has a Finsbury Rifles made of thin metal, but appears to be right in all other respects.) So I'm not telling you who it is.

Now Dave has raised an extremely valid point worthy of discussion, so I will stick my 2 bobs worth in now.

During our discussion, I mooted that there must have been occasions when a thinner sheet than the approved thickness of chosen metal was inadvertently/accidentally/mistakenly sent to the dies to be pressed, and as a result the correct badges were produced, albeit of an inferior quality to those struck from a correct thickness metal.

Subsequently, these badges were issued to the chaps and worn.

I have, I have seen and I know of examples of badges that appear to be made of an inferior thickness of metal, but show all other attributes that indicate that they are good 'uns.

So, after all this rambling, in my opinion, just because a badge doesn't conform to the norm in regards of thickness of the metal, doesn't make it a wrong 'un.

Regards
Brian

Phil2M · #9 14-07-12, 01:31 AM

One of my theories on this was that when the dies aged, nearing the end of their use, the manufacturers would use a thinner sheet metal to be a little less hard on the die and try and get a bit more use out of it.

Another reason I thought possible is the metal shortages during the wars. Every little helps, save a quarter of a badge's weight and that spares a bit of brass for a washer on a tank or a screw in a rifle.

Or maybe I am just being silly!?!

Phil

Fatboy Ken · #10 14-07-12, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil2M

One of my theories on this was that when the dies aged, nearing the end of their use, the manufacturers would use a thinner sheet metal to be a little less hard on the die and try and get a bit more use out of it.

Another reason I thought possible is the metal shortages during the wars. Every little helps, save a quarter of a badge's weight and that spares a bit of brass for a washer on a tank or a screw in a rifle.

Or maybe I am just being silly!?!

Phil

Now that makes sense, and they were using the scrap metal of Pots n Pans and brass taps to make more "Spitfires, Ships & Tanks" but also the other items you mentioned.

It makes good sense Phil, making our metals go further by reducing the thickness of the manufacturing process in "Non-Essential" items. Someone somewhere must have had a list of materials and metals needed that would enable a manufacturer make a specific part, within acceptable guidlines, without interfering in the process and end product.

Not silly at all, ............ unless I'm just as silly

It makes sense

Ken

JimD · #11 14-07-12, 07:57 AM

Phil

I would agree with that, you can see the logic in it.

Cheers
Jim

sketchley kid · #12 14-07-12, 11:04 AM

As an old Donkey Walloper ...."A washer on a rifle and a screw in a tank" makes more sense!
"I'll get me coat".

orasot · #13 15-07-12, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sketchley kid

As an old Donkey Walloper ...."A washer on a rifle and a screw in a tank" makes more sense!
"I'll get me coat".

I like it

Nice looking badge by the way Dave, my w/m QVC RF badges have brass loops

Wilf.