|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
"Original WW2 3rd Anti-Aircraft Division printed cloth formation sign"
Are these original? When a dealer has "10 available" and it looks so new, I just want to be sure. Also don't know if these were reproduced like so many other WWII items.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Original-W...item339d64a4ff |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
printed insignia
I don't like the looks of this flash. Most printed flashes in my experience 'bleed' the pattern through to the back
Raymond |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
I agree with your second sentence. But I have three variations of 3 AA Div that have been in my collection for decades - printed on rather flimsy material, silk weave (and highly detailed) and painted on very stiff, thick material - exactly as illustrated above. In my opinion all three variations are genuine. Several of the AA Div signs are to be found in a wide range of different styles (and that's even before the ATS girls got busy "improving" them with needle and thread).
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Patch is fine original , it is a `paint printed` formation sign rather that a screen printed in the traditional sence , this is one of the few unit formation signs that used this style of manufacture - not rare but an every day item an a bargain at that price .
The 6th A.A sign offered by the same seller is made in the same way also
__________________
kind regards, Michael |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
One of a large group of quite original signs that have recently turned up on the market,
This style of painted sign was a speciality of the London firm Display Patents. Jon |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks for all the comments. Guess I need to get me one of those. And then there were nine...
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
3 AA Div
I won't disagree with anyone, but I thought the WW2 printing process was such that the ink was placed on a matrix made of wood, lead or rubber upon which was placed the cloth and extreme pressure exerted, resulting in the design 'bleeding' through to the reverse. This was called a typographic method
It was only post-war that technology allowed the printing that didn't bleed through, using a serigraphy method which used a thick layer of ink. Although this technology was known from the 1930's it wasn't sufficiently developed for commercial printing. This information came from The Formation Sign No 211, published in September 2003 so there may have been more discovered since then that makes the information obsolete. The example used in FS 211 is the fake printed 56 Indep Inf Bde FS. Prior to reading this thread I would have stayed well clear of this AA badge: in fact, I still will. Stephen |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
3 AA Div
Your decision Stephen and your points are taken, but this particular pattern 3 AA Div and the companion 6 AA Div are genuine signs of the early 1940s. I think they are crudely made and rather unattractive, but as they used to say "there's a war on!". Mike
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
There are numerous examples of WW2 painted type badges where the ink does not bleed through, 43rd and 55th Inf Divs are two, these AA ones are 100%. Some examples are on felt, some on cotton.
Lee |
|
|