A
Anonymous
Guest
http://militaryaviationartifacts.com/chits.htm Have to do some research on who I sold this to but the 552nd bomb squadron patch was my art. The only theater that patch was made in resides in, my den.
-
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
A
Anonymous
Guest
No, this was sold on an older Avirex jacket, then removed. Sean at a2jacketpatches stitched it on for me.
Jaguar46
New Member
A
Anonymous
Guest
Yes
Andrew
Well-Known Member
So it seems this guy doesn't actually know where his items are made, but how can someone acurately state that a patch was "Australian/ Italian/ English/ CBI made" other than taking a guess at it? Is it just because the Squadron operated in that area and it's based on the idea that they could only have sourced the patch locally after they left home?
Whenever I see a 5th AF patch it's always "Australian made", or a carved leather patch is "Italian made". I was under the impression that this was based on the idea that only felt patches were made here, and that leather carving was a particular Italian custom, but I also wonder if it just helps with the bottom line.
Whenever I see a 5th AF patch it's always "Australian made", or a carved leather patch is "Italian made". I was under the impression that this was based on the idea that only felt patches were made here, and that leather carving was a particular Italian custom, but I also wonder if it just helps with the bottom line.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Weasel_Loader
Active Member
Andrew said:
I see this trend all the time. I have no doubt these people know very well the patches are not original. :roll:
Jaguar46
New Member
I sent an email to the site owner, and he states this is the first he is aware of this issue. I sent him pics of original and his side by side to compare.
Here is what he replied:
"Much appreciated ~ I will remove it from my site. Its a pretty decent fake ~ and I have seen a ton of them. No one had brought this to my attention previously, so again thanks for the information. Best regards, Dave "
To which I replied I didn't think it was meant to be a fake, ie to deceive someone.
Shows how good the quality of the patch was. I see how good quality work on producing vintage items, and distinguishing between high quality reproduction and original will be hard to do. Someone posted on how hard it will be to tell John Chapmans work from original once his A2s become aged sufficiently.
He sent me another email:
"The repros are always evolving it seems ~ but (most) fakes are easily detected in my opinion. I had never had one of these 552nd patches before, so I didn't have much comparison with past material. I have a large archive of vintage original WW2 patches which certainly helps at times. I wonder why the craftsman of these patches do not clearly mark their works as a reproduction on the back, because eventually these patches end up circulating in the collecting community? I know a gentleman who repoduces wings and I ask him the same question, with no real valid response or sense of responsibility. I see his material continually on the market being represented as vintage original ~ it definitely hurts the hobby. Thanks again for your information ~ I requested the patch be removed from my site promptly. Best regards, Dave"
Here is what he replied:
"Much appreciated ~ I will remove it from my site. Its a pretty decent fake ~ and I have seen a ton of them. No one had brought this to my attention previously, so again thanks for the information. Best regards, Dave "
To which I replied I didn't think it was meant to be a fake, ie to deceive someone.
Shows how good the quality of the patch was. I see how good quality work on producing vintage items, and distinguishing between high quality reproduction and original will be hard to do. Someone posted on how hard it will be to tell John Chapmans work from original once his A2s become aged sufficiently.
He sent me another email:
"The repros are always evolving it seems ~ but (most) fakes are easily detected in my opinion. I had never had one of these 552nd patches before, so I didn't have much comparison with past material. I have a large archive of vintage original WW2 patches which certainly helps at times. I wonder why the craftsman of these patches do not clearly mark their works as a reproduction on the back, because eventually these patches end up circulating in the collecting community? I know a gentleman who repoduces wings and I ask him the same question, with no real valid response or sense of responsibility. I see his material continually on the market being represented as vintage original ~ it definitely hurts the hobby. Thanks again for your information ~ I requested the patch be removed from my site promptly. Best regards, Dave"
TankBuster
Active Member
dmar836 said:
He is! Dave is top notch. Not all dealers are out to screw everyone. If anything ever happens to me, I told him he is the one I want to handle the sale of my collection. He's one of few that I trust 100%
A
Anonymous
Guest
I never assumed my patches would be mistaken for the real deal. That particular design of this squadron was mine, I liked the original idea, but preferred more detail in the skull and wings.
