Original WW2 Rhodesian Raiding Forces SAS LRDG Bullion 9 Feather Wings Badge

[akiko]

Listed by Jack Dutton-Roberts. Opinions are welcome. Peter (rhodesianmilitaria) has had a debate with Jack over this wing.

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/38563816...Bk9SR_Ss752WYg

[akiko]

For reference.
1.jpg
2.jpg

[Luc]

First of all I know nothing about Rhodesian badges; but the backing is remarkably similar to a number of known replica insignia.

[Luke H]

Since his ban I very much miss hearing about what Peter Garrett is thinking, his activities, books he’s writing and his debates with others… so glad you’re here to keep us so well informed.

Well, I expect this is a loaded question since I’m yet to hear you disagree with Peter and he’s obviously given you his opinion here.

So rather than beating around the bush, pray tell…

[davidcushworth]

As being an old Rhodie myself, although it was BSAP CID, and something of a collector I must say I have never seen these, nor found anything in the various reference works.

From what I understand of the history of the LRDG then the SAS, I would be a tad suspicious. There really needs to be some serious provenance on them. Especially at the price they asking.

I would very interested to see how their authenticity plays out.

[pontecagnano]

There are two questions here:

1) Is this an original wing?

2) Is it Rhodesian?

Looking at originality I agree with Luc. This thick black mesh backing has been used on fakes since the 1970s. I’ve attached an image of a fake RSR beret badge. The ‘Rhodesian’ wing has exactly the same backing. See second image attached showing part of the wing (with a red border for clarity) superimposed on the back of the RSR badge. I don’t like this type of paper backing either. There are, of course, original wings with paper backs out there, but there are a large number of fakes with them too.

The wing shape, with the oversized canopy, just doesn’t look right to me and the goldwork is very simplistic and of poor quality.

It would be useful to know if the natural colour thread, visible on the back of the wing, at the top of the canopy, fluoresces under UV.

I appreciate that lack of fluorescence does not necessarily mean the wing is original, but if the thread lit up like a Christmas tree I would avoid this wing.

Similarly, a burn test, on one of the threads, would be useful.

I have had many dealers at militaria shows and badge fairs down the years say to me, when I get the UV light out, “If it does glow, it’s because it must have been washed in detergent”. Having washed Para smocks with wings on, detergent can cause a slight glow but nothing like the way synthetic thread lights up under UV.

So, in answer to 1) above, and in the absence of UV and burn tests, I would say ‘no’ on the basis of the mesh backing, design and quality.

Moving on to 2), the only comment I would make is that just because an SAS wing has nine feathers, that doesn’t automatically make it Rhodesian. We need to be forensic in our assessment and not let wishful thinking, or a good story, influence us. I was at a badge fair earlier this year and one dealer had a Rhodesian SAS badge that was obviously wrong. When I pointed this out (reasonably diplomatically) his response was that “...It must be right because he was killed in a bar fight and his wife put all his badges in a box and sold them to me.” Buy the badge, not the story! British SBS wings (with the exception of the Mess Dress one) have 9 feathers. I have seen wings made for the collectors’ market with more or less than 8 feathers simply because the manufacturer got the geometry wrong. I’ve attached an example of a small 9-feather wing alongside a first pattern SBS Mess Dress wing. I don’t believe this is an extremely rare 9-feather SBS Mess Dress wing, and there is no evidence whatsoever it has any connection with Rhodesia, so is it just a manufacturing error? if anyone knows what it is, or has any additional information, please let me know.

Cheers,

Graham

[akiko]

Originally Posted by Luke H

Since his ban I very much miss hearing about what Peter Garrett is thinking, his activities, books he’s writing and his debates with others… so glad you’re here to keep us so well informed.

Well, I expect this is a loaded question since I’m yet to hear you disagree with Peter and he’s obviously given you his opinion here.

So rather than beating around the bush, pray tell…

I'm helping him with the structure of his book and the little I know about Rhodesian militaria can be written on a stamp, so why would I disagree with him?
He's quite active on various Rhodesian FB sites like the SAS, Selous Scouts, etc so he might like to hear from you and your expertise on Rhodesian militaria.

[akiko]

Originally Posted by pontecagnano

There are two questions here:

1) Is this an original wing?

2) Is it Rhodesian?

Looking at originality I agree with Luc. This thick black mesh backing has been used on fakes since the 1970s. I’ve attached an image of a fake RSR beret badge. The ‘Rhodesian’ wing has exactly the same backing. See second image attached showing part of the wing (with a red border for clarity) superimposed on the back of the RSR badge. I don’t like this type of paper backing either. There are, of course, original wings with paper backs out there, but there are a large number of fakes with them too.

The wing shape, with the oversized canopy, just doesn’t look right to me and the goldwork is very simplistic and of poor quality.

It would be useful to know if the natural colour thread, visible on the back of the wing, at the top of the canopy, fluoresces under UV.

I appreciate that lack of fluorescence does not necessarily mean the wing is original, but if the thread lit up like a Christmas tree I would avoid this wing.

Similarly, a burn test, on one of the threads, would be useful.

I have had many dealers at militaria shows and badge fairs down the years say to me, when I get the UV light out, “If it does glow, it’s because it must have been washed in detergent”. Having washed Para smocks with wings on, detergent can cause a slight glow but nothing like the way synthetic thread lights up under UV.

So, in answer to 1) above, and in the absence of UV and burn tests, I would say ‘no’ on the basis of the mesh backing, design and quality.

Moving on to 2), the only comment I would make is that just because an SAS wing has nine feathers, that doesn’t automatically make it Rhodesian. We need to be forensic in our assessment and not let wishful thinking, or a good story, influence us. I was at a badge fair earlier this year and one dealer had a Rhodesian SAS badge that was obviously wrong. When I pointed this out (reasonably diplomatically) his response was that “...It must be right because he was killed in a bar fight and his wife put all his badges in a box and sold them to me.” Buy the badge, not the story! British SBS wings (with the exception of the Mess Dress one) have 9 feathers. I have seen wings made for the collectors’ market with more or less than 8 feathers simply because the manufacturer got the geometry wrong. I’ve attached an example of a small 9-feather wing alongside a first pattern SBS Mess Dress wing. I don’t believe this is an extremely rare 9-feather SBS Mess Dress wing, and there is no evidence whatsoever it has any connection with Rhodesia, so is it just a manufacturing error? if anyone knows what it is, or has any additional information, please let me know.

Cheers,

Graham

Hi Graham,

I took a screenshot of this and sent it to Peter. He doesn't like the wing and is adamant that it isn't Rhodesian.
He read what you have said here and agrees with you.

He has said this regarding the 9 feathered SAS wings.
"Whilst there is some association of nine feathered wings used by the RhSAS from the late 60’s to the end of 1980 I have never seen any evidence of it ever being requested. There is no evidence of ‘C’ Sqn wearing these wings in Malaya or when they were reformed in 1961.
I have never seen any evidence of Rhodesians wearing nine feathered para wings in WWII."

If you're interested he made a post on the Rhodesian Militaria Research and Discussion facebook page regarding this and on his Instagram account where he had a debate with Jack Dutton-Roberts.
https://www.instagram.com/realrhodesianmilitaria/

[Luc]

For the dinosaurs like me who do not have an Instagram/Facebook account; could we have an update of what is discussd there?

[akiko]

Originally Posted by Luc

For the dinosaurs like me who do not have an Instagram/Facebook account; could we have an update of what is discussd there?

Peter was told that Jack was a member of a WW2 Facebook page so he joined and asked Jack some questions. In about two hours he was banned from the page and so he put photos of the wings and the listing on his Instagram account and linked what he said to Jack's Instagram account.
This is what has transpired.
Jack-1.png
1.png
Jack-2.jpg
Jack-5.png
Jack-6.png

[Alan O]

If JDR has 20 years in civil law as he claims then he started young as he says on his website he is 32!

[Luc]

His style of communicating is incredibly agressive, and it has been over the years.

[gary1666]

Originally Posted by Alan O

If JDR has 20 years in civil law as he claims then he started young as he says on his website he is 32!

A few years back he referenced me in a blog, if I remember correctly he stated he was an ex-civil servant, so squeezed a lot into those years

[Paul Spellman]

Uber Taxi Drivers like all always talk crap
He must dream up occupations for his many names and identities he uses

[Luc]

Massive price drop to 600 GBP.