UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons German Sword & Miniatures Forum Railroad Eagles

This is certainly the topic of the month. So--Let's talk about these. They have been made for many years first appearing in the 60's I believe. The first ones though, were solid backed-not hollow in any way with no markings and no studs and quite heavy. They also had a dull gray finish or no finish. They were probably cast in sand from the imprint of an original. This was easy although some bought them thinking they were original.

Now we seem to have a new batch--but these are a lot different in that they have hollow backs and markings and some seem to have seams and some kind of hash marks. In addition-there are not that many around. I go to a lot of shows and have never seen one. Strange-one would think they would be everywhere.

There are a lot of questions here and I think many would like to know. Where do they come from? Who is making these? When did they first appear? What would be the expense involved in making a two piece mold? Why are they not everywhere? Why would they pick an obscure maker? -if they could make a two piece mold -they could make a good repro. What are those hash marks? Why are the studs on the backs of some tapered-while others have bolts?

????????????????????????

Ca'mon now-Do you want to talk relics or just want to bash someone? How do we even know these hollow backs are fake? What is the basis for this idea? Is this just opinion? What do we KNOW?

It would be interesting to display these repros side by side with a known good example at the SOS. I certainly understand the points JR has made as to how to identify these but I'm wondering just how much difference there is in quality here.
Jim

I think we have all seen differences in quality according to maker and in late vrs. early items. Is this difference in quality the only basis for this repro label? If so IMO this is NOT conclusive. Come on-what other proof do we have? Is all this controversy really justified? What do we KNOW?

I have a big ? If a original Wehog has not been found how can we call the ones today fake ?

They are saying look at the casting flaws,well I'm looking.And all I see is different quantity with the casters.

Tommy

Houston,

We know they existed in the period, we know there were several manufacturer's and different sizes, as well as stud placement's. There are varying degrees of casting quality per maker. But reference allthough more than we had is still not fully developed. The recast versions are just cheesy looking, and hold the same characteristic's as it's original maker to it's fake counterpart in regards to its form.

Even though there is new reference some birds do deviate in size and stud placement even under the same maker mark.

The bird in question is no doubt a reproduction, however I have seen 2 original 15 inch specimens that have been copied excessively and have been written off as fakes all together.

Information is limited, but what is currently available is decent, but as they continue to be studied, I see issues, as they do vary. And there will be arguments over legitimate and bogus eagles.

How hard is it to make a mold? well, I have 2 birds with one of the best machinists in the country at this very moment, and he is going over them, to see what degree of difficulty is involved in casting an undetectable fake, includeing the lugs.

The consensus on the cone shape pieces is that they were never tapped, these would also make casting a fake bird easier, as anybody can tap it with the proper equiptment.

As the reference on these continue, there are bound to be some mistakes as they are aluminum cast, but I shopped them for several years before I bought my first and it was hands down far superior to the one that has caused the melee in the community forum. Anyone can spot that bird, but then again? I guess not.

Kris

Kris:
This is one of the most interesting post I've read on this topic. I await further development on this issue from the caster.
Jim

Here is an eagle, although not WEHOG, I purchased sight-unseen. As soon as I received it, I was suspicious because of the lack of quality. After sending pictures to JR, he confirmed my suspicion and I immediately purchased his book. I was lucky enough to have dealt with someone who followed through with their guarantee and received a full refund.

Pic 2

Pic 3

Pic 4

Pic 5

Pic 6

Pic 7

Pic 8

Pic 9

Pic 10

Pic 11

Pic 12

Pic 13

Jim,

Yes, but let me clarify, he currently has the bird's to assess how hard it would be to do as close to a clone as possible. When I initially explained to him how they were made, the gentlemen's response was $30,000 to make the proper mold.

So, I bought the birds to him and showed them to him and explained that I wanted to know what technique would be necessary, what would it really cost? and can you get them to a degree where you cant tell the difference?. I also gave him Jr's book as a guide.

Obviously, if the cost is prohibitive, given the size's, makers, quality deviations. Then to recover that said amount would require throwing up a flag to recover the cost of just one mold,
one bird, in one size, and one maker, you would have to sell 100 at 300.00 a piece to cover that one mold as reproduction's. But only 20-30 as real. A lot of work for little return.


If it can be done? well there wont be a need to own a real one.

And the one above is horrible, no offense.

Best,

Kris

Fake, 15 incher, circa 1980s

I certainly agree that the quality is bad on that one--but as you say-given the difficulty and expense in making a mold-can we be sure it is a fake?-- And the quality does not seem to be related to the mold but rather possibly to the type of material used or the heating of it. Why? It would seem that anyone capable of making the mold would know how to make a proper casting?????-and what are those hash marks? I guess that another possibility is that these are being made improperly using original molds. I wonder if they have been seen in Europe? -and not coming from outside Europe?

reverse.

The one by Gaspare is really bad-obviously a different mold and it certainly looks fake but possibly some others are being made improperly from original molds. Tommy says his looks good however although it has been labeled a fake. We need more photos of some of the better ones that are suspect.

Kris, You are doing a great job on this topic.

Could you explain the original process they used to make the Rail Eagle ? What I'm asking is,was it sand casting or maybe mold injection process ?

On the above eagle w/the pot holes I think the casters just had a bad day.I can just hear what OC had to say about.

Keep up the good work.

just 2 more random shots..

I mentioned 1980s,probably 1986. but it was hanging in a club house for at least 10 years so manufacture around 1970s..

quote:

Originally posted by Houston Coates:
I certainly agree that the quality is bad on that one--but as you say-given the difficulty and expense in making a mold-can we be sure it is a fake?-- And the quality does not seem to be related to the mold but rather possibly to the type of material used or the heating of it. Why? It would seem that anyone capable of making the mold would know how to make a proper casting?????-and what are those hash marks?

Houston,

When you handle them you know, first of all, each maker depending on size, has individual characteristic's in the wreath,claws,beak etc etc. So one maker who let's say made a 24" a 27" and a 28" each one is different. So one maker used multiple mold's. That would mean 7 or 8 manufacturer's could have used up to 24 molds.

This is just is not cost efficient for someone to do as a repro artist, not now and not in the 50's. It would not of even been necessary.

There are period picture's, which is more than some other items in itself, the quality although it varies from maker to maker is far superior than the reproductions on the market. These were cast and hand finished, so they can vary. But they dont look anything like the fakes. The fakes just dont compare unless you place them amongst thier fake partners.

I can have them cast in sand, but they wont look great, and then your subject to the original as well, which is one of the reasons that alot of the fakes are so easily detectable, as they have partial lugs or connecting devices contingent on their original use, so when their recast? you can spot them as not only are there remnents of those devices, they are cast remnants.

Now, my previous post's in regards to casting these, is a minefield as not only to they have to be the proper size, you need a clean original and even after you cast it, its going to need some form of hand fitting and finish. And even if you get it right the first time?.

Then lets say you do get it right? its got chemical components other than aluminum, based on the periodic tables on the rear of the bird, its a cookbook, which could also have a lot to do with how the cast comes out, as its not just aluminum, its a mixture or an alloy if you will?.

This could also be the reason why some of these cast so poorly, but ones made of other materials such as brass and bronze come out beautiful, its the elements. I dont think you can use pure aluminum casting, or they would have used it. They were mounted flat for the most part, so they did not need the added strength of magnesium.

Why Magniseum or silicon? what do these properties add to the process in getting the finished product?. Silicon allows for expansion and Magnesium burns hot and has been an additive to aluminum for years, the high intensity burn when combined with aluminum and Silicon, could easily explain why they cant be recast well in Aluminum alone.

You want to confirm that bird is a fake, everyone kick in and I will have it cut in half, and I bet it is pure aluminum.

K

1

2

3

4

[QUOTE]Originally posted by T E:

Could you explain the original process they used to make the Rail Eagle ? What I'm asking is,was it sand casting or maybe mold injection process ?

Tommy,

I would say these were cast, I just think everyone is looking in the wrong direction,its the components, and that is the problem.

Best,

Kris

To sum up then-are you saying that some of the fakes are made from molds fashioned from original eagles? and the poor quality is due to improper material or heating?-If so which makers have you seen? Gaspare's is different-do you think this is a total fake-not made from any original? This leaves the question of the hollow backs which seems to indicate a great expense-but perhaps not-maybe you will find it is not so much? This hollow back thing is what I have difficulty understanding if in fact it is a lot of money.

quote:

Originally posted by Houston Coates:
To sum up then-are you saying that some of the fakes are made from molds fashioned from original eagles? and the poor quality is due to improper material or heating?-If so which makers have you seen? Gaspare's is different-do you think this is a total fake-not made from any original? This leaves the question of the hollow backs which seems to indicate a great expense-but perhaps not-maybe you will find it is not so much? This hollow back thing is what I have difficulty understanding if in fact it is a lot of money.

Houston,

Now im going to have to speculate, the only bird seen with a raised logo is a Wehog, which to me would mean that if a real one was found, the logo would be recessed, as no real Wehog has been seen, so the mold is unique.

I have seen most of the maker's, but until you get a comparison piece of the same manufacture on an item that no one has really studied, combined with the maker differences, it has been hard to call over the years, I think I sent back 2 good ones. .

I dont want to misquote JR and I dont have his word's on hand, but I believe he is of the opinion that the 15 inch eagle that Gaspare has posted are all fake. This is not true, as I personally have inspected 2 that were direct veteren items, however there was a unique marking to the rear of the bird on both piece's that I have yet to see at a show. It most probably is cast from a real eagle or a cast of a cast, as some are worse than others.

I would have to say that the repro's for the most part are in fact cast from original birds, its common sense when you reference the stud casts. But I guess a real mold could have survived.

And hollow backs?, I am not sure what you mean?
Real or fake? or the cast itself?

In regards to the bad casting, yes I am of the opinion from the look and feel and lack of continuity, that it is a chemical compound issue. I think they are aluminum or a failed attempt at a chemical balance. It just makes sense to me.

K

I sold one to Tom Caroll, it was supposable a repro of a wehog but it didn�t say wehog anywhere maybe Tom can post the eagle, I still may have pictures if he can�t post. But there was plenty of casting flaws which lead me to believe it was a repro it also was a hollow version but it did have large nubs sticking out where some have bolt sticking out? Maybe it was a unfinished original. May never know for sure. This topic is interesting!!

Houston,

I think I understand your hollowback question, it would have to be done with either an original 2 piece mold, or by taking an original bird and makeing 2 half cast's to manufacture a 2 piece mold, which would also explain why a lot of the hollow backs show more casting flaw's notably to the rear where the detail was less to begin with. Most likely a non original mold.

A hollow cast does not have to be that expensive, I gave the guy guidelines, to try and pinpoint the process. This is where the cost was. But it would show in the quality if you took shortcuts. Which is basically what we are looking at with these reproductions.

Kris

quote:

There are period picture's, which is more than some other items in itself, the quality although it varies from maker to maker is far superior than the reproductions on the market. These were cast and hand finished, so they can vary. But they dont look anything like the fakes. The fakes just dont compare unless you place them amongst thier fake partners.

Lets put Kris L to a little test since the fakes are easy to discern. You're up to bat, and you make the call.

Test 1