Is badge collecting becoming too numismatic?

[Bill A]

At the CSMMI show last weekend, several collectors / dealers brought up the growing "numismatic" approach to badge collecting. The issue is the categorization of badges, such as "unworn" (read uncirculated), very good, good, etc. While condition is certainly a major component of the value of the badge, is there a need to have the numismatic approach in faleristics? Should badges be categorized by a "wear condition system"? And, should such a system be used, should it be the same as numismatics? Or should a different system be developed?

[biffrocks]

Originally Posted by Bill A

At the CSMMI show last weekend, several collectors / dealers brought up the growing "numismatic" approach to badge collecting. The issue is the categorization of badges, such as "unworn" (read uncirculated), very good, good, etc. While condition is certainly a major component of the value of the bade, is there a need to have the numismatic approach in faleristics? Should badges be categorized by a "wear condition system"? And, should such a system be used, should it be the same as numismatics? Or should a different system be developed?

Hi Bill
I am very new to badge collecting and I always like to find badges that have some wear as it shows someone had worn it and then it feel as if it's got some history. I used to focus on WW1 medals from the researching and history point but have found them to be too expensive now so am focusing more on badges.
I don't know what others think but that's why I collect.

Rob

[GriffMJ]

Hi Bill

What a great question

Being a realtive newcomer to badge collecting (on a wider scale) I take the approach of variation in design. The badge itself in used or unused condition is irrelivant to a point.... with the exception of a badge that has been polished into oblivion. Its nice to have a badge with some wear.... but, for me at least, if it has not been worn and was a left over from the QM stores and in mint condition it is just as relevant. In a way, value wise, you could say the mint condition badge has less value than the worn badge...... but that is a matter of opinion rather than reality.

I would also add that a badge may have a different maker, this would also make it more or less valuable. For example: Guant made A/A LDYPAO badges are common but a badge made by Timings (Post 1970) is more rare. Therefore, in my opinion, the Timmings badge is worth more..... albeit almost identicle to Gaunts.

[Raymond Gilbert]

Good topic Bill. I have waxed and waned between the two approaches of unissued and worn. My collection now contains both. I do feel that it would be helpful for collectors if the flash description is detailed enough to tell you what type of glue is on the back. It would be nice to note that the glue used was water soluble, if that fact is known, so it can be soaked off. The other types of glue I feel may contribute to the long-term deterioration of the cloth.Too many times the seller just notes that the badge has been 'stuck' in a collection and thus the reverse is in that messy paper and gluey condition and one has no idea what was used to stick it on.

[Peter Brydon]

There seems to be a whole host of new dealers coming in to the " business" ( because to them that is what it is) who see militaria as an income source.

With most of the older dealers a lot of their knowledge was acquired during years as collectors before turning their hobby into a means of earning a living.

Some of the misdescriptions on dealers web sites , as well as well known dud items being described as genuine, are almost laughable.

The point I am trying to make is that we may be expecting too much from a lot of dealers if we want more than a very basic description.

I only hope that the method used to describe the condition of medals is never adopted to describe insignia. I have always thought that system bizzare.

P.B.

[matti467]

I like a gentle polish to a badge as it can be a pointer to authenticity. To heavy a polish is not attractive..

[DavidS]

Originally Posted by Bill A

At the CSMMI show last weekend, several collectors / dealers brought up the growing "numismatic" approach to badge collecting. The issue is the categorization of badges, such as "unworn" (read uncirculated), very good, good, etc. While condition is certainly a major component of the value of the badge, is there a need to have the numismatic approach in faleristics? Should badges be categorized by a "wear condition system"? And, should such a system be used, should it be the same as numismatics? Or should a different system be developed?

My thought is that the question isn't maybe so much whether it should be used, but rather if it can be used.

I notice that certain people like to make noise in their listings about condition that is, in the kindest terms I can put it, extremely optimistic, in an attempt to pump up the price (usually with a lot of pompous sounding pseudo-fact tossed in as well).

That aside, the major problem I see with attempting to assign values to badges using a condition-only approach is that Canadian badges don't have anywhere near the same documentation as to date of issue, run quantity, etc. that Canadian coins do, and a system of values based solely on grade can only work if you know you are comparing examples of the same thing.

A late war issue, common as dirt badge like a 7th/11th Hussars with light lugs and thin brass is not as valuable (to me at least) as a 1920s or '30s Roden marked badge, no matter how glinty bright yellow and mint it may be. I simply have no idea -- although I can LOOSOF (long on opinion, short on facts) til the proverbial cows come home -- about when the former vs. the latter was made, how many were churned out and why you should pay me $20 more for it because all the flux stains I forgot to mention are on the back. Accurate numismatic-style pricing can only apply if there aren't those holes in the database. A coin collector knows a given coin can be valued on grade alone because he/she is strictly comparing apples to apples -- or 1936 dot dimes to 1936 dot dimes. A badge collector has no such advantage.

As other folks have pointed out, badge collecting is wholly subjective, whereas coin collecting is much less so. Personally, I like to have the best condition badges I can as representative pieces, but that's me. And a worn badge is still as valuable if not more so to me within that collection if it has 'curb appeal', if that makes sense. For other guys, other things are far more important than just condition: connection to documented individuals, provenanced 'worn in service' badges, or even badges only worn by left-handed popes for all I know.

One thing I do like about a numismatic approach is the opportunity to identify and catalogue variants: die differences, different dates or materials for the same pattern, manufacturing differences, etc. But while there are already holes in basic badge information big enough to drive a Sherman tank through, you could drive the whole bloody regiment though the holes in this area, and since I don't see much hope for those gaps ever getting filled, I can't see grade-only evaluation being much use.

[GriffMJ]

Hi David

I agree with the design variation approach and it makes more sense than "condition" of a badge.

I also take the view that "patina" is not a requirement or a good indicator of lagitimacey. In some cases it can disguise a multitude of sins and also cause damage to a badge via verdigis eating away at the metal.

[matti467]

...?...?...

[Michael Reintjes]

More on this later but I've been on about this for years and the crossover membership of coin dealers in the fraternity is directly responsible. Having worked for and with coin dealers years ago I can attest first hand at their failure to see militaria as historical artifacts that can tell a story when properly attributed,but see them merely as types of collectables to be graded,slotted,lined up in little rows and catalogued.
Its apples and oranges to me. leave the grading and cataloguing to record,stamp and coin collectors,Militaria has a whole other dynamic and depth to it in my opinion...I,ll ellaborate what I mean when I,m not going out the door to work...cheers,M.

[davec2]

Originally Posted by Bill A

At the CSMMI show last weekend, several collectors / dealers brought up the growing "numismatic" approach to badge collecting. The issue is the categorization of badges, such as "unworn" (read uncirculated), very good, good, etc. While condition is certainly a major component of the value of the badge, is there a need to have the numismatic approach in faleristics? Should badges be categorized by a "wear condition system"? And, should such a system be used, should it be the same as numismatics? Or should a different system be developed?

Go on then Bill,

You've got me..... I had to look in my dictionary to find out what " numismatic " meant and couldn't really understand the connection, don't worry, that's normal for me but blow me down, I then read the word " faleristics " and I'm completely lost, it's not even in my dictionary....what does it mean, anyone ? and is badge collecting getting as serious as this ?? I'm lost and I'm relatively articulate ??

Dave.

[Voltigeur]

Perhaps Bill meant; scutelliphily, from Latin scutellus meaning little shield, and Greek phileein meaning to love) is the hobby of collecting souvenir patches or badges.

Jo

[davec2]

I bet you're all going to really enjoy throwing me ' curved balls ' just to get me wondering ??

Can you really mix Latin with Greek or are you just pulling my string Jo ??

Dave.

[Phillip Herring]

From a previous post by BillA:

"Hi Wyn, Far from an expert, just a student of scutelliphily. (Sounds sort of gross...)
You had me going back to that badge again, and I can not make out the number from the obverse. From the reverse, it appears to be a single numeral, a 3. That would make it a Victoria Rifles of Canada badge, but a king's crown pattern that appears in Mazeas Pre 1914 on page 64 badge PB82.
Good spotting on my error Wyn."

Since Bill was the first person to use B]scutelliphily[/B] in this forum, I'm sure he knows which fifty cent word he means.

Phil

[Bill A]

From wikipedia...
Faleristics is an auxiliary science of history which studies items worn by members of military or military-style organizations, for example orders, medals, decorations and their systems (for example, a system of awards in one country, like the British honors system).

It also studies badges and pins created for civilian usage and can be used to refer to the collecting thereof.

So, the items we collect, the cloth titles and patches, and the metal badges appear to fall under the two definitions.

Hi Dave, Numismatics is defined by wikipedia as:
Numismatics (Latin: numisma, nomisma, "coin"; from the Greek: νομίζειν nomízein, "to use according to law") is the study or collection of currency, including coins, tokens, paper money, and related objects. While numismatists are often characterized as students or collectors of coins, the discipline also includes the broader study of money and other payment media used to resolve debts and the exchange of goods.
There has been a trend in some quarters to grading or describing military badges by numismatic criteria, as in mint unissued, or good or very good. The later terms have me completely baffled. I have not been able to figure out what these mean. How much of the original badge has been removed? Usually through wear or polishing.