|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
The WOG WING.
Dear Forum,
This wing is a debatable issue according to what I have heard... Here is a specimen I have recently obtained. Opinions welcome... Thank you. Regards, Dominique |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Hi Dominique, Yes this is a controversial wing. It is reported to represent Wireless Operator Ground, which begs the question as to why it is a wing. RCAF Mike, Wingnut, or SAS1 (or another expert in wings) will have more.
__________________
Res ipsa loquitur |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
....always thought it was Wireless Operator (Air)Gunner....
Jo
__________________
"There truly exists but one perfect order: that of cemeteries. The dead never complain and they enjoy their equality in silence." - “There are things we know that we know,” “There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know.” Donald Rumsfeld, before the Iraqi Invasion,2003. Age is something that doesn't matter, unless you are a cheese. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting response on the WAG question here from Alex
http://www.network54.com/Forum/18074...lf+wing+emblem If unofficial, as stated, perhaps WOG and WAG were to those wearing them, the same and it was just down to personal choice/interpretation as they were unsanctioned ? T |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Hi Jo, The reference for WOG as Wireless Operator Ground comes from Warren Carroll's, Eagles Recalled, page 122.
__________________
Res ipsa loquitur |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
An old collector friend of mine had told me these appeared in the 70's. They all have the same minor flaw in the feathers. I never seen any pics of them being worn. They look original and maybe they were made as prototype? Anyone's guess as to real storey behind them.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The worst part about these is that they are made in a fashion that we are used to seeing on genuine badges, material, style, colours etc.... BUT there's just no photographic proof, only a few stories that are mere rumblings. I have one of these, and I keep it as a "maybe" but why they were made remains a mystery. If they are a fantasy item, whoever had them made really wanted authenticity to be a key factor. Just looking at the example posted, I wouldn't doubt that the errant white thread on the back would glow like a Christmas tree under blacklight!
__________________
MIKE Collecting RCAF Wings Uniforms Badges and Insignia |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for highlighting the piece by me on the WAG wing (I'm Alex) although that referred to the RAF version.
Re the WOG wing, which was RCAF issue, it was a genuine issue wing as far as I'm aware, and does indeed stand for 'Wireless Operator/Gunner' as opposed to the normally seen WAG ('Wireless/Air Gunner'). I believe it was made in error in a similar way to the Flight Engineer wing in the RAF. When the trade of Flight Engineer was announced in 1942 it was variously noted in the press as Engineer, Aero Engineer and Flight Engineer (and possibly others). As such, tailors produced FE wings and AE wings although neither were authorised by the Air Ministry, who instead authorised a simple E. I have an example of the AE wing and have heard of them being worn, and have an FE wing and several photos of it being worn. The officially authorised RCAF wing was WAG (in the RAF the WAG wing was another that was worn but never authorised. I have individual examples and one on the tunic of a DFC winner), and I believe the WOG was made in error. I think Warren notes in his book that it was used with caution as 'Wog' was a rather derisory term although this isn't quite so. The term Wog was used during the war in the same way as Nigger, usually in reference to African natives but not in the offensive way it's thought of now. (My grandfather, who was in Africa in tanks used to send poems back to my mum who was an infant. One was called 'Ahmed the Wog'). As to the question of was it worn or not I'd say yes, in small numbers and perhaps for a short time until the error was noticed and rectified. I have one on a black backing and consider it ok. I do agree with Mike however when he mentions the back glowing. The example above looks like a Patch King repro that has had most of its white mesh backing removed. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks a lot for your most interesting comments.
Well, Gentlemen, as for this wing, controversial is the right word! Mike is right as always, this thing is poorly made and looks like a repro. Strangely, it doesn't react to black, nor I can see any trace of white mesh on the reverse, only some glue residue on a fine black backing. Regards to all, Dominique |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Please read:
it doesn't react to black light,
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The UV/blacklight test is a bit of a myth. It only highlights (by glowing) white synthetic threads. So if something is fake but made with natural fibres such as silk or cotton it won't glow (only something like nylon or polyester will glow). Additionally they will only glow if white. Coloured materials don't tend to. These wings were made in rayon thread which has been coloured.
As for the backing, wings like these generally appear with a backing cloth in black with a tight weave (usually genuine) or a white backing with a very loose weave (repro, generally produced by the US firm Patch King in the 40s and 50s). The badge above clearly shows lose individual white threads which I'd guess come from a Patch King type repro. The threads can easily be pulled out to remove the backing giving the impression of an original. The white backing/individual threads may not glow for the reasons mentioned above. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Lesson taught.
Thank you so much. BR, Dominique |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
One further note to SAS1's point about reliability of black light tests. IF the cloth item in question has been laundered or cleaned by some modern (read since the 1970's?) cleaning compounds the item in question may have picked up florescent characteristics from the cleaning. So, a good piece can also fluoresce.
__________________
Res ipsa loquitur |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
That's true Bill, where there is residue of washing powder. Another thing that can glow is some glues. So if a badge has a loose backing that has been re-glued it may also glow depending on the glue used.
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Mine has the black, "fine weave" backing.
Phil
__________________
Courtesy of The Canadian Forces: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-.../lineages.html Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|