Hello,

Saw this on German E-bay. It seems to show a "named" officer's sleeve eagle. If it is this would be yet another "rule" disproved! The uniform looks "different to me with the shiney buttons, collar piping, and different material collar. Early? Landespolizei? I'm afraid I am not a uniform guy so perhaps others will know what is going on here.

Any observations?

First bullion cap eagles, next three feathered enlisted ranks eagles, NOW named officer's eagles??????

Regards,
Bill Unland

Bill,

I can't quite read the eagle. It looks like it might be a Feuerwehr uniform. Could it be a Werkschutz titled eagle?

George

Dear George,

Yes, could certainly be a fire uniform, the background on the eagle looks very dark. The wording doesn't look like "WER..." to me but I cant really see it that clearly.

I still think this may be the first period photo I have ever seen showing a named bullion "looking" eagle. The guy has officer's cords on his cap, and the boards look like officer's, but the collar tabs look like an EM. SOOOOO..... I am confused.

Regards,
Bill Unland

Bill,

The reason I mentioned Werkschutz is that I have seen photos of company firemen with what appear to be bullion officer rank eagles with Werkschutz above the eagle. Entirely non-regulation of course but I think Werkschutz officers could certainly get by with it since they were not in the police chain of command. Those are the only titled bullion eagles that I have seen period photos of. Perhaps this is one of those?

George

The eagle in the picture is not an officers eagle and the shoulderboards are slip on, a recent promotion without changing the eagle, the eagle also looks slightly dark which would mean a crimson eagle, even in black and white you can tell an officers eagle from an other ranks, in my opinion

Thank you Gary,

The promoted fireman makes sense. Perhaps YOU could tell immediately from the photo that it was an EM eagle, obviously by my post I could not. It looked too light in color to be crimson to me, but my eyes are a bit older than yours. I do acknowledge, however; that your analysis appears to be the most probable explanation.

W.Unland