Jump to content
News Ticker
  • I am now accepting the following payment methods: Card Payments, Apple Pay, Google Pay and PayPal
  • Latest News

    Recommended Posts

    #1, The ribbons are too new and show no wear or age. They look too modern like it was put together last week. #2, The punched out hooks for the medals are something I could accept for WW1-20's ......If they were not so sloppily done and uneven. They are up, down and all around. They should be separate hook soldered on the back. #3 That pin is weird. The medals themselves look like they are real.

    Dan Murphy

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I saw this one too. I believe it's a fraud.

    Brand new shiny ribbons.....for 1864...I don't think so.

    Plus the metal used to construct the trap looks like that acid etched flashing you can buy at a hardware store (if any still exist beyond the mega-stores).

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    All very well guys, BUT: Think combination, not construction!

    If you mean the lack of a 64, I have no problem with that. This one came from Detlev, and I've seen photos of similar bars.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    OK. It wants us to believe it was constructed after 1897, but no oaks to the EK, no battle clasps to the 1870 (but that?s not a big problem)?..however, all that time in since ?64 is not represented correctly or in a more appropriate position (next to the EK) for the time period it was supposedly constructed.

    Also, I would expect the 1866 to be next to the 1870 and not split by the '64s. This bar is a mess!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If you mean the lack of a 64, I have no problem with that. This one came from Detlev, and I've seen photos of similar bars.

    Yes, I know, you posted that bar before, right? :beer:

    But even granted these examples exist, all those I have seen without 1864 medal are OFFICERS' bars. I would guess that some officers didn't want to have their bars crowded by too many mediocre medals.

    The example at the start of this thread is however an NCO's bar.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    OK< good critique so far... but what about:

    A) 1897 Centennial, but no 1895 Jubilee Spange?

    B) That bar is actually made out of GALVANIZED sheet steel, very similar to what the ductwork in 99% of the offices in the USA are formed from???

    hmmmmmmmmmmmm

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    OK< good critique so far... but what about:

    A) 1897 Centennial, but no 1895 Jubilee Spange?

    B) That bar is actually made out of GALVANIZED sheet steel, very similar to what the ductwork in 99% of the offices in the USA are formed from???

    hmmmmmmmmmmmm

    As devils advocate,

    A) The '95 Spange was sold, not given. Likewise the bars. Coulda been a cheapskate.

    Aa) Although not the smooth, tight weave (and delicate) issue ribbons, the '64 and'66 could be '90's replacements.

    B) No way you can argue with that. After 100 odd years that crystalline pattern would be long gone. I don't particularly like the catch, either.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hello Everyone:

    This is a fine example of a fraudulently assembled grouping. To summarize all of the problems as noted above: The backing as Stogieman points out is made from NEW galvanized sheet stock. Groups from this era usually use bronze backings. The ribbons are almost all of NEW nylon (The EK, 1870, 1866, and Centennial medal ribbons certainly are) stock. As Medalnet pointed out, the 1866 campaign medal ribbon is without doubt of new manufacture. The stitching style for the ribbons is not consistent with known originals (they were simply not constructed in this fashion). The 1870 campaign medal is NOT an awarded item, but is an OLD copy. The EKII is not an awarded piece and is probably a decent-quality MODERN copy. Yes, an 1864 campaign medal is missing from the group, but a more glaring problem is the fact that the 1870 medal is next the the EKII in precidence. Usually, the Duppel and Alsen medals would come next (this was not a hard and fast rule however). Also as someone pointed out, there is a lack of 1895 "25" year anniversary oak-leaves for the EKII (He was around in 1897 supposedly to get the Centennial, so why didn't he get the eichenlauben?). A lack of battle bars for the 1870 is NOT a problem as not everyone put them on their ribbons if qualified for them.

    As we can see, there is a lot WRONG with this bar. The ONLY things right are the original medals (other than the EKII and 1870). The group is a fraud and only worth the value of the genuine medals.

    Best regards,

    "SPM"

    Edited by Schie?platzmeister
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Groups from this era usually use bronze backings.

    Of the 9 pre-1900 bars I have immediately at hand 5 have galvanized steel backing.

    Why do you say the 70/71 is a copy?

    I say again, the 95 Spange was sold, not awarded. Not everyone bought one.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Of the 9 pre-1900 bars I have immediately at hand 5 have galvanized steel backing.

    Why do you say the 70/71 is a copy?

    I say again, the 95 Spange was sold, not awarded. Not everyone bought one.

    Hello Tom:

    All of the 1864/70 groups that I have in my collection have bronze backings. The majority of those that I have seen are also of bronze. I have seen period galvanized steel backings, but they are certainly less common.

    The 1870/71 is an old copy (not made by the Berlin Mint) as evidenced by the this wire suspension loop soldered to the planchet. The edge certainly does not state "from captured cannon" in German either. Look at the suspension for the Alsen cross in this group. Official awarded medals have this type of suspension. These old copies (replacement pieces) were sometimes worn on medal groupings but are certainly of lesser-value/desirability to collectors than the awarded pieces.

    You are right, the 1895 EKII 25 year anniversary oak-leaves were a privately-purchased optional item. Most veterans purchased them though (the lack of them just points to something more unusual, a small detail, but one with the other facts at hand that in summary show that this piece is a forgery).

    Best regards,

    "SPM"

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...

    Important Information

    We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.