|
insigne.org |
The OSS Spearhead Insignia by Les Hughes © 1993 by author
|
|
|
|
The Shoulder Sleeve Insigne Although the gold-on-black spearhead design is widely known among insignia collectors as that of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), few, it seems, judging from what one reads and hears, know its history. In 1943, General Donovan requested that the Army approve an insigne in the spearhead design for OSS. Anticipating that approval would be granted, General Donovan proceeded to procure, according to an OSS document dated 9 July 1943, 195 cloth shoulder sleeve insignia (SSI) and 200 metal collar devices in the proposed design. When the Joint Chiefs of Staff rejected Donovan’s request, the General was left holding insignia he could not use to represent OSS. Precisely what happened to General Donovan’s insignia is far from clear. Evidence suggests that the bulk of the spearhead SSI, manufactured by the Middlesex Lace & Embroidery Company, were sent to the Philadelphia QM Depot, where they are reported to have been seen as late as the early ‘50s. Judging from the number of authentic examples in private collections today, few appear to have survived. A reasonable explanation for the fate of the SSI is that they were destroyed when the Army purged its inventory of obsolete insignia—most of the few that survived having been pilfered by Depot personnel. Whatever their fate, there are two important facts regarding the spearhead SSI that collectors should know. First, few were made (195 is the figure cited in OSS documents) and very few appear to have survived. Second, as was the case with so many US-made, standard-issue SSI, they are fully-embroidered. This last fact is confirmed by numerous individuals who saw the example of the spearhead patch that was on display at the Army's Institute of Heraldry (IOH) for a number of years (the IOH's patch has since disappeared), and by a wartime color, close-up (macro) official Army photograph of the SSI that shows clearly that it is fully-embroidered (see image at right). Although other variants of the spearhead SSI are to be found in collections, there is no compelling evidence that their manufacture was approved by OSS or that they, or any SSI in this design, were worn by OSS personnel, and wise collectors do not waste their money on them. (A second effort, also unsuccessful, was made by OSS to secure approval for a unit insigne - see OSS article titled Second Prototype Insignia.) There is one version of the spearhead SSI that merits discussion: a version that features a gold spearhead and border embroidered on black twill with gauze backing that I will refer to in what follows as the EOT (embroidered on twill) variant. The reader will wish to refer to the image at the right, which illustrates one of the patches in question, an authentic, fully-embroidered one, and the Signal Corps (official Army) photo [4]. The EOT patches, first offered by a dealer from Florida at militaria shows along the east coast in 1986, attracted a lot of attention because they were accompanied by an affidavit from an OSS veteran certifying that the patches were ones he acquired while serving with OSS. The rush to acquire one of these patches was such that reproductions soon appeared. I investigated this variant, and after weighing the evidence, I came to the conclusion that the patch is not genuine, an opinion that appears to have gained wide acceptance. Let me present the evidence, and then you draw your own conclusion. First, the Signal Corps photo makes it clear that a fully-embroidered version was procured by OSS. The record (an OSS Interoffice Memo, dated 9 July 1943, from Lt. Bane to Major Doering) makes it clear that only 195 of the patches were made and that the patches were not issued. Are we to believe there were two production runs by different manufacturers resulting in two versions of a patch that was never issued, the two production runs totaling a mere195 patches, a quantity easily produced in a single run? Apparently we are, as one dealer referred to the EOT version as the "first type"! (The OSS memo cited above states that 195 patches were procured and then adds: "There are no further orders [for insignia] outstanding.") Second, the construction of this patch, embroidered on a fairly flimsy twill with a gauze backing, is unlike any other sleeve patch of that period, of which I am aware, that was made for wear by an organization. Third, the EOT variant differs subtly from the original design, a photocopy of which (a poor one, but clear enough) you will find in the image at the right, which was taken from the files of the U.S. Army's Institute of Heraldry. Compare the EOT variant to the patch in the Signal Corps photo and to the original patch in the image above and you will note that the shaft and the rings around the shaft of the EOT variant are fatter and the top-most ring is closer to the spearhead. If you compare the IOH drawing to the patches in the image above, you will find that the patch in the Signal Corps photo and the patch denoted 'original' conform to the details and proportions of the IOH drawing but that the EOT patch does not. (Note that even the CIA courier patch, which dates from the '60s, exhibits greater fidelity to the original design than does the EOT patch.) How does one account for this given the fact that OSS would have provided a manufacturer with a design drawing showing the exact dimensions and proportions? For me the answer is simple: the EOT variant was not procured by OSS. Fourth, a dealer who knew the dealer from Florida who had first sold these patches told me that at a show during the period in question he set up his table near the Florida dealer, and he saw that the Florida dealer had a large quantity (a "bundle") of the spearhead patches. (The Florida dealer died circa 1987, before I could contact him.) Fifth, I spoke twice with the OSS veteran who endorsed these patches, first in 1986, and then again some five years later. While this gentleman was cooperative and answered my questions regarding his story of how he came to have the patches (a story whose details, beyond his having served in OSS, are unverifiable), key elements of his story were different the second time I spoke with him. In 1986, in response to my questions, this gentleman told me he had brought home from the service about a dozen of the EOT patches and that he had sold all but one, which was on his VFW shirt. When I posed the same questions five years later, the number of patches he had brought home had grown to "40 to 50," as had the number still in his possession, which he put at around 20. Sixth, over the years I have been in touch with several hundred OSS veterans, and this particular OSS veteran is the only one of which I am aware who reports having seen, let alone having worn, the spearhead SSI. (In this regard, it is worth reporting the following incident. A collector, having been told that I was an expert in OSS insignia, contacted me and asked my opinion of a spearhead patch that he had acquired. His patch was the EOT variant, and I gave him the assessment I present here. He listened politely to my remarks, but it was clear that he was not prepared to abandon his belief that his patch was genuine. And he countered my assertion that there was no compelling evidence the patch had been worn within OSS by informing me that he knew someone whose father had worn the spearhead patch while serving with OSS; that, in fact, the individual still had his father's patch. I was more than a little surprised to hear this, as it was contrary to what I had learned in my research of the subject. Naturally, I wanted to speak with the son of the OSS vet in question, learn the details of his father's service, and see the patch in question. When I informed the collector of my desire to contact the son, he said he would try to put me in touch with him, but he warned me there was a problem: according to the son, his father's activities while in OSS were so sensitive that even 50 years after the fact the son felt he could not discuss them. While the collector appeared to accept the son's claim as reasonable, I did not. First, I can think of nothing involving OSS that is still classified. And, second, my experience as a collector has been that when someone makes a claim they will not allow you to verify, it is because the claim will not survive close scrutiny. When I asked how the collector had met the son, he told me he had bought some patches from him; that the son dealt in militaria. That was all I needed to hear. I did not pursue the matter.) Seventh, except for the Signal Corps photograph of the patch itself (which is not the EOT variant), the spearhead sleeve patch is absent from the photographic record: I am unaware of any photographs illustrating its use. That this one man, in all of OSS, would have worn this patch stretches my credulity to the breaking point. The attitude today among many collectors toward the EOT variant is exemplified by one gentleman who was so impressed with them when they first surface that he bought several as an investment, paying $200 each. A few years ago, he offered me one for $25. I passed. The Collar Insigne As for the metal collar insignia—intended as a branch-of-service insigne and not as a distinctive insigne (DI)—OSS documents provide slightly more insight into their fate, slightly being the operative word. Two types of collar insignia were proposed: a version (illustrated above) for officers featuring a gold spearhead on a black enameled oval, and a version for enlisted personnel featuring a spearhead on a brass disk. There is no evidence that the EM version was produced. (Recently, what was purported to be an example of the EM version turned up in the UK and was offered at auction - see image. Given the energy devoted these days to faking all sorts of insignia - no small portion of it being expended in Europe - and knowing the history of the OSS insignia, I chose not to avail myself of the opportunity to acquire this piece.) An OSS memorandum dated 12 April 1944 states: “The insignia in question were received by General Donovan. In all 442 were received in a single package weighing 12 pounds. The die and forcer was not received. In a telephone call with Mr. Long of the Heraldrie Section of the OQMG... Mr. Long said the die and forcer were undoubtedly held at the Philadelphia depot or at the factory. He said we might add a footnote indicating we have not in fact received them into our possession. Recently General Donovan had the insignia forwarded to London for use by PWB there.” What was PWB? While there existed a Psychological Warfare Branch, which was referred to as PWB, it conducted psychological warfare in the Mediterranean Theater of Operations for AFHQ and was not an OSS organization. The reference to ‘PWB’ in London probably referred to OSS's psychological warfare personnel based in England who were attached to SHAEF. Support of this view is lent by The War Diary of OSS’s London Office of the Research & Analysis Branch, which refers to "PWB/SHAEF" and "PWD/FUSAG". The question of who would have the overall responsibility for conducting psychological warfare had led to in-fighting among the various organizations vying for the honor. In the ETO the record is clear: responsibility for the conduct of psychological warfare in northern Europe was given to SHAEF’s Psychological Warfare Division (PWD/SHAEF). As a result, it appears that PWD/SHAEF inherited both OSS’s psychological warfare personnel—who were attached to its various organizations—and the spearhead collar insignia. Indeed, there is clear evidence that the spearhead insigne enjoyed some degree of formal recognition by PWD/SHAEF: the design appears on the cover of PWD/SHAEF’s own history [2]. In spite of the appearance of the spearhead insigne on the cover of PWD/SHAEF’s own history, the status of the insigne within that organization is ill-defined. Not only is there no mention of the insigne in the text of the history, the majority of PWD veterans queried by the author report never having seen the spearhead insigne, and several offered assurances that no such insigne existed within PWD [1]. This leads one to conclude that the distribution of these insignia was restricted within PWD. The PWD/SHAEF veterans to whom the insignia were issued recall being told to be circumspect in wearing them—that they should be worn only in the course of discharging their PWD duties and not in casual situations. It is worth noting that all of the documented instances of the insignia being worn involve civilian members of OSS serving in uniform, with officer rank, with 12th Army Group’s Publicity and Psychological Warfare Detachment, which was part of PWD/SHAEF (this includes both Brewster Morgan and Saul Padover, whose photographs are included here). Examples of the spearhead insigne, with screw and post fastener, bearing the name of the Robbins Company of Attleboro, MA, have been circulating among collectors for decades, and there is evidence this version of the insigne was worn: the collector who acquired the collar insigne of Saul Padover reports that it was Robbins-made. Indeed, for decades the widespread, but erroneous, belief among collectors seems to have been that the spearhead collar insignia were made for OSS only by the Robbins Company. The author was able to unambiguously document three sets of the spearhead collar insignia to veterans of PWD/SHAEF/OSS other than Padover. These spearhead collar insignia are constructed identically, and they are characterized by clutch fasteners and an absence of manufacturer’s marks [1]. Neither of two veterans interviewed could recall exactly where or when he had acquired the insignia, but each stated that the insignia had been issued, i.e., neither had procured the insignia privately. Some readers will have noted that the original number of collar insignia was placed at 200, while the number shipped to London was 442. Thus one may reasonably wonder whether there were two procurements; one from the Robbins Company and one from a different manufacturer. A side-by-side comparison of the version with clutch fasteners and the Robbins version reveals that, with the exception of the different fasteners and the Robbins name, they appear essentially identical: size; thickness; quality of enamel work; finish of the metal backs. That is, from the front they are nearly indistinguishable, even on close examination. While the statement of the OSS document quoted earlier: “…the die and forcer were undoubtedly held at the Philadelphia depot or at the factory,” would seem to imply that all 442 came from the same manufacturer, is it possible that they simply struck from the same die? That is, did OSS pass the die along to another manufacturer and request a second batch after receipt of those of Robbins? Or perhaps vice versa: the Robbins version was the second? One can only speculate. Of the 30 to 40 veterans of PWD/SHAEF interviewed in one study, only about one in ten was familiar with the spearhead collar insigne, which leads one to conclude that the insignia were not widely distributed. That being the case, it seems reasonable that the 442 insignia that General Donovan ordered sent to London would have been a supply sufficient to preclude subsequent procurements. But the fact is that there are more than two variants of this insignia in circulation. (This does not take into consideration examples of the collar insignia that were woven. Close examination of the photograph of Brewster Morgan leads one to conclude that he is wearing woven versions of the collar insignia. Also illustrated here is a version in bullion that was among the military artifacts in the estate of a veteran of OSS/PWD.) A number of these insignia can be found in collections attributed neither to OSS/PWD nor to just OSS, but rather to the Information Control Division. What is this all about? There was an Information Control Division, but it was not part of OSS or of PWD/SHAEF. Quoting from the history of PWD/SHAEF [2]: “SHAEF was dissolved officially as of 2400 hours 13 July 1945. With the dissolution of SHAEF, the Anglo-American aspect of PWD’s operation disappeared On the British side an organization known as the Information Services Control Branch, Control Commission for Germany, came into being. On the American side, the successor to PWD was designated the Information Control Division, Hqs. U.S. Forces European Theater, and the Information Control Service, U.S. Group Control Council. ...The reader should recognize that despite these changes in designation, and despite the separation as between Britain and America, the activities of the successors to PWD continued separately in much the same paths on July 14 as they had been traversing before midnight on July 13.” In the introduction to his history of psychological warfare operations against Germany, published in 1949, Daniel Lerner speaks of the Information Control Division in the present tense, implying that the organization was still in existence, in some form, at the time he wrote his book (after the OSS was disbanded in September 1945) [3]. If that inference is correct, it is not unreasonable to imagine the use of the spearhead collar insigne extending well into the occupation period, a situation that would explain the existence of some of the unusual versions of the collar insigne that reside in some collections. Unusual versions of the spearhead insigne continue to surface. In the past two years the author has encountered a version (illustrated here) that in one instance bore on the back the name plaque of Gaunt and in another was stamped Firmin. This version, which is of jeweler quality, certainly looks nice, but in reality it is virtually impossible to ascertain the circumstances or the period of its manufacture. The Firmin-made insigne in question was offered for sale on eBay, where it was advertised as having been worn by “OSS’s paratroopers.” Upon being told that the insigne was not worn by “OSS’s paratroopers,” the seller responded that he was simply citing what he had been told by two “experienced” dealers of militaria. Such is the level of ignorance regarding this insigne, even among those regarded as experienced. Indeed, sixty years after their procurement by OSS, the history of the spearhead collar and sleeve insignia—their manufacture, use, and fate—is a puzzle from which many pieces are missing. And with each passing year, as time thins the ranks of those who wore these insignia and who have first-hand knowledge of them, the probability diminishes that we will find the missing pieces of the puzzle. In the absence of first-hand information, stories and speculation have arisen that, with time, have been embraced by many as the truth. The author hopes that the information presented here will provide collectors with the ability to discern fact from myth where these insignia are concerned. References
1. Hughes, Les, "Insignia of the OSS," The Trading Post, Spring 1993. 4. Brunner, John W., OSS Weapons, Phillips Publications, 1994. |
