NOT ALL STEIFF IDS WERE CREATED EQUAL. Sadly, I see more and more fraudulent manipulation of Steiff buttons, flags, and chest tags, which unsuspecting bidders and buyers seem to be overlooking.

When I started on eBay in 1997, a GOOD week for Steiff had approximately 300 critters, and around Christmastime, maybe that number increased to 500! Now the Steiff available – from sellers all over the world – number in the many THOUSANDS every day. Regrettably, the number of items (mistakenly or otherwise) being sold as Steiff that are not actually Steiff has GROSSLY multiplied as well. A casual survey, not a precise count, of what was available on eBay in 2009 suggested this number may be as high as 15%, or approximately 1 out of 7 listings! But the good news is that the number of true Steiff, including rare and antique ones you never saw in years gone by, is phenomenal. However, all of these fantastic opportunities to acquire and expand our fuzzy menageries have brought with them the increased need to be knowledgeable and diligent about what we are buying (or bidding on). The famous consumer warning CAVEAT EMPTOR should not be taken lightly. And, again, everything you read here applies to your Steiff hunting in the non-Cyberspace world as well.

[Before I delve into the main topic, I’d like to distinguish the most extreme kind of fraud – one which is so outrageous that, as far as I had noticed, it had not, as of 2008, become very widespread. Perhaps people are more on their guard when the fraud is absolute – when someone offers for sale a NON-Steiff animal wearing Steiff IDs!  In earlier editions of this guide, I mentioned a couple of instances of this type of fraud, but because it still seemed very rare, I had not bothered to save pictures. Thus, previously, I had only the brief discussion, immediately below, of the giraffe.]

I remember an obviously non-Steiff giraffe, which the seller stated was 18 inches high. Yet the flag on his ear (SEWN, with no button!) had ID number 1322,0. As most collectors know, that “22” denotes the height, in centimeters, of the animal who wore that flag originally. So the rightful owner of the flag was less than half the height of the 18-inch giraffe. Unfortunately, I don’t recall now whether that giraffe sold.

More recently, I started to pay more attention and found, to my disappointment, other instances of absolute fraud and have preserved them for sharing with my readers. Two of these particularly disturbing examples of non-Steiff animals with Steiff IDs are included here.

My image to the far left shows a tiny jointed Schuco Noah’s Ark lion, which, in itself, would be nothing remarkable to find on eBay – even by someone searching only for Steiff items. Often that lion as well as other animals in the Noah’s Ark series are mistakenly identified as Steiff and are, therefore, listed as such. I believe that most Steiff and Schuco collectors would recognize the lion for what it is and bid or not as they saw fit. As far as I know, the little animals in this Schuco series did not, on their bodies, have any form of ID. If a collector were lucky enough, he might come upon this lion with his box, and it is on the box that one would see the ID number of the lion. I cannot say with certainty what that number is because I have seen several different numbers attributed to the lion! However, it does appear safe to say that it was a four-digit number.  Whatever else I could tell you about the little Schuco lion, I can tell you he would not be wearing a Steiff button and flag (magnified to the lion’s right) with the number 2250/09!  As you should be able to see in my picture of Swinny in the middle, the Schuco lion’s IDs belonged to a larger, Dralon, not mohair, Steiff guinea pig!

Perhaps (and very likely) the eBay seller had no idea what he had, and maybe the winning bidder was a fan of Schuco and merely removed the inappropriate IDs when he received the lion – but maybe not.

In another case I discovered (pictured at left), I happen to know for a fact that the hapless eBay seller was an innocent party. Despite my many attempts to let him know that the bear head “trophy” he was auctioning was not Steiff, not 1950s, and, from its appearance, not even mohair, but synthetic plush, this seller would not budge. He simply could not imagine how someone could put a Steiff button in the ear of a toy and cause no damage. He was sure there would be evidence that the ear was cut open (???!!!) or that there would be some other manifestation of tampering. Not only that, this eBay seller told me that he acquired the bear from a dealer he knew and trusted. That just raises the question again as to how far back in the commercial chain one has to go to find the criminal source. I guess it is possible that even this trusted dealer who sold the bear to the eBay seller was just as taken in by someone else’s earlier fraud (as was the eBay seller’s subsequent Bay customer – yes, the bear sold).  And note below, in my 2019 update, that this fraud will potentially be passed on again, presumably by the innocent and ignorant buyer who bought the trophy head in this transaction!

Even if, in all three of my eBay examples, the people selling the non-Steiff animals were free of blame, does that mean all is well?  ABSOLUTELY NOT!  The point is that some fraud perpetrator adulterated a non-Steiff animal. It really doesn’t matter where along the chain of commerce this fraud occurred – from the eBay seller or to the eBay seller. Someone put Steiff identification on a non-Steiff animal, and let it be represented as something it was not.

Now, even though I have become more than a passive observer and try to pay more attention to such things, I cannot possibly keep up with the thousands of Steiff or would-be Steiff auctions on eBay or for sale elsewhere at any given moment. The fact that I have randomly tripped over a few of these most extreme instances of fraud suggests there are others, and, indeed, I have found many more since these words were written!  Still, I do believe these are especially egregious and rare examples (although I fear they may become more common), but the fraudulent manipulation of IDs AMONG true Steiff animals is, unfortunately, not rare. So, I have decided to offer a few words of advice – including a “bonus” section on eye composition (plastic or glass?) at the end of the guide.

My primary collecting interest is Steiff animals made from circa 1950 to circa 1970, and, wanting to write about what I have studied most carefully, this guide covers IDs found on items from that (“vintage”) era.

I would not have thought there was a need for this guide, but, apparently, that does not seem to be the case. All Steiff collectors have the most fantastic guide ALREADY at their disposal in the form of the book STEIFF SORTIMENT, by Günther Pfeiffer. Actually, there are two books – one for post-war items and one for antiques. These books do not contain every item produced by Steiff during the respective time periods, but they come pretty darn close! For most collectors, the volume covering the more modern items should be fine. If you are one of the few who has not obtained that book, I cannot recommend it too strongly! 

As I write this in 2015, it appears that there will not be another edition of that book since the last one appeared in 2003. However, copies of that last edition, as well as the previous one, covering items produced up until 1999, appear for sale on the Internet all the time. Be aware, though, that the price guides appearing in those books are terribly out of date! 

Although many collectors do, indeed, own the Sortiment, it seems that many of you have failed to take advantage of the wonderful, detailed information about IDs that Pfeiffer provides in the beginning of his books. Trying to summarize here all the comprehensive and valuable information he provides would be a preposterous undertaking for this kind of document, and I am certainly not trying to do that. Whereas the Sortiment contains the neutral exposition of thousands of pieces of historical information about Steiff products, my goal is to apply some of that information to specific buying and bidding decisions. I want to focus your attention on the various kinds of representations you will encounter, which you must be able to sort out if you are going to make the right choices. So, while I do summarize lots of historical information about various IDs, my goal could be characterized as “forensic,” rather than neutral. I touch on issues pertaining to all three of the typical pieces of ID you encounter: the button, the flag, and the chest tag.  Many of the pictures are my own photography, but, of course, not the examples of fraudulent manipulation that I obtained from the Internet. Therefore, some of the images in this guide are better than others. Nonetheless, they should all be more than adequate for the purpose at hand.

For the overwhelming majority of items you will see that could be characterized as “vintage,” as I am defining it, you will encounter two types of button in the ear (or other relevant appendage ;-)) of an animal – the RAISED SCRIPT button, which is attached with prongs, and the so-called “LENTIL” button with incised or indented script writing, which is attached with a rivet. To be sure, this is an oversimplification – especially with items produced in the first several years following World War II (when the raised script button was actually one of four buttons used) You can read more about all the buttons in Pfeiffer.  However, even with just these two types of button, you might encounter different kinds of fraudulent manipulation and substitution.

I say there are two (basic) types of button, but there are actually three different buttons, as you can see in the image below. Two of the buttons have raised script. The earlier one, used from the early 1950s to 1964, has skinnier, finer letters, with noticeably longer loops on the “f”s. The later raised script button, used in the mid to late 1960s, has thicker, “chubby” letters, which are much more uniform in length. As a general rule, the raised script button in either form was not used after 1968. Then came the lentil button, which was used until 1977. Of course, there might be the occasional fluke or exception when a button associated with an earlier time appears on an item that “shouldn’t” have it. This is very uncommon, and, when it does occur, it is usually at the time of transition from one style of button to the other. The dates I have given still serve as a good rule of thumb. In 1969 and certainly by 1970, you would find a riveted lentil button with incised writing on the animal you are considering. I have recently learned of a few rare cases where the earlier raised script button was used in the 1940s; see my 2019 pictures.

Two possible versions of button fraud are possible, although neither makes any sense if you know about the history of the button AND of the particular animal who wears it. The first type of fraud would be the substitution of one of the versions of the raised script button for the other. Take the dog Beppo, for example. He was not made after 1961, years before the “chubby-lettered” raised script button came into existence. So, the ONLY legitimate button you would see on a Beppo would be the earlier one with skinny letters. Several years ago, I unwittingly bought a Beppo with a substituted, newer button from a German vendor because I did not think to ask for a clear picture. I haven’t done business with that person since. There is an example of this kind of fraud below (see my comments about the old Peggy Penguin) in my discussion of flags.

But see my comments below about old animals in “new dress!”

Now, it is true that being misled by one version of the raised script button vs. another is an understandable trap to fall into, since the difference is (relatively speaking) more subtle than the difference between EITHER of those buttons and the lentil button. Despite the latter, more obvious, difference(s), if you don’t know the production dates of an item (and you would if you owned the Sortiment), you might think a later-produced (post-1969/1970) critter was rightfully wearing a button with raised script, when that would never have been the case when he left the factory. If an animal was not even on the scene during the era of the raised script button(s),he would not ever be found wearing one! Notwithstanding that, I have seen such critters on eBay.

Most recently, I have (sadly) come upon a particularly egregious example of this time-inappropriate kind of button switch, which is amazing to contemplate because the button substitution would not be that easy to accomplish in a non-glaring way. Not only would this substitution be harder and less straightforward than the switch between two kinds of raised script button, it is not even as simple as replacing a small lentil button with a raised script button of similar size, when the hole left behind by the removed lentil button is relatively small. A replica Steiff Dinos stegosaurus made in 1990 and 1991 was fitted out with a small, raised script button from the time era of the original (who was made in 1959) and being offered for sale as the original. The replica Dinos looks different from the original, so even trying to pass him off as original took a lot of nerve on the part of the seller, who needed a gullible, non-expert buyer. Secondly, the replica's button was much bigger than the original's and was attached by a rivet, meaning that a gaping hole would have been left in the replica's ear when his button was removed. See the two buttons in the image to the right. The button to the left is the modern 9mm button; the one I show is from a cat, but it is the same button that was used on the 1990 Dinos replica. The 5mm button on the far right belongs to a 1959 original Dinos, to whom it is still attached. One would wonder, therefore, how the new attachment of a smaller pronged button could possibly have been accomplished in a way that could possibly fool anyone into thinking it was original. I was really curious to see this handiwork, so I wrote to the seller asking for a closeup picture of the button (not letting on, of course, what my real motivation was), and in the meantime, the doctored replica had sold!

The image of the leopard directly above exemplifies the other side of the same coin – instead of new to old button substitution there is old to new button substitution. Whereas Dinos’s new button was replaced with an old button, the leopard (who I am guessing had no remaining ID at all) was given a new button (and flag) to replace the old button that he lost. In the ignorant mind of the fraud perpetrator, some ID is better than no ID; this criminal has little use for such details as whether the substituted ID makes any sense.

The motivation behind the Dinos fraud is obvious, since the original Dinos is rare and coveted. In the case of the leopard, which may be even more offensive to lovers of the old and rare 1950s animals, a 1956-1958-ONLY 14-cm stalking leopard is given a LENTIL BUTTON with an obviously inappropriate flag as well – inappropriate, not only in format and length (see the next section on flags), but with a still partly-legible incorrect article number ending with a “3!” Even if the “3” could not be made out, it is clear from the number of numerals printed across the flag, that the flag did not say 1314,0, which was the article number on the flag this leopard originally wore. 

This poor, adulterated leopard was offered on eBay over and over for many months. I don't know if it finally sold or the seller just gave up. I would like to think the latter, because the collectors who might have been interested in this rare 1950s leopard are more knowledgeable than the seller! By that I mean to say that I believe that this seller was, himself, defrauded, and that he is among the large number of dealers who know very little about what they sell and ignorantly try to pass on their poorly-researched purchases to their customers.

For a somewhat different take on button fraud, one pertaining to button placement, not to button type, note the group of images below.

Both animals’ buttons are attached to the outsides of their ears in the upper half of the composite, whereas the placement of each of their buttons is usually (with the exception of newer versions, as noted in the text correction on the upper image of a newer Floppy Hansi) on the inside. 

I admit that this may be a bit confusing, since the ears of both animals are placed on their heads in the reverse direction from the way they are in nature – something I get a kick out of mentioning whenever I offer a Steiff donkey for sale. I have never helped a Floppy Hansi find a new home, so I have never, before this moment, noted that he has the same unnatural anatomy as the donkey. :-)

As I show with the Jockos whose ears are depicted below this paragraph, (and I cannot now think of another animal!), there are legitimate occasions for you to find the button placed either on the outside or the inside of his ear. The Jocko ear on the left is wearing its button on the back, and the one on the right wears its button on the inside (front). This inside/outside button placement dichotomy in the case of Jocko seems to be a function of age. Starting in the mid 1950s, you will find Jockos with their buttons in the more typical location for all animals, facing front inside their ears. But the buttons of earlier Jockos were inserted with their prong sides on the inside and the face of the button on the back. Note below, in my 2019 added examples of fraud, that, in addition to the egregious fraud of having a 1970s Jocko with plastic eyes wearing a 1920s button, the fraud perpetrator did not even know that this button would not be on the front of Jocko’s ear!

Again, there is really no point in my repeating in full what you can read AND SEE in Pfeiffer, but there are just a few things to keep in mind. If an item is represented as being from the early 1950s, and it has a flag in its ear, the name STEIFF will be appear ABOVE the word ORIGINAL, as you see below in the top, far-left image – the flag belonging to a 7-cm Tabby. When I have such vintage critters for sale, I always point this out, but you should know to look for it on your own. Also, an early 1950s animal will have a SHORT flag, with the words “Made in Germany” printed at the very bottom. Although I do not have access to the Steiff archives in Giengen, I think that 1954 or earlier is a reasonable approximation for the short-flag time period. Later, longer, flags have additional space at the bottom for the retailer to put in a price – a format used from the mid-1950s until about 1970. Of course, that is a bit more difficult to know for sure, since the price segment has often been removed, especially when Steiff critters were given as gifts. So, a shorter flag, by itself, is not an indication of age.

HOWEVER, the opposite scenario – a long flag with price segment on a purportedly-early animal – is not authentic. If you do happen to see an animal who is wearing the complete, long-form flag that includes the price section, then you KNOW it is not an early one. Please see the example directly below left, since it exemplifies several different fraud issues!

The ID number 7317 belongs to the black, caricature 17-centimeter tomcat. If you owned the Sortiment, you would know that this very rare item was made only from 1950 to 1955. Therefore, while it is possible that you might find this cat with the long-form flag and the name STEIFF printed below the word ORIGINAL, that, in itself, would be exceedingly rare. In fact, I cannot recall ever having seen such an instance. So, your suspicion should be raised by that feature of the flag by itself. That is the first fraud issue, at least potentially. Secondly, it is obvious (in the picture to the left) that there were several numerals following the “1,” and while the fourth numeral may be a “7,” you should be able to see easily that there was more printed after that number! Since the cat, as represented, had an ID number with nothing following the fourth digit, that is the second fraud issue.

My own belief is that the questionable digit is a “2,” and the rubbed or chemically altered area after it contained two zeros: 7312,00. I believe that number uniquely identifies the small-size Hucky Raven, and I am showing a Hucky flag to the left. My pictured flag is faded, but the numbers, at least the “2,” are clear enough to read. So the third potential fraud issue is whether the somewhat-blurry fourth digit is even a “7.”

As I have suggested by my wording in the beginning of this section, there probably is not a “bright line” cutoff point for the denotation “early. ” I have proposed that this time period does not extend beyond 1954 (or maybe 1955). Even if we grant that there was a “7” on the flag in question, it could have belonged to any one of a number of animals, all made after 1958. Therefore, in any case, the flag pictured in the middle above did not belong to the 1950-1955 cat to whose ear it was attached when it sold on eBay in 2008!

I have noted that the order of the printing at the top of the flag is one way to distinguish early flags from later ones. It is often the case that the FONT will be different too. The numbers on the earliest flags will be smaller and appear more condensed, while the later flags will have larger numerals, much more spread out across the flag. The printed words will also look different: serifs on the oldest printing, sans-serif lettering on the newer. I believe the transition to the newer font style occurred circa 1953 (still within the “early” period I have defined). So, both flags pictured to the right are legitimate examples.

Although the far right flag (ID number 4314) is printed with the newer font, I stress that only the FLAG is appropriate (in format) for the older-style Peggy Penguin to whose velvet wing it happened to be attached, not the button! The flag is from the 1950s, while the button is the newer, chubby-lettered, style, not used earlier than 1965!

The button in the far-right image is another instance of the more subtle button fraud discussed above in my Beppo example – which was far less complicated because the Beppo I mistakenly purchased had only the inappropriate button. While this Peggy's flag is certainly in accord with the style of flags on the Peggys who left Giengen in the mid-1950s, you know – because it is anchored by the wrong button – that this flag is not original to her! Nonetheless, in 2007 someone on eBay bought this Peggy with two fraudulent IDs!

Notice that the old-font flag to the near right has one zero following the comma. You should know the numbers that typically go with which series of animals. In general, if the ID number ends in a comma followed by one zero, the item was made no later than 1958 (You would know, from the word order at the top and the older font, that near-right flag was printed well before that date). If the ID number ends in a comma followed by two zeros (remember the adulterated tomcat flag!), the item was produced starting in 1959, and these two-zero flags continued in use through the late 1960s. Of course, such flags would be the long style. As I noted earlier when telling you about an 18-inch giraffe pretending to be half that height, ALL the numbers on the flags have specific denotations, and you will see them fully explained in Pfeiffer's book.

In light of the preceding discussion, here are some things to watch out for: If you see a long-style flag with a supposedly older ID number – one zero – be suspicious. Be ESPECIALLY SUSPICIOUS if there is a questionable space after the final zero or if the flag is FRAYED. In the case of a flag frayed on the right side, if there is any question about the possibility of there having been something additional printed after that zero – another zero or another digit altogether – be WARY! Likewise, a frayed left side may mean that the numeral once printed there may be other than what the seller represents. See a frayed flag example immediately below left.

Notice that the flag on the far left is frayed on BOTH sides, leaving the opportunity for the “original” ID number to be misrepresented in several ways.

It is not only fraying that should get your attention. Sometimes the flag will be complete, with no fraying, yet it will have other indications of tampering. If some of the numbering is blurred or entirely obliterated while the rest is clear (remember the rare, 17-cm tomcat), that is not a good sign! Of course, wear could occur unevenly across a flag (as it does, in fact, on my Hucky flag, although you can see the zeros!). But when you see uneven wear, it is cause for suspicion. See the example immediately below of three flags side by side.

I am not certain, but I believe the one on the far left has been chemically treated – perhaps with bleach – while the one in the middle has been manually rubbed to remove the ink – not too successfully, I might add, since you can still see the “1.” Notice that the near-left flag has even, natural fading, not only across all the numbers, but on the lettering too. As I just noted, the telltale “1” is still quite visible as the first digit on the middle flag, as you can see in the enlarged image of the number below. This should have screamed “watch out!” to all who viewed the auction, since it was attached to the ear of a standing Arco dog, whose ID number, as it had to be for that particular dog, was represented as 6(!)322,00.

Sadly, that dog sold too.

The flag pictured to the left appeared on a fully-jointed tiger sold on eBay. That model tiger was made with ID numbers 5310 and 5310,00, the latter of which was the one the seller claimed. The fraud perpetrator was not quite complete in his adulteration. Anyone who looks closely (apparently not the buyer!), can see that the first digit on the flag could not possibly be a “5.” It is apparently a “1” or maybe a “4.” As you study the image, notice the dented button.  That suggests a sloppy, non-professional “transplant.”

Recently, I have seen many additional examples of this kind of laziness by would-be fraud perpetrators. Instead of making an effort to adulterate the ID number (or leaving only part of it showing, as with the last example), flags with the ID number totally cut off have been showing up in online sales venues with increased frequency. 

In 2013, I saw the ultimate in laziness (and brazenness) on the part of an online seller. She did not even attempt to adulterate the numbers on the flag attached to an 8-cm Tapsy cat, whose ID number is 1308,00. The cat pictured below sold online in July, 2013, wearing a flag that belonged to an 18-cm dog! The number is somewhat faded, but it is fairly easy to make out. Instead of 1308,00 (which I am showing you from another Tapsy for comparison), the number is 1318,06, which belongs to a dachshund named LUMPI, not a cat named TAPSY. What really amazed me (and saddened me too), was the fact that this cat sold; I don’t know which bothered me more – the fact that it sold or the fact that the buyer paid so little attention to what was right in front of him!  

In the preceding example, I am sure that the seller knew very well what she was doing. She correctly identified the ID number that an 8-cm Tapsy should have on her flag and then brazenly pronounced that her Tapsy’s flag had that very number printed on it, when it obviously (except to the winning bidder it seems) had a different number. 

In the next example (pictured at the right), taken from a June, 2014 eBay auction, one has to believe that the seller in that case was as ignorant as the seller of the non-Steiff trophy bear wearing a Steiff button discussed previously. That kind of mistake is almost excusable when it is made by someone who does not regularly sell Steiff. But given the volume of Steiff animals this seller has offered on eBay over the years, her apparent ignorance of something as basic as what the different numerals in Steiff ID numbers signify is horrifying! 

The 22-cm koala at the right is wearing a flag with the clearly visible and legible ID number 6310,0. Not only is the number clearly legible, the seller (very matter-of-factly) recites it in her description. You can see, in my top image to the far right, that the flag worn by the koala originally was found inside the ear of a baby elephant. 

Depending upon its date of production, the koala’s number would have been 5322 or 5322,00. My example at the far right is the older one, without the zeroes. His number is a bit faded, but you should be able to make it out. This is not the place to give you a crash course in ID numbers, but if you know nothing else about the significance of each digit printed on these vintage flags, know that the last two numerals before the comma, or, as in my example, in the case of no comma, the last 2 numerals, denote the animal's size in centimeters. So if you knew nothing else, you would know that the “10” in the elephant’s flag means that he is pretty tiny. Ten centimeters is about 4 inches, and that’s what he is. The koala is more than double his size!

Sadly, not only did this adulterated koala sell, but he sold for an incredibly high price. This size koala is very rare, and he does not come up for sale often. If I remember the most recent U.S. sale correctly, this adulterated one sold for well over $100 more than that earlier one! I have been assuming that this eBay seller was, herself, victimized by fraud. It always depresses me even more when I see fraud (unknowingly) handed down from one purchaser to the next. 

It has been less than a year since my last update of this article, but I recently found a new case of fraud with flags that I thought was so outrageous that I wanted to share it with you right away. In fact, it was a current item for sale at an online website when I started to write this in March, 2016. Although this latest example pertains to using a piece of Steiff ID on an inappropriate Steiff animal and not, like the bearhead trophy, on a non-Steiff animal, it is somewhat akin to that situation based on the seller's response to the information I tried to impart and the fact that I am certain the fraud did not originate with her. See the picture of the Steiff Lamby lamb pictured in the upper left of the composite image below. 

Like the bearhead trophy seller, the lamb seller persisted, for more than a week after I first wrote to her, in keeping her listing the same, despite the fact that I tried to explain how absurd her Lamby looks wearing (attached to its ear) the flag that was once attached to the bracelet worn on the wrist of a 17-cm Mecki hedgehog doll. Not only is the article number, 8717,70, wrong, the horizontal layout of the printed information would be recognized as wrong to anyone who has any familiarity with Steiff. 

In the lower part of the composite, I am showing you a 10-cm Lamby, whose number is 6510,0. Not only did this seller refuse to change her listing, despite my sending my Lamby picture to her with a picture of the Mecki flag being worn by its rightful owner and a link to this article, but she threatened to report me as a spammer to the Etsy website, where her items were for sale. (The bearhead seller had threatened to sue me!) Lamby’s owner’s refusal to take down her listing (or at least remove the offending flag from her lamb) was disheartening to me, since it appeared that she would stubbornly persist in trying to sell it despite what I told her. After my last communication with her, I was left with the hope that after she had tried to sell the lamb for months with no takers, she would either remove her listing or, at least, remove the flag!

[That Lamby is now gone, as is the seller’s entire shop on Etsy! I don’t know if what I told her finally sank in, or whether the management of Etsy removed the shop for some administrative reason. The urgency I felt to publish this section is, therefore, lessened. However, it is still instructive to see still another (and to me) really outrageous example of flag substitution fraud to beware of.]

I believe the foregoing two sections have been a thorough analysis of button and/or flag fraud, and there are many more examples I might have included! Contrary to my last three examples, much of what I am saying refers to things that are subtle and may not be apparent until the item is in your hands. Luckily, if you are shopping at a flea market or antiques show or store, you will have that opportunity before you part with any money. Internet purchases are more difficult, but you should at least try to get as much pictorial information as you can. Request a clear, close-up picture of the flag, and, as you will see below, the chest tag too. If the seller makes excuses, DON’T BID! Remember, finally, to consider the context, since it can be especially telling in the case of volume sellers.  Almost the complete inventory of some eBay sellers seems to consist of items with “all ID” or at least buttons with flags, yet, in almost every instance, the flag is partially or totally illegible. The law of averages suggests that it is very odd for someone to offer items with the same defect on a repeated and consistent basis.

There are SO MANY things you can learn if you carefully read Pfeiffer’s book(s), and I am only barely touching on a few. There is one other thing to watch for, and it is not something you will see in the book. It is something you will just learn from experience, after having seen many, many Steiff – hopefully, in person where it is clearer, but also on the Internet, when you know they come from a reputable, knowledgeable source. I am talking about chest tags. I do not mean to attempt to RE-STATE anything specific about the tags that were used during any time period, as opposed to another. That is all very clearly illustrated in the Sortiment – whether it is blue printing or red-brown printing; angular bear’s head or rounded bear’s head, or even whether the tag has a bear’s head at all. That is not what I am getting at. If you cannot clearly see the full chest tag (again, this does not apply to an animal you could examine yourself in person at a show or in a store), ask to see a CLEAR large picture of it, and, if necessary, ask to see both sides. RE-SEWN chest tags seem to be appearing more and more these days – sometimes, apparently, not even from the animals who wore them originally! An example of that would be a tag with an obvious mark from a bell being worn by animal who was produced with no bell. Another would be an animal whose chest tag should show its name, and it is wearing one that says, merely, “ORIGINAL STEIFF.” Or the reverse could be true – and to comical effect as well.  Surely, if you see a tiger wearing a chest tag that says, for example, “ORIGINAL TEDDY,” you would know that something was amiss. I have seen all of these on eBay (See my “fraud poster children” image below!). As to chest tags without names, there are, of course, legitimate cases where “generic” chest tags are the correct ones. Many of the earliest versions of animals went unnamed – rabbits and foxes are two examples that spring to mind. So, while that is a rule with exceptions, it still pays to be aware of it.

You should also be aware that such animals, for example the rabbit (“Hase” in German) pictured to the right was not named “Hase.” Rather, until MANNI took his place in 1961, this Hase wore a generic chest tag. However, the earliest instances of this begging rabbit (made before 1953, as my example was) had no chest tags at all! That means this rabbit and similar animals (with the all block-letter font printing on their flags) have “all ID.” If you see such a claim made about an animal, selling online, for example, you can trust it. 

Sometimes you will see a description that says that a chest tag “has been” or “appears to have been,” reattached (stated in passive construction, with no affirmative responsibility acknowledged for the reattachment or definite statement that the tag is original). I have, on some occasions, needed to reattach chest tags on my own items, but when I do I, I say so very clearly, and I explain the circumstances of the reattachment – for example, the tag came off in my hand when I lifted it up to see the back. And I try, as best as I can, when I do reattach tags, to make my work as unobtrusive as possible. So, although I would never sell an animal with a reattached tag without telling you that, I do have to admit, immodestly, ;-) that I could probably get away with it most of the time with you being none the wiser.

On the other hand, I see chest tags all the time that SCREAM reattachment, which anyone who is paying the slightest attention should be able to spot. Yet, sadly, it is often these very animals for whom not a word is mentioned about the “fixed” ID. To the contrary, the representation seems to be that the ID is all original – both chest tags and flags. So, while it is hard to set this forth as a general rule, I would say the thing to notice is the COLOR of the thread that anchors the chest tag. Something TOO white suggests your caution, as does an attachment that involves many loops of (thin) thread. I do not claim to have seen EVERY chest tag that was ever applied in Giengen, but, in the thousands and thousands of animals I have seen, there is usually just ONE loop of (thick) thread anchoring the tag.

I say “usually,” since there are some exceptions: Puppets’ chest tags sometimes have multiple threads, as do those of animals and figures with felt clothing, like the “Nightcap” animals or Lucki, the dwarf, who have their chest tags sewn onto their clothes. I cannot name them all, and, as I say, they are the exception. In those cases, you will see multiple thinner threads, neatly attaching the tag. The threads will usually be a complementary color to some of the figure’s clothing, not the off-white you typically see.

The shepherd doll to the left is such an example. Notice, in the enlargement, that his red chest tag threads match his red felt vest. Even with puppets, I believe multiple thinner threads are not common. Finally, you will sometimes see regular animals that have two thick loops attaching their chest tags (see the lower right of my composite “FOXY” image above). But in my experience, this has been the case only on early animals from the 1950s. You should look closely at apparent exceptions (even on the felt-clothed animals and figures). If a seller will not afford you that option, be suspicious. The important thing is that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, you will never see LEGITIMATE tags attached with MULTIPLE loops of thread. What I find to be almost comical is the fact that the stitching on these reattached chest tags is not only multiple, but, as you see in the full Foxy tag image to the left above, it is often very sloppy and uneven, something you KNOW would never pass muster in Giengen.

Below the next paragraph is a composite image, the left side of which was one of the images used by an online seller in 2014 showing a polar bear with his (purportedly) original chest tag. The seller did not provide any clear closeup pictures of the tag’s attachment to the bear’s chest, so I can’t comment on how neatly the sewing was done, as I did with my earlier examples. However, even if the tag were sewn to the chest in a “good” (non-glaringly fraudulent) manner, there is ample evidence of a fraudulent attachment in any case; you just have to be familiar with what such a bear (or any animal wearing a collar) should look like with its original tag. 

As you can see clearly in the right half of the image below, my polar bear’s chest tag is attached to his collar through the same ring that holds his bell and is, therefore, essentially at the same height, high on the bear’s chest, as the collar and bell. On the other hand, the chest tag in the left image is removed from the collar by what looks like 3/4 of an inch or so down the bear’s chest. One additional thing to notice is the fact that the original tag on collared animals has a grommet surrounding the hole to protect the integrity of the edge of hole, which might otherwise be subject to tearing as the (naked) paper rubbed against the ring. It may not be obvious in the left image, but there is no grommet in that tag.

Of course, it’s certainly true that you often see a bear or other collared animal with its chest tag freely floating around the collar and no longer anchored to its chest. However, even in that case, the tag would still be attached to the ring on the collar, and the only “damage” to the animal (all other things being equal) would be that the string originally anchoring the tag to the animal’s chest had broken.

I have recently encountered a new (to me), and particularly outrageous kind of chest tag fraud, which not only involves the new sewing of a chest tag, but the chest tag is COUNTERFEIT!  In my image to the right, the tag on the left is a PHOTOGRAPH of an actual tag that has been glued to a cut-out cardboard backing. Notice the white border that sticks out around the tag. The picture is very poor quality, but not so poor that you can't see the original tag's attachment string in the counterfeit tag! You know already to be suspicious, because the tag is attached with a thin black thread. I learned this the hard way with something I purchased online that was not well pictured. PLEASE DO NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE. If something is not clear in the seller's original picture, ask for a better one!

There is one more thing I want to mention about chest tags. It is not about fraud, but about ignorance – ignorance that leads to the making of erroneous pronouncements about the age of an item. These inaccurate statements could have the same effect, if bidders and buyers acted in reliance upon them, as would knowingly false statements made to create that same reliance. 

My concern in this case is not about the appearance of (the front of) the chest tag. I was at first just mildly irked and even amused by the occasional appearance on eBay and other online venues of statements like “He’s got a Eulan tag, which dates him early in the production.” By “early,” as used in such a statement, the seller is usually ascribing a production date during the 1950s to the animal. Since that specious reasoning seems to have caught on and statements like my paraphrase have become more common – uttered now by more than one seller – my original mild annoyance has escalated. Pronouncements ascribing age to a Steiff animal based on the presence of the Eulan notification on the back of the tag are not fraudulent, but they are wrong (when the stamp is used as evidence of a 1950s production date), and these pronouncements may, therefore, be just as misleading as intentional fraudulent misrepresentations. I believe that the people who make such statements do not even know what those circular blue stamps on the back sides of many of the larger chest tags mean! 

In the composite image above and to the right, you see a 1970s Raudi dog. You would (or should) know from the simple red and yellow front of his chest tag (without the bear’s head) that Raudi was made in 1972 or later. The wording on that circular blue stamp on the back of Raudi’s tag is “MOTTENECHT DURCH EULAN,” which means “MOTHPROOFED WITH EULAN.” “Eulan” is the proprietary name given by the German chemical (and pharmaceutical) company, BAYER AG, to their formulation of the insecticide (with a long chemical name ;-)) that was used to mothproof Steiff animals. The original Eulan insecticide (there are now many varying formulations using the same basic chemical) was formulated in the 1920s. I don't know when Steiff began to use Eulan to mothproof its animals, but the important thing here is how recently it was used. Since the pictured Raudi was made no earlier than 1972, you would know that Eulan was used until at least that date (and there is evidence it was used well into the 1970s). Since the ignorant sellers who use the existence of the Eulan stamp obviously mean to date their animals much further back in time than the 1970s, their pronouncements are simply false, and to the non-knowledgeable buyers who might rely on such representations, these pronouncements are as misleading as any intentionally misleading representations such sellers could make. 

Although using the presence of the Eulan stamp as an indication of “early” production is wrong, the size of the animal whose chest tag might have the Eulan stamp is relevant. The chest tags of the smallest “early” animals (whose 1950s production dates would be known from their ID numbers) don’t have the Eulan stamp on the back. How do these misinformed sellers reconcile the absence of the stamp with the otherwise certain indication that these smaller animals are early? The reason that early small animals had no Eulan stamp is simply that their chest tags were too small to contain a legible, intelligible stamp. 

With all the “rules” I have expressed, I have tried to make it clear that there are exceptions. I just recently learned of another one. My hypothetical example in the first section was to suggest the unlikely existence of a later (first produced in the 1970's) animal wearing an early button. But the apparent button-critter mismatch can go in the other direction, hence the title of this section.

The time during and right after World War II was a time of confusion at the factory, with the possibility of seeing one of FOUR DIFFERENT BUTTONS.  Apparently, it can be even more confusing than that! First, I should stress that I have not personally verified this with Steiff, but a knowledgeable Steiff collector and dealer in Germany has told me that there were stocks of PRE-WAR animals discovered after the war, who, before they left Giengen, were “dressed” in the IDs appropriate to that later time. Now, certain things, like the red-printed angular bear’s head chest tags, would have been the same both right before and right after the war, so that is no big deal. However, some aspects of later dress, like raised script buttons, associated with the early 1950s, and the white US-Zone flags, by definition post-war pieces of ID, could be found on these pre-war animals.

As I say, I have not obtained official verification of this, but my own experience supports it. I acquired two animals in 2008, that, without knowledge of this exception, were not explainable. One was a larger standing SARRAS boxer with a velvet, instead of (the ’50s) mohair, muzzle, and the other was a plump 7-cm bunny who clearly was not in the “SONNY” line of rabbits. What was confounding about both was their raised script buttons and US-Zone flags. It is only confounding if one does not allow for the possibility that they were produced in the ’30s and/or ’40s and were only discovered decades later! Unlike the rest of this guide, I am positing this as a theory to explain an anomaly. It is hard to dismiss the support that my own experience (see directly below) seems to lend to it, however.

In 2013 I saw something even more creative than putting Steiff IDs on non-Steiff animals. It is the reverse of the practice I postulated and discussed in the immediately-preceding section. It does not require stretching the imagination very far to see how opening the seam of a pre-war animal to fit it out with a symbol of the post-war occupation of Germany, namely the US-Zone flag, makes sense. However, the picture below would be downright comical if it were not such an egregious example of fraud. In this case, a bear made in the 1970s is all decked out with a US-Zone flag to suggest a decades-earlier date of manufacture. 

My discussion so far has dealt with instances of fraud that have been completed; in other words, the item you find offered for sale has already been fitted out with its manipulated and non-genuine identification. Going back one step, you might wonder how these fraudulently manipulated animals came to be in their present, falsified state. Sometimes, as you have seen, the seller works with what he or she has at hand, like chemically altering a flag with one ID number to make it seem (with varying degrees of success, as you have seen) to have a different ID number. But a more basic question is where do all these “raw materials” of fraud come from?  Some sellers (I have seen this on eBay, but there may be additional sales venues I have not discovered) sell pieces of Steiff ID, disembodied from their original owners/wearers, which are sometimes offered as ways to complete or add to the ID that the buyers (presumably ordinary collectors who already own the animal in question) “need” to give their beloved possessions what they may have lacked upon their original acquisition. Such a legitimate reason for buying Steiff IDs is often (probably, most of the time) not the case, however. On more than one occasion, I have seen numerous groups of unrelated buttons, flags, and chest tags being offered in bulk, with no ostensible reason (like “give your teddy bear the button he has always needed”) that buyers might have to make such a purchase, and really only one possible underlying purchase motivation, i.e., to use on animals that the buyer needs to complete his ultimate fraud (and which the seller knows very well and actually intends will be the way these unrelated pieces of Steiff ID will be employed). The four images grouped on the left represent four different auctions won by the same US eBay buyer/SELLER over a short period of time. I cannot now remember, but I believe that all these pieces of identification were offered by the same seller.

I would like to mention one more thing, that, although it is not ID, per se, seems to fit in here. I am referring to improvements and repairs. Just as I occasionally do reattach chest tags, I also occasionally do other (minor) repairs or enhancements to bring an animal a bit closer to what it once looked like. Some examples of these modest seamstress activities are my giving cats or wild cats new whiskers from time to time, closing a small seam opening with a few stitches, or tacking down an ear. As with the chest tags, I always mention anything that I have added or changed, but others are not so candid about how their animals came to look the way you see them (Be sure to see little felt-eared Susi below). So, with whiskers, for instance, it is always a good idea to ask if they are original. Sadly, the answer you get may not be that helpful. The seller could feign ignorance on the matter or just not tell the truth. I have even seen animals with whiskers who never had them in the first place! This is something that you will learn to distinguish as you see – and come to own – more and more critters. Likewise, you will get to know the precise number of whiskers a given animal should have, or if it should have any!

This is a good place to show you my “poster children” for fraud. The jointed tiger has been here for a while, and the adulterations shown in his image are as outrageous today as they were in my first edition of this article. Sadly, the tiger now has company. He is joined by another always-popular mid-century animal, the beloved Niki Hase (bunny). 

EYE COMPOSITION

I conclude with something that does not pertain to ID or fraud. See the picture below this paragraph. I hope it is a helpful side by side (actually top and bottom, respectively) comparison of PLASTIC and GLASS eyes. Although eye composition is not ID-related, this issue is often a matter of confusion, if not outright misrepresentation. There are two things to note: First, notice that the glass eyes are translucent, with subtle and light coloring, while the plastic eyes are opaque, with dull “artificial-looking” coloring. Secondly, notice that the pupils are painted onto the backs of the glass eyes, while, in the plastic eyes, the pupils are, rather, like holes cut into the eyes. In other words, the pupils of plastic eyes are the absence of color rather than the addition of color. This is easiest to see with the green cats’ eyes. I am showing two 14-cm Susis, although the same “dull vs. translucent” dichotomy will be evident with brown and amber eyes too. Whatever the color is, you can learn to make this distinction if you can see the eyes well. If you can examine them in person, this should be relatively easy. If you see them on the Internet, ask for a big, clear image if you need it. Knowing what you are getting may affect your decision to bid on or buy a given animal. 

There are really two kinds of plastic eyes, and, unfortunately, I don't have a sample in green to show you. My blue eyes, like my green ones, are from a Steiff cat – a Cosy Siam. For years, I was confused myself about this other version of plastic eyes. The appearance is almost the same, but never having seen an acrylic eye except in the face of an animal, I cannot tell you much about their construction. From my own limited experience (I tend to collect the older animals with glass eyes), the pupils on acrylic eyes, as exemplified by my sample, are bigger and rounder than the pupils on glass eyes. I know that the eyes of many glass-eyed animals, like bears, for example, have round pupils, while cats’ eyes usually do not. But the proportion of pupil to the whole (glass) eye is much smaller than in acrylic eyes. This is not to say that there are not Steiff animals who have acrylic eyes with oblong pupils; I cannot make such a pronouncement. My main point here is to alert you to the fact that it is much easier to confuse this kind of plastic eye with glass eyes, since the pupil is painted in the eye rather than cut into it. 

In my earlier editions of this guide, I included the plastic/glass eye distinction as a separate, non-fraud related topic, useful, in its own right, for having in your collecting knowledge base. In 2010, I discovered that it is no longer the case that plastic vs. glass eyes is a topic unto itself and unrelated to fraud.

The face/full-body composite image at the right depicts a rare, early 10-cm Susi, who was made only with glass eyes.  You recognize this cat most easily from the fact that her ears are felt, while later models of this size Susi had mohair ears. After referring to my plastic/glass eye comparison above, you should be able to tell immediately that the felt-eared early Susi pictured to the right has plastic eyes! Since I have seen this poor, adulterated Susi only on the Internet and not in person, I can only imagine how horrible she must look. Rather than having each eye attached to her head with thread, with the two threads joined in the back by a knot, these replacement, plastic eyes were glued in place – and I would bet crudely at that! Not only that, but her left eye is clearly damaged. Someone was so intent on getting her ready for sale that, not only could they not wait to obtain appropriate replacement glass eyes, they fitted her with an imperfect pair of plastic eyes.

An afterthought, which, perhaps, by comparison to Susi’s eyes, it is insignificant to mention: As on the tiger pictured earlier, Susi’s whiskers are also not original, and there are too many of them! Perhaps, though, it is of some significance to note that this adulterated Susi was sold by the same person who sold the 8-cm Tapsy with the 18-cm Lumpi flag (see picture and discussion above under “FLAGS”)! 

NEW PICTURES ADDED 2020

NEW PICTURES ADDED 2021