17th AND 21st Lancers Victorian Plates

[Rockape]

Originally Posted by Aerowallah

I am just surprised no one here can render a confident opinion. On my WW1 forums everyone is an expert!!!

Hello Aerowallah,

Remember that the WW1 forum is a general subject forum and some of those members who have established themselves on that forum may think of themselves as experts. You can only be "Near Expert" or "Oracle" status if you have a specialism in a particular subject and even then you cannot possibly know everything. Real experts do not exist as the term 'Expert' implies you know everything there is to know about your subject.

At this forum the field is narrowed to military badges, although there are other badges that are discussed too and this is a massive field by itself. Many members specialise in a particular aspect or units of badges. As far as opinions go, if you offer an opinion here you have to be absolutely sure that you have your facts in order or else face criticism from those that know more than you! It is likely that there are many members who could offer you an opinion but they lack the confidence that their facts are 100% and therefore do not offer one publicly. Badge collectors like to use more than one sense when determining an authentic badge. You are not able to achieve this by looking at photos alone. For example, sight, touch, weight and sometimes gauge the tensile strength of the metal. If you can afford it you could get an analyst to determine the metals used and compare the ratios of metals found to a known authentic example. That route is expensive but it can be done. For the majority of members I would suggest that you cannot beat hands-on for a good appraisal!

The oxidation issue you mentioned earlier is the mottled effect at the rear of the plates. This conveys the warning signs to an assessor that there are irregularities in the metal composition where oxygen has reacted with the surface of some parts more than others. If you feel that this is a photographic error take new photos, otherwise get an analyst to give you a report on the metal composition.

[Aerowallah]

Thanks, Rockape. I was being tongue in cheek about us all being experts on WW1 forums, although I am not referring to general subject forums here. I speak of Imperial German aviation flying badges--a subject more specialised than this subcategory.

I suppose by originally posting here I had hoped someone would have the same 17th plate to compare. I didn't realize it was that rare until some members questioned the very design of it.

For the same reason I suspect I will not find another officer's Crimean 17th let alone one that its owner will assay. Unless there is a holdout here who will volunteer his plate or the whereabouts of another?

Can you show me what you mean by mottling on the photograph?

Are all backing of uniform composition? Do they all tarnish the same way under varying conditions of humidity and storage? The answer must be yes for the cataloguer's comparison to have any validity.

I focus here on observable tarnish and not on tensile strength etc. because having examined them in hand Roy Butler accepted the plates by all other criteria--as did Graham Lay.

Rgds

[Aerowallah]

Spoke with a badge collector / dealer who said mottling, as he understands the word, has everything to do with moisture and storage and nothing to do with metallic composition as metals are melted and blended into an alloy. But I will talk to a swordsmith / museum conservator next.

[Frank Kelley]

I have no real issues with these plates, I found some of the comments in this thread laughable, in particular, the one on the rays and I am certainly a little surprised at RB, if I were you, I'd take your business elsewhere

[mac mcconnell]

Hi Frank
If it was my comment on the black deposit between the rays glad to put a smile on your face.
I was only giving a suggestion that had been passed onto me by people collecting far longer than I.
I wish I could have a trained eye like yours that can pass good or bad by photo alone, but I guess I will need a few more years under my belt first.

Rgs Mac

[manchesters]

Sell them to me, I want them

[Aerowallah]

My conservator friend has written back, which I quote for general interest--

I would side with the moisture-and-storage camp. The Victorians were well into industrialized smelting of all kinds of alloys, and achieved great consistency and standardization of composition. Metal alloys have evolved further and chemical differences can be detectable by lab analysis. But it is normal to encounter differences in tarnishing, spotting, or patination on surfaces of metal objects due to ambient atmospheric conditions. Water contains oxygen, and moisture accelerates surface degradation. Altitude also plays a role as there's less oxygen the higher one is above sea level. Look at late-medieval Tibetan lacquered leather armor and you can see why earlier experts thought they were only about 100-200 years old. The point is how an item has been exposed to these elements, whether it has been protected, and and for how long.

[Rockape]

Your friend is correct to a certain extent as this would infer the copper and nickel alloy is contaminate free and therefore moisture and normal atmospheric oxygen will oxidise the badge dependant on environmental conditions. This however was not what I referring to in an earlier post. Those that have the means to copy badges may have all the tools but sometimes lack the knowledge. This gap in knowledge may lead to molten alloys that can contain contaminates or unwanted colloids. It is these impurities that react with oxygen at a different rate to the copper/nickel metals and produce inconsistencies such as brisance, texture and colour. I am not implying your plates are faulty, I'm just giving you a reason why some may think that they a different to what they have viewed already.

Regards

[Aerowallah]

Have heard that three of W&W's plates are being returned as "blatant fakes"--the RR, the 12th and the early 9th. Two independent experts agree, and monies will be returned.

I have not had my emails returned meantime.

[mac mcconnell]

Hi Aerowallah

News to me as I purchased the RR, I ALSO HAD IN MY HANDS THE OTHERES as did another collector and thought they were very nice were does your info come from?

Rgs Mac

[Aerowallah]

Lot 9? As long as you're happy with it Mac, but maybe there's an opportune window for you to subject it to peer review while W&W itself is reviewing other plates.

As usual I have no opinion, growing ever more pleased that I collect Zeppelins. If Mac bought Lot 9 then what I heard is clearly wrong--precisely that 3 plates are in process of being vetted.

[Neibelungen]

You were asking about a comparison plate.

The image below is an identical 17th to the one you have.



The only problem being it's a reproduction plate made last week. It's slightly brighter because of harsh lighting as well as being in a clean,polished and lacquered finish.

I have a matching 21st to your plate, right down to the identical pitting, so either came from the same mould or one from the other.

I've posted on here before that my job is making reproduction plates, not fakes and definitely not selling them a originals either. Unfortunately any back marks or embossed lettering can be removed if somebody is determined to, as well as ageing them to appear original.

[Aerowallah]

Thanks for your picture, Neibelungen.


First,

do you know the current whereabouts of the originals you made your impressions from? Are you saying this is the first copy you have made of this pattern and you cast it last week? Please be precise as to how long you have been casting this pattern 17th and 21st.


Second,

Assuming yours was not cast from mine which has been out of my hands since July could you post a side-by-side comparison with one of my details--perhaps the unicorn--that we may all see that yours matches?


Third,

since you are casting repros, if the visuals match, this should be an easy matter of measuring, yes?

If mine is one of your products the dimensions will be exact. If mine is an original and not one of your castings my dimensions will be slightly bigger and its mass different.

And yours are dipped presumably, not fire gilded...


Fourth,

do you have a website?


Rgds

[manchesters]

This thread is really getting annoying.

Aerowallah,

Why have you said that certain Lancer Plates have been sent back to W & W, which is clearly a load of bollocks as the owner of one, Mac McConell has done no such thing?

You cant go around potentially ruining reputations of sellers & auctioneers like that without expecting legal repercussions.

Put some evidence forward.

regards

[Neibelungen]

Mine's a copper electroform taken from a set of moulds that I acquired last year, but the actual moulds were in use by a helmet restorer from the 90's.
So it's possible there's a number of these taken from the same moulds over the years on various lance caps and independent plates on the market.
This is the first one I've produced from them so yours definately isn't my work

An electroform will be an exact match to the size of the mould and is accurate down to an extremely fine scale. They use the process for generating stamper plates for LP's and CD/DVD so they can actually repoduce at the micron level depending on the quality of the mould.
Or you can generate copper electrodes for spark erroding dies from them.

Your correct, it's plated, rather than fire gilt, though you can get extremely close with a 24K soft gold on thick and various chemical dips. It will almost replicate fire-gilding and burnishing.
This one was done with bright finish, simply to differentiate it and I avoided oxidising the silverwork for the same reason.
You have also to bear in mind, from about the 1880's, plating began to replace fire gilding and post 1900 supplanted it as the standard finish.

I'll get some measurements and some close up pics for you tommorrow as well as the 21st plate