ZF4 Mount - original or reproduction?

[Absolut]

This one is a tough .. I'm not sure myself, so seeking opinions from you folks in here.

 

[Joseph Burke]

You’re right, that is a tough one. I’d be asking the experts too before I parted with a bunch of cash for that. The serial font is close to legit but the mount itself just doesn’t have me convinced. I’ve been wrong before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mdarnell19]

Georg, very tough one to call. My gut is telling me fake. I don't like the e/359 and serial number. Just my opinion but it could also be the pictures.

 

[Brian Kowalski]

Always trust your gut first.

It is definitely a fake mount etc.

 

[CanadianAR]

The waffenamt is terrible

 

[DaveDavis]

I would want to hold it in my hands, for a through inspection, before impugning it.

 

[Battle]

The waffenamt is terrible

Yes, it definitely stands out from all the other markings.

 

[sturmgrenadier]

Luckily the 359 Proof is terrible, the rifle serial is the closest I’ve seen to correct. If that serial was applied to a late unnumbered mount, we’d be in trouble.

 

[Joseph Burke]

Luckily the 359 Proof is terrible, the rifle serial is the closest I’ve seen to correct. If that serial was applied to a late unnumbered mount, we’d be in trouble.

I agree. That serial would be an easy pass on an original mount.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Absolut]

Thanks for the feedback. Seems others share the mixed feelings I had about it, while some even confirm them. I'll then stay away from it. And if someone wanted to know, the surface bothered me the most. And when comparing it with one of my originals I noticed the font of the 8 on this mount is written differently than on mine. However, all so close I needed additional opinions.

 

[WreckTangle]

Serial looks the closest I've seen.. although it needs to be more italicized... They are getting really good.

Thanks for sharing your concerns Absolut, in the ends helps us all out.

 

[agentcq]

I couldn't say for sure that it is a fake without holding it in my hands, but looks doubtful.
Serial number close, but looks engraved versus acid etched (corners too clean and not italicized enough as someone mentioned).
I also don't like the milling marks on the back of the base, seem excessive or exaggerated to me.
Bands and screws also look close but not 'quite right'.
Even the rough finish seems too uniform.

If a fake a darn decent one at that. I wonder if that is one of the new ones out the Urkaine or Czech republic?

 

[Brian Kowalski]

The mount is a fake.

The WaA is a pretty poor example along with the SN. Original SNs appear to be done with a pantograph, by hand, at least on 359 mounts. On the 359 mounts, they will vary a lot, some sloppier than others etc. (maybe a Monday engraver or the boss looking over your shoulder at the moment..or bombings nearby..who knows) They will follow a typical pattern though..always slightly slanted and numbers the same style. They appear to be more hand applied and show it.

The 214 mounts also are engraved with a pantograph, but will be very vertical and very uniform..maybe machine done? Obviously a slightly different process than Walther.

Maybe some people with more knowledge on the pantograph process can explain better.

 

[flynaked]

Just as an aside, pneumatic gravers came into existence in the late 1970’s, the fine impulse of these machines is easily distinguishable from earlier engraving. There is virtually no discernible impulse left in engravings completed with such a machine. Compare that to a 100% hand done engraving from Zella-Mehlis, completed in late 1943 which readily exhibits an impulse.

At first glance the numbering on this appears identical to another mount which came into question fairly recently, which was also done with a pneumatic machine IMHO.

 

[WreckTangle]

Just as an aside, pneumatic gravers came into existence in the late 1970’s, the fine impulse of these machines is easily distinguishable from earlier engraving. There is virtually no discernible impulse left in engravings completed with such a machine. Compare that to a 100% hand done engraving from Zella-Mehlis, completed in late 1943 which readily exhibits an impulse.

At first glance the numbering on this appears identical to another mount which came into question fairly recently, which was also done with a pneumatic machine IMHO.

For us metalworking noobs can you explain/describe what characteristics an "impulse" is or would leave on metal? Just asking so us less informed can be on the watch out for these new fakes. They seem like they are getting really good these days.

 

[flynaked]

The “impulse” is the physical impact of the graver point into the metal as it cuts and displaces metal. Craftsman previously only used a chasing hammer for this work. Fine work is extremely time consuming as every linear inch of the engraving is physically driven by hand. This wartime engraving is the perfect example to illustrate the difference as it is far from the finest work and looks fairly crude under magnification, Gustloff had their hands full with other work in 1942 after all. Especially as hard turns are made in the scroll work, you can see every physical impact of the hammer as he worked.

I don’t collect newer stuff so I don’t have an example in hand to photograph, but here’s an example of pneumatic work pulled from the net to illustrate the difference. Under magnification you can see that there is virtually no discernible impulse from one of these tools. The lines and especially the hard curves are especially smooth and fluid. Think of the pneumatic graver as a miniature air hammer with a short stroke, what used to take two hands, now only takes one with this tool, freeing up the other for more control over the work. Long story short, if you see something with supposedly period correct engraved numbering or markings, keep the above in mind as it would date the work to the 1980’s at the earliest. All this is really a side point to the subject, as we know the correct style of numbering for these mounts is done with a pantograph in the first place.

 

[WreckTangle]

The “impulse” is the physical impact of the graver point into the metal as it cuts and displaces metal. Craftsman previously only used a chasing hammer for this work. Fine work is extremely time consuming as every linear inch of the engraving is physically driven by hand. This wartime engraving is the perfect example to illustrate the difference as it is far from the finest work and looks fairly crude under magnification, Gustloff had their hands full with other work in 1942 after all. Especially as hard turns are made in the scroll work, you can see every physical impact of the hammer as he worked.

I don’t collect newer stuff so I don’t have an example in hand to photograph, but here’s an example of pneumatic work pulled from the net to illustrate the difference. Under magnification you can see that there is virtually no discernible impulse from one of these tools. The lines and especially the hard curves are especially smooth and fluid. Think of the pneumatic graver as a miniature air hammer with a short stroke, what used to take two hands, now only takes one with this tool, freeing up the other for more control over the work. Long story short, if you see something with supposedly period correct engraved numbering or markings, keep the above in mind as it would date the work to the 1980’s at the earliest. All this is really a side point to the subject, as we know the correct style of numbering for these mounts is done with a pantograph in the first place.

Great explanation Clay. Thanks!

 

[ebeeby]

Agreed: fake waffenamt kills it.

 

[Absolut]

Final note: I PM'd the seller and asked if he would guarantee originality. So far didn't get a reply to this.

 

[DaveDavis]

Final note: I PM'd the seller and asked if he would guarantee originality. So far didn't get a reply to this.

Well this is certainly a final nail in the coffin / a guarantee of being original would have made the sale palatable and resolved any problems.....