Parachute wings

[1664]

I bought these recently as a gap filler, can anyone tell me if they are a specific pattern, or indeed if they are genuine and what period
Thanks
John

[Pembird]

These are reproduction wings!

[1664]

Originally Posted by Pembird

These are reproduction wings!

Many thanks, I thought they might be, look as if the maker tried too hard, I’m not certain what they were trying to copy

[bewley]

Originally Posted by Pembird

These are reproduction wings!

I would tend to disagree with you, they appear, to me, to be 50’s ish RAF wings.

[Luc]

These are replicas in my opinion, with a Frankenstein combination of Indian and British features.

[Frank Kelley]

I think, just from the photographs, it is pretending to be an Indian badge, I would not be happy, where did it come from?

Originally Posted by 1664

I bought these recently as a gap filler, can anyone tell me if they are a specific pattern, or indeed if they are genuine and what period
Thanks
John

[Pembird]

Wings like these were sold by Andrew Butler a while ago.

[Frank Kelley]

Why am I not remotely surprised!

[akiko]

Originally Posted by Pembird

Wings like these were sold by Andrew Butler a while ago.

The person who makes fakes, sold fakes as genuine years ago and is a member of the forum. Funny as.

Originally Posted by Pembird

Wings like these were sold by Andrew Butler a while ago.

They are awful and wrong colour I would not not make them as bad as that.

Originally Posted by akiko

The person who makes fakes, sold fakes as genuine years ago and is a member of the forum. Funny as.

Never needed to sell fakes as originals they are all on my website clearly sold as copies, it is resellers that pass them onto collectors that are too lazy or tight to buy a book and do some research

[Mike B]

Originally Posted by Hanbut

Never needed to sell fakes as originals they are all on my website clearly sold as copies, it is resellers that pass them onto collectors that are too lazy or tight to buy a book and do some research

Point taken ... BUT - It is a great shame that reproductions are not marked as such to save new collectors from making mistakes - Could you not set an example, and indelibly mark the reverse of reproduction badges as 'REPRODUCTION'?

Agreeing that research is important, in fact vital, and that some collectors are lazy in this respect - BUT - I think you agree that reselling reproductions as original is a poison to our hobby and all remedies need to be explored - including marking badges as REPRODUCTION.

These comments are intended to be constructive, as those who manufacture reproduction badges (for re-enactors etc) are in a position to help solve this problem.

Mike

[akiko]

Originally Posted by Hanbut

Never needed to sell fakes as originals they are all on my website clearly sold as copies, it is resellers that pass them onto collectors that are too lazy or tight to buy a book and do some research

What about ebay? It's probably not a good idea to claim innocence when you've actually been caught out and the evidence was saved. January 2008 sounds like a good year don't you think?
How could dealers who sell copies as genuine ever be believed?

It is a very good idea to mark the reverse, but what about when the badge is aged up and mounted on an old piece of cloth then sold for £150 are you going to cut the badge off the material to see if it says copy? My badges are very easy to tell if you look at the reverse and have done even a little research into what you are buying, I saw one of my £30 patches on ebay sold for £220 but the buyer obviously never researched whether the US airborne served in India in WW2