fukuoka

I should say they look 'wartime,' not 'pre-war.'

Although I am not sure about mine, the other two look pre-war to me.

By the way, what are the dimensions of your badge?

Full disclosure: I am the seller listing the badge on ebay now, so maybe I am biased. However, the nature of the inscription itself bothers me. As I stated before, this type of inscription does not seem appropriate for an award badge of this nature. Look at the other Navy and Army awards--this kind of general inscription is nowhere to be found. However, as stated above too, this inscription is found on many other wartime commemoratives that were sold to the public. Also, why would different casts be made in what amounts to less than one year of awarding (if Sept 1944 was the first award)? And if this badge is indeed rare, I guess they wouldn't have minted many of them--which means they wouldn't have needed different casts.

Interesting how the inscription is spaced differently on the two badges. You would think these would have been made from the same cast.

Yes, Nick, good points. 3 different badges (one an illustration/photo), 3 variations of anchor.

Could be… Or perhaps the first one posted is a replica because of the general commemorative-style inscription on reverse. This kind of inscription is often seen on replica badges of various sorts. And on many wartime commemorative items. Too bad the book doesn't have a picture of the reverse. It is hard to arrive at a firm conclusion without more examples and more documentation.

Sorry didn't remember that thread. Looking closely, it is easy to see they are fakes.Not as well-done as I first thought. Too bad they are being re-sold as originals.

Just received this email from an astute viewer: Hi Rich. I want to warn you This is a copy, a fake! http://page8.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/h182998608 http://page10.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/m115158838 Elfard94 bought them here http://www.ebay.com/itm/281212857917?ssPageName=STRK:MESOX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1559.l2649#ht_84wt_914 http://www.ebay.com/itm/281208181833?ssPageName=STRK:MESOX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1559.l2649#ht_188wt_1171 These medals are made by Gennady Egoshin from Stavropol Russia. Sold only as a copy. They are made method of casting. Their diameter is smaller than the original 1.5 mm. The re-seller is of course well aware of them being replicas. By the way, aren't these replicas (fakes) well-done?

The reading is Kenkoku Shinbyou Souken Kinen Shou

The reading would be 'Showa Juhachi Nen' and the rest as you wrote.

That was exactly what I was thinking...

Top line is 'Replica of the Great East Asia War Medal.' Bottom plate reads 'Ranan, Korea Division, Hoeryong Platoon. August 15, 1945 located in North Korea, moved to Khabarovsk. Dec. 18, 1946, returned home via Siberia.' Ranan and Hoeryong are in present-day North Korea.

That being said, Nick, no cases or award documents have ever been found, correct? Why is this? If anyone has a picture, post it ASAP! And, indeed, this medal is still hard to find compared to many of the other official Japanese medals, so calling is scarce or rare is not wrong, IMO.

Re-listed with same pictures. Different seller name http://page2.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/b148440960

BTW, many of the replicas look very close to the originals. Extra care should be taken when buying.

Imperial kiri crest watermark on above document.

Rarely found award document for this badge, as seen on my site. this is the only one I have seen in 20+ years of collecting, though I must admit I may have overlooked a few. TRANSLATION An original presentation document for the NCO Labor Badge. A line by line translation, from the right: 1. Infantry 19th Regiment 2. Army Sergeant-Major Morino Ryouichi 3. For years of meritorious service, the Labor Badge is awarded. 4. Showa 8 [1933] May 8 5. Infantry 19th Regiment Commander, Army Infantry Corporal Udaka [?], Holder of the Junior 5th Imperial Rank and the 3rd Class Decorated Rank [either the Rising Sun or Sacred treasure].

You took a picture of the reverse of the paper. Take a clearer picture of the correct side and maybe someone will take the time to help.

Same medal still on auction in Japan: http://page2.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/b148440960

Thanks for the info, Nick. I guess the 1944 badges were what I had before--it has been so many years that I forgot. Looks like that magazine has some cool stuff!

Hmmm, a test of my faulty memory... But I think the latter may be true. I know that I have had #18 in my hands (years ago) but people decried it as fake--perhaps it was not a fantasy piece but a replica. However, I must confess that I cannot remember. One thing I do recall is that my badge(s?) had no reverse inscription, so perhaps that reveals something.

Nick, I have always heard that the badges in posts #17 and #18 are fakes. Have you heard anything about that?

First, a bit of context: Taganrog gave me a low-ball offer for the set and I refused him. But putting that aside, I would like to address the topic of breaking up sets. First, the above-named set in particular and then some more general comments. As for this set, I offered it complete on my website at a price that was admittedly high, so I also said I would accept offers. Every offer, though, was ridiculously low--as piddling an amount as $300 was offered. Having invested a good amount in the piece, I wondered whether or not to break it up. I decided to do it for the following reasons (in addition to the monetary one). First, it is already missing 3 medals, so it can hardly be called complete. And more importantly, all the medal award documents are missing, which really underline the simple fact that this set is far, far from complete. Japanese medal sets without documents are interesting to see to be sure; is it imperative to keep these sets together? If the documents--or at least a few of them--had been present, I would not have wanted to break it up. The documents allow us to identify the recipient and maybe even research him. Soviet awards without documents are often marked with a serial number; British awards often have the name and rank of the soldier engraved on the rim. With extra information like that, the historical value increases dramatically. Without it, any set is not much more than a collection of medals, IMO. And this particular set was just that. Why were the medals beauties when together but ruined when apart? There was no information about them--only their desirability as rare pieces and perhaps the set's ability to fire imaginations, making people wonder who would have acquired such a collection. Dealers who break up sets are often vilified by the very same people who would never pay a premium to keep said sets together. (See Taganrog above.) Of course, this is not always the case, but I have seen such people often enough to think it may be more than a coincidence. My general rule is to keep named sets together even if they are incomplete. I do not always follow this rule--you can see a violation of this on my store page at this very moment with a couple of medal award docs listed separately. Unnamed sets, though, seem destined to be broken up for the very reasons mentioned above. Sorry if I offend anyone, but I have no qualms doing this myself. Any other perspectives on this? Am I completely unreasonable?

Just got the supplemental volume in the mail today. A few more numbers: Meiji 27: 25th Anniversary medal numbers are 33 gold and 1301 silver Meiji 29: 220,000 Japanese Red Cross member medals Meiji 29: 160,000 1894-5 War Medals Meiji 35: Japanese Red Cross 25th Anniversary medals 900,003 (silver) Meiji 38: 210,000 Japanese Red Cross member medals Meiji 38: 159,004 Imperial Fleet Donation medals (all colors) Meiji 39: 210,000 Japanese Red Cross member medals etc. Sorry for the abrupt stop. Since this volume is the history of the Mint, most of the info has to do with coinage. I am sure more medal information is scattered about. I need to settle down with it and scan the pages.