Binky

In that case, there may be something fishy - either with the DSO or with the alleged provenance, because as I'm sure you're aware, this is a Geroge V DSO, awarded between 1911 and 1936 (almost 10,000 awarded), whereas your vendor provenance dictates that if awarded to an allied Air Force officer during the Second World War, it ought to be a Geroge VI type.. It is perfectly possible that a Second World War allied pilot obtained an original example as part of his collection, but he certainly did not receive this precise award. George VI DSOs command a higher price than those awarded by His father.

I'm sorry to see forgers being successful, perhaps the unwary buyers will discover the deception and return the goods (despite the no return policy). If nothing else, they can leave negative feedback.

I don't really see any reason to doubt it. It is the most common variety, dimensions look good, the shape of the enamel looks sound, I'd be happy to accept it as genuine. Is it a case of too good to be true based on the price? B

It's a common enough problem, I seem to remember having a few GSMs in the past with the same spots, but refrained from cleaning them. Surely one of the metallurgists or chemists could give an explanation for the phenomenon. As you are obviously not worried about the loss of patina and are keen to have them looking their brightest, perhaps the rhodium plating option is for you. I and many other collectors wold never dream of doing so, but if you have your heart set on medals looking immaculate, that may be the solution. I stand to be corrected of course. Binky

I agree with all of the above. The inscription being in German is also clearly intended to suggest that it was awarded to a senior German or Austro-Hungarian officer, while the chipped cross point is yet another 'refinement'.

Of course there would be no chance, nor is eBay interested in preventing forged items being sold, providing they get their commission. As long as the buyer is happy, the seller will no doubt try their luck again in a week or two, probably using another account. My point about forged hallmarks was merely that, if the seller was genuinely ignorant about what they are selling, raising the potential seriousness might make them think twice and alter the description. But we're obviously discussing an unscrupulous seller, so it won't have any effect at all.

Graf; I quite agree with you. It is also very generous of you and the other collectors to help others avoid the early errors of collecting. I raised the point regarding the second class star, that forging hallmarks is a criminal offence and to conceal the fact that they are obviously fake, equates to deception. However, we are kidding ourselves if we think such unscrupulous sellers will ever conform to what we would consider, good practice.

I contacted the seller via eBay and got the following response: It is your right to express your opinion. The stars have been restored and that's why they look like this. I see you have doubts about the stars and you do not need to bid in the auction Wouldn't dream of bidding in the auction! This is rather concerning.

Sir Harry certainly stands among the greatest Australian generals - shoulder-to-shoulder with Monash. I seem to remember an excellent exhibit of Chauvel's uniforms (service dress and general officer's scarlet ceremonial jacket), at the AWM in Canberra. Yes, you certainly have plenty to work with this year and next.

I also agree with the other posters. From time to time, I acquire groups or singles where the ribbons are in relic condition, or absent. In either case, I tend to replace with original lengths of ribbon (it is quite common to encounter First World War trios with original lengths of ribbon in their issued packets), and see nothing impure about utilising original resources where available. I also take the precaution of preserving the ribbons they came with, for precisely the reason stated above.

Exactly.

I agree with you, but as most of the Imperial Russian non-Christian versions are from the mid to late 19th century and early 20th, a state interested in adopting the idea would presumably have refined the deference. I also completely agree about the incomplete nature of the substitution of Christian symbols with non-Christian symbols, it was inexact and contradictory.

What a splendid selection of presentation styles!

Earlier this year, I had the good fortune to buy at auction, an interesting First World War group of six to a Grenadier Guards Captain. The name rang a bell, so with a little light research, I came up with a name and address in order to send a speculative note to a possible family member. This morning, I received my reply and after a telephone call with the lady in question, shall now be able to reunite the medal group with the rightful owner. However, the story of how the medals came to leave the family possession is worth mentioning. Until late last year, they were in the possession of the recipient's daughter in law. She was visited in her home by an antique dealer, who was interested in purchasing some pieces of hers (not including these medals), and she discovered some time later that the medals of her late husband and father in law were missing. The auction house has been contacted to alert them to the fact that the lot was not acquired legally and now (almost) everyone is happy.

160th Infantry Regiment? Definitely German, rank of Colonel (Oberst).

Besides all of the sleuthing (and common sense) posted here regarding this imaginative bauble, there are a few more salient points that don't stand up to the 'for non-Christians', label. What is present at the apex of the Crown? An orb, surmounted by a cross. In Christian monarchies (of whatever particular faith tradition, whether Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant), orbs are pieces of insignia symbolising Christ's domination over the world (utterly inappropriate in non-Christian contexts). Secondly - the white and blue enamelled cross itself, the badge of the order, is in the form of variation of a Maltese Cross (finished), another symbol of Christ and equally inappropriate in a non-Christian context. During the Raj and at the time of the creation of the two India-centric orders (of the Star of India and of the Indian Empire), such deference was there to avoid offending non-Christian rulers of the Princely States, that not only did the insignia not form the shape of a cross, but the senior grade was not classified a 'Knight Grand Cross', as with other orders with multiple classes, but rather 'Knight Grand Commander'.

I think there is on day a year when the Princely family opens the Castle to the citizens. I have family in Liechtenstein and they go out for the evening - in Feldkirch (Austria) just as you say.

Always an excellent order to start off with. A cased Resch first type commander was the first order I purchased at the age of 15.

Given that the Light Horse's victory at Beersheba led to the Allied capture of Jerusalem, your endeavours at a Jewish College seem even more poignant. I have often cited that particular battle as one of my inspirations to join the armed forces.

Some time ago, I became acquainted with the grandson of a Knight of the Garter. More than 40 years after the death of the recipient, the family are still in possession of the insignia. From time to time, the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood would appear to turn a blind eye, as in recent years, I have occasionally noted widows or children of deceased Knights of the Order (or of the Order of the Thistle) returning the insignia to Her Majesty in private audience.

If a specific campaign medal was issued (such as OSM Afghanistan or Iraq Medal), then NATO medals awarded for the same campaign are not authorised for wear. On the other hand - when NATO medals are issued to British servicemen and servicewomen for campaigns for which there was no MoD authorised and issued medal (GSM/CSM/OSM etc), then the NATO medal is worn in order of campaign and not treated as a foreign award. Ditto UN medals. For Australians however, the rule is reversed: All government issue orders, decorations and medals take precedence over foreign/UN/NATO awards, which (if authorised for unrestricted wear), are mounted in order of receipt. Steve; as for bar suspension and vs suspension, that's just the way the chips fall I'm afraid. One more and they'd all have had to overlap (perhaps you'll be in line for an MBE one day soon). It is an impressive rack and there's no need to fiddle with it. The Accumulated Campaign Service Medal and Naval LSGC suspender bars overlap because they have no alternative.