Reproduction 1 Can Para Title

[Bill A]

This title occaisionally appears on auction. The obverse is pretty good, but the reverse tells the story. A glued on backing covering a thin whispy backing / stiffener material that looks a bit like cotton batting.

[cw2311]

Bill,

Yes, this is one version of that particular flash. I have also seen the same flash but with just a starch or ‘glue backing’ that unfortunately many collectors have been told is original. However, that version is also fake.


______________________________
I’m always interested in purchasing 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion memorabilia.

[Michael Reintjes]

Do you have a photo of your starch back example?

[cw2311]

I’m not sure if I still have that flash but I can check.


______________________________
I’m always interested in purchasing 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion memorabilia.

[cw2311]

Here you go, courtesy of a fellow collector who doesn’t water mark his photos!


______________________________
I’m always interested in purchasing 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion memorabilia.

[edstorey]

Looks like he should have, does he know you have lifted them as well and are posting them around without the proper credit?

CW2311, whoever you are, you may think this in not a big deal; but if you actually owned anything and had images of them turn up all over the web without any credit, then you might care as well.

[cw2311]

Originally Posted by edstorey

Looks like he should have, does he know you have lifted them as well and are posting them around without the proper credit?

CW2311, whoever you are, you may think this in not a big deal; but if you actually owned anything and had images of them turn up all over the web without any credit, then you might care as well.

Estorey,

In an attempt to put this fiasco to bed once and for all, I truly do apologize if you felt offended that I didn’t give you credit on a picture that was to found all over the internet. I’m now aware of ‘the rules’ and I have since corrected my mishap. As previously stated, I was trying to contribute to the thread and your question. This being said, I’m not going to post my fellow collectors name in order to protect HIS privacy. I already have his blessing.

Enough time wasted. Let’s move on.

[wright241]

Originally Posted by cw2311

Here you go, courtesy of a fellow collector who doesn’t water mark his photos!


______________________________
I’m always interested in purchasing 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion memorabilia.

From what you are saying, unless everyone watermarks their pictures, then everyone is fair game for someone else to copy without any permission whatsoever. Looks like I have a lot of work to do....... Thanks.

[cw2311]

Nope! Not what I’m saying. Semantics.

So, back to the original discussion, is the title a fake or not?

[Bill A]

Define fake.
The only authorized shoulder titles worn by 1 Canadian Parachute Battalion were the Airborne / Canada (Up to May 1944. The British had fits when they saw the Airborne title and required the battalion to acquire one that met the naming conventions), the second pattern was the newly designed printed type, and the third one was the Brit made pattern, similar to the one illustrated, but with a backing layer. (Ken Joyce indicates these were authorized, but I have not found the authorizations in my LAC / DHH research.)
Now, to the starch back titles. These titles appeared in the European theatre late in the spring of 1945, or over the summer. No starch back pattern was AUTHORIZED for any Canadian unit, but many Canadian regiments either allowed individuals to acqurie them or the regiment acquired them for general issue. The printed titles were almost universally disliked, and melton / felt embroidered were seen as a step up and coveted by many rank and file.

To discuss the 1 Canadian Parachute Battalion STARCH BACK, it is clear that the title was NOT AUTHORIZED. 1 Canadian Parachute Battalion was one of the first, if not the first unit returned to Canada at the end of hostilities, and was back by late June. Probably before the starch back titles became available. The conclusion is that the titles were not available for the unit to wear, and as such are questionable.

In reference to the discussion about images, it is important to point out that images found on the net are not necessarily public domain. It is incumbent on the person using the image to make sure that the appropriate credit or compensation is given. Please see Forum rules:
Do not post copyrighted material. Please remember all images on the internet and elsewhere that you have not personally created are the intellectual property of someone. You cannot use them without permission. You are responsible for compliance with this, and it includes your avatar.
Note the slew of recent notices of litigation that are being sent to individuals demanding royalties/fees for use of such images. Getty was one of the first, but other image sources are pursuing this route. The days of freely cutting and pasting are coming to an end. If one posts images, it is their responsibility to make sure the image is public domain or appropriately credited.

[cw2311]

Bill,

To answer your question of "defining fake". Simply put, Fake according to Websters on-line Dictionary is a) A worthless imitation passed off a genuine. ie: The 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion ‘starch back’ shoulder flash in question being produced fits this description.

If you say there is limited or no documentation with regards to ‘authorized production’ then we have to rely on photographic evidence along with actual veteran acquired artifacts to further this research. You make mention that these 1st Can Para starch back titles appeared on the European market in 1945?... I’m very intrigued, please share.

Source:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fake

[Phillip Herring]

Originally Posted by cw2311

Bill,

To your question of "defining fake". Fake, according to Websters on-line Dictionary is a) A worthless imitation passed off a genuine. ie: The shoulder flash in question being produced.


Source:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fake

Is that exact flash still being produced? I have seen several obvious reproductions, but they are all very different from the one that Bill has shown. Could you please show, or direct us by links, to examples of reproductions that are exactly the same as the flash in question?
Thanks.

Phil

[Bill A]

If the corollary to the definition of fake is that the title is a forgery, there are some questions. Was the original starch back pattern made as an imitation of the authorized pattern in order to deceive? I don't know if that can be determined. Some of the 1 Cdn Para Bn starch back pattern titles appear to have been made at the same time other starch backs were made, and none of the starch backs were authorized patterns. They were never acquired by or likely available for 1 Cdn Parachute Bn to wear. (See previous post about the early return of the battalion to Canada.) In that situation, the starch back titles are not an authentic authorized title. (A very reputable Canadian badge dealer told me of seeing thousands of starch backs, Canadian and British units, mint condition, in a dealers storage back in the 1960's. Included were bundles of the 1 Cdn Para Bn starch backs.)
All Canadian starch back titles (and some formation patches) were copied from existing patterns of titles. Sometimes they were copied from printed titles, other times earlier issues of embroidered titles. Starch backs for Canadian units are only found for some of the units on the order of battle of the Canadian army in Europe in 1945. No starch backs are found for regiments which stayed in Canada or were broken up for reinforcements in the UK. It is also documented that the production of starch back titles continued well into the post war period. This was for British units and not for Canadian units.
There is NO DOCUMENTATION that has been found in CMHQ or NDHQ files that authorizes the design or purchase of ANY starch back titles, but they exist and were worn by several regiments.The line of logic would make all other starch back titles forgeries as well, but they were worn by many units and have been documented as authentic. Algonquin, Argyll & Sutherland High, Fort Garry Horse, RCOC, Highland Light Inf, VIII Recce, 8th New Brunswick Hussars come to mind and there are more.
Starch backs were made by a private concern to meet a demand (and perhaps in anticipation of an authorization) to move back to embroidered titles.If copies / imitations of the original starch backs were made and offered for sale, they could be described as fakes.
For more information on the issue of cloth insignia to the Canadian army, there is a reference article here.

[cw2311]

Phil,

I do have a box of reproduction flashes, badges, etc… somewhere around the house but can’t seem to locate them at the moment. I’m more than certain many of the collectors following this discussion have a picture or perhaps even own this particular flash. If they are willing to post a picture of it would be great.

It is essentially the same is the flash Bill posted but without the fabric backing.

Cheers

[cw2311]

Bill,

Thanks for that very informative link, greatly appreciated. Those are great starch-back examples you provided. I would imagine that these examples are off BD’s, vet bring backs, etc… found out there in collections? It was also mentioned that only some Canadian Unit flashes were produced in the starch-back variation during the war. Did perhaps any of the makers who produced the starch-back titles for Canadian units originally supply titles for the same regiment but in another manner? ie: Embroidered or canvas.

I have no doubts that 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion starch back flashes appeared on the market in the 1960s, however this is a far cry from 1945. During the 1960s healthy quantities of militaria collectables were being reproduced and or fabricated as I’m sure you are aware. Of the variety of ‘legitimate’ Canadian starch-back flashes that were produced during the war, were any of them reproduced post-war in the same fashion and considered reproductions?

Thanks again for your information.

Cheers