UBB.threads Forums Uniform & Accessories SS & SA Uniform Forum WAFFEN SS UNIFORM..

The most "common" version,still rare to find these.

And the third version often caught up in contraversy and I havent really found a clear enough period picture to say they are legit but many accept them as real.

A closer view of one.I believe they are real because all of them were made on the same loom indicated by a small flaw I am aware of that occurs on every one of them.

Humm interesting thread - some nice detail shots posted by John (thanks).

BTW glad to see the flames have died down... I was afraid of getting burnt just reading this thread.

I hope the next time something is misunderstood the reader will take some time to think what the intent of the author actually is.

Best Regards All.

John

Just to clarify,the first three originals are/were mine. The last one I believe is Gary Wood's who posted it back awhile ago.I used it since the detail is good on it.

This Eagle was sewn to a stug wrapper I examined for someone who told me it originated in Sweden also.Its a fake glows like Las Vegas in the night and note the one piece wings.Note also how it is expertly, but mistakenly, Zig Zag stitched onto the tunic.Rarely if ever were the bullion eagles Zig Zag stitched.Trial and error and access to info spread on these forums by experienced collectors leads to perfection.This tunic was first posted here by the former owner back almost 7 years ago.Now erased from the archives.I took this to the SOS last year and showed it to a few fellow collectors.The tunic although an SS cut had once had a Heer eagle attached to the breast.

I actually believe there to exist one or possibly two more different versions of the SS officer flat wire eagle.

/Felix

I would be very interested in learning what those two other patterns are Felix if you can find a pic.

are these the latest fakes that are out there or do you know of better ones. kind regards judas

There is a decent fake being made of this type bevo eagle.I dont have one to compare but from what Ive seen they are not quite up to par.This one is an original sewn to a tunic now owned by TonyS.The Bigfoot is an old fake and the bullion shown is just a one of a kind freak.Many uniforms sold now are from all original insignias and tunics newley sewn together with cotton thread.They are original restorations or make ups but werent there as one might put it.What happens is many unbadged or stripped tunics are found in storage from the war. There is always a decent supply of insignias available.
Notice how most of the tunics have bevo tabs combined with a certain type eagle the so called blanket eagles because they were found on a huge uncut roll the size of a blanket.Im hard pressed to see one of these in a period shot,mostly I see bevo in late war pics.Not saying its not possible but it seems alot of tunics survived with these blanket eagles.

Can anyone tell me how the term "Bigfoot" got started...? Is it because of the difference of the claw shape or...?

Regards

Exactly,in fact I think it started here on this forum.

Here is one different version of SS officer flatwire sleeve eagle. Anyone seen this kind before?

Felix.....Thats the same as this one.Yours has a couple very slight weave flaws on the head and near the wreath but its the same pattern. Perhaps the way the cloth went through the loom caused very slight pulling on the threads.But the pattern is exactly the same.

Hi John, it's been a while.
Thanks for posting the two types of flatwire eagles, I appreciate your knowledge in that area, Sonny

Thanks Sonny,Good to see your still with us here.

I admit Jpic that the eagles looks similar if hastily compared. However I have made a photo for comparison below. Please note the space between the feathers in the eagle I claimed to be another version, as seen in the red circle.

Also note the different weave pattern of the breast feathers. There are also different width of the eagles necks.
Distinct differences, hence another version.

/Felix

P.s Can someone tell the moderator or administator to accept larger files than 75 kB?

Larger image for easier comparison.

There are two sides to the photo size problem. If the photo sizes are too much larger than 75Kb, I get complaints that the photos take too long to load and it's difficult to read the threads. That's why the Photo Album will handle photos up to 256Kb. That way the member has the option of viewing the larger photos. By the way, outstanding information here. I do get confused as to which are original versus reproduction

Better image.

Vern;
Im sorry to be off the topic but its very difficult to post quality images of details which sometimes are necessary. I know that on Wehrmacht awards they accept much larger files than 75 kB.

Im my opinion the only shown flat wire fake in this thread is the big foot eagle.

/Felix

Hi all,

In reply to the file size problem maybe I can help. The issue is with the format that the image is saved in. The picture posted by Felix was a .bmp and is 470 kb. Now the exact same picture below is in the .jpg format and is 51.3 kb - can you tell me if you see any difference?

I used photoshop and would be happy to assist if I can.

John

In the "Computer Help and Idea Exchange" forum under "General Interest", we have links to several software routines that can reformat photos. By converting files to jpeg format, you can maintain the detail and cut file sizes significantly. I also use Photoshop and am willing to help out. As far as our limits, how much larger are we talking about?

John;
Ofcourse I use photoshop to rescale and do other things. However when I upload here the max limit is 75 kB as Jpeg.
Its a different thing when you download my picture. Then it will be saved as bmp which is much larger because every pixel is described. The more useful Jpeg which you can convert to in photoshop is a way to compress the info of the pixels and therefore requires less kB.

Vern;
Maybe you can make a poll or ask what posters here want. For me approx 150kB (or atleast 125 kB) would be fine. Can the server or program this site use handle that? That might be another thing. Today I believe many people have high speed connections and therefore size is less problematic. It was much different 5 years ago. (when I think the forum rules was set)

If memebers think Im wrong please advice.

/Felix

Photo size can be set to about anything and the forum software can handle it. We are already at 256Kb for pictures in the photo album. High speed connections are more common now (I have DSL) but just looking at the registration info, well over 80% of the members are still on dialup. How about a stepup to 100Kb, and if the screams aren't too bad, another step later?

You can also use www.imageshack.us to post pictures...
With this feature you can post pics up to 1024 kB !


regards,
Gerd

Felix,

quote:

John;
Ofcourse I use photoshop to rescale and do other things. However when I upload here the max limit is 75 kB as Jpeg.
Its a different thing when you download my picture. Then it will be saved as bmp which is much larger because every pixel is described. The more useful Jpeg which you can convert to in photoshop is a way to compress the info of the pixels and therefore requires less kB.

Ok I need a clairification here - you say you upload as a jpeg and when I download as a bmp? Hows that work unless you say they are stored in a different format then the one you uploaded in. (confused)

BTW Gerd - that is exactly what I use

quote:

Originally posted by Vern:
Photo size can be set to about anything and the forum software can handle it. We are already at 256Kb for pictures in the photo album. High speed connections are more common now (I have DSL) but just looking at the registration info, well over 80% of the members are still on dialup. How about a stepup to 100Kb, and if the screams aren't too bad, another step later?

What is the cost to you bandwidth in the long term? Does your host give you unlimited bandwidth...? Additionally does it make sence to just use imageshack for the larger pictures so as not to use up bandwidth (if limited?)

Bandwidth is not a problem. We're charged by total stored messages, so it really doesn't matter where the images are stored. The only reason I have for limiting photo size are the complaints I receive on big pictures taking too long to load. I've tried to balance photo limits for size versus detail, and looks like I've failed on both counts

You can do quite a bit with Photoshop. It's a matter of how you command it to save physical size (pixels) and file size (bytes). This photo is saved as only 60kb...

Hi Felix, interesting eagle,it looks like a fourth type.Would love to hear other opinions on this.

I take that back Gary answered my questions in the other thread.Sorry.