Les

A few comments from me, and I'm letting go. Steve. There isn't enough clarity in the photo to determine specifically which type of the two similar PlMs with the fancy birds it might be. Epsomgreen's example is a Rothe. That should not be taken to mean I'm saying it was what you call the "Berlin" type. There is not enough clarity in the Linde image to rule out either type. If I don't state something, please don't infer something from what isn't said. To all others: Until 1945, German laws regulated who could make and sell military (and related) medals. There were also laws regulating who could purchase, own, and wear military decorations, uniforms, etc. When the Kaiser abdicated in November 1918, formal awards of the military order of the PlM stopped. However, laws regulating manufacture, ownership, etc, still applied. You could not buy one without having been awarded the medal, and an Urkunde. The Urkunde by the way was more important than the medal, because it was not only proof of entitlement to wear the award, but carried with it legal and pension benefits. Trivia. But important to remember. When the TR/DR surrendered on 7 May 1945, Allied occupation laws prohibited -all- public display of military medals regardless of whether they were from the Nazi or Imperial time period. In Germany,medals could not be manufactured again, until 1957, when the law was changed. Then -ANYONE- could buy medals, whether or not they were ever awarded them. Anyone with the money could buy them, and display them. Wearing medals you didn't "earn" could still get you into trouble though. S&L we know made DR/TR medals after 1945, even with the Hakenreuz. The firm made PlM copies starting in 1957. If the firm made them before 1945, catalogues and other documents would have appeared. They haven't. Questions to S&L about medals often gets a response that they don't know anything. Photo evidence? (Verzeihung' bitte, aber.....Pfurzen!) I am interested in the technical methods used to make medals, and the only interest I have in S&L pieces is that there are signs of die wear over time. There are pieces where the feet can be seen, and others not at all. There are other losses of detail that suggest the dies were worn.....but not as badly as the WWI era Wagner dies used to make the silver-gilt pieces were wearing. Something very similar happened to the Rothe made pieces. In fact, there are at least two sets of Rothe dies that were being used to make post-war Rothe PlM copies. The workmanship also shows signs of going from "zo-zo" to "Schmuck/Druck." In fact, Rothe copies start out being made from several pieces with applied eagles, to being stamped in one piece, etc. There are parallels to what happened to the Imperial and immediate post-war made German pieces, but what that means....I'm not saying. Wait for the book. Lastly, I'm interested in facts, and logic. Logic in particular, because it's not something that's always used when claims are made, or people say things. Ed, like you I taught college level courses and have often wondered how (not what) students "think." Ed, both of us probably have opinions of the educational system that doesn't belong here, and is ....... ;-) Les

Steve, I read the S&L posts on WAF and am not convinced they were (1) made prior to 1945 as you've attempted to show from wartime photos, or (2) that they were commonly "worn" by PlM-traeger after WWII. Again, you're relying far too much on less than clear photos and drawing inferences that the photos may not support. One of the WAF posts I read commented on your use of Sanke cards (Biro posted a photo that comes to mind that runs counter to a claim made in one of the threads). I've commented here on GMIC more than once on the conclusions drawn from photos can be wrong and have particular misgivings about using digital photos that come from unspecified on-line sources. If the source can't be independent checked and verified, the approach is less than scientific and mostly seat of the pants or gut level feelings. There is a huge difference between first hand empirical evidence and digital copies of something obtained by second or third hand sources. Use of secondary sources saying someone told me this, or gave me a copy they made of something, in a court room would be called hearsay, and thrown out. In the sciences, data comes first and the integrity of the data should and must be beyond reproach. I wrote that the medal Epsomgreen posted is a Rothe, and has modified eagles that were made separately and added to the cross. If you got the impression I was calling the Linde example a Rothe, you would be wrong. What you call the Berlin example looks much like the one Epsom/Charles has, but there are differences. The eagles share a very similar outline enough so that in a less than clear photo determining which one could be difficult if not impossible. Without examining the actual photo and never a digital copy of another image) can you be certain the shadow isn't a smudge, dirt spot, something that was on the camera lens, scanner, etc? No. The next point seems to get ignored time and again. Re-read the comments I posted about how the same exact badge or medal can look differently by changing camera angles, even if all other factors are the same. One badge, one camera, three photos from different angles and the result is what looks like three different badges. When you start comparing images of different medals, taken with different cameras (cameras and camera lens are even though they appear similar may have very different optics which affect the way the camera film "sees" the image through the lens)lighting conditions, camera settings, film speed or the digital equivalent, the precise angles, parallax factors, color-calibration factors in old films, different printing processes, and complicate what is actually showing up in a photo, and what you think you see. The image of Linde is not clear enough to determine whether the cross is the same as the one Epsom/Charles has or the two you call "Berlin" examples. I'll repeat,despite claims otherwise, the details of the cross itself (let alone the eagles) are clear enough to determine whether the thing is a "Epsom" or "Berlin" looking item. You somehow seem to think that there's enough there to make inferences. You seem to think the shadow effect was caused by the raised crown and sunken enamel on one, and that the shadow in the image was caused by that. That dark spot could have been caused by something else. Those inferences or observations are being made from a secondary digital source, and you've never examined the original, or even another photo of Linde wearing a PlM with the distinctive eagles seen outlined in the image. Les

Mike, Dankbar! I see I'm not the only one who has a few of these! Etwas mehr?? Les

I'm not on my computer. The one I'm using doesn't have photo-editing capabilities. For the moment, check out posts #35-37 here: http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/sho...9755&page=3 The images posted there are stamped and unfinished copper blanks to make 2 types of PlM fakes, and a Johanniter. The Johanniter fake has exactly the same eagles the example Steve posted here shows. One of the PlM copper blanks and the Johanniter blank were both made by the same faker. That helps track down some of the people making these things! Steve, I hate to break it to you, but I doubt that "Johanniter" you provided a photo of is real. One more reason why handling real ones helps sort the sheep and the goats from each other. If no one is able to download and change the photo size, I'll do it later this evening when I can do it from my home computer. The photo size needs to be changed from 189k to about half for posting here. Les

Steve, What, if any, provenance does that Johanniter have? I disagree the case is "strong." It's based on a photo with an unknown history, and no provenance. There's not enough detail to determine the medal in the photo is one medal or another, which means you can -not- rule out the possibility it's a modified Rothe. Daniel has pointed out that photos can be posed, with fake medals, etc. Until that possibility can be completely ruled out, far too much of the "evidence" is nothing more than circumstantial and conjecture. The case needs more work, and more facts, not conjecture. The methods to make medals changed over time. New solder types, changes in the types of enamel and materials used, all can be examined in labs and there were many changes in ways things were made not only after WWII, but between the wars as well. Many of these details have to be seen (item in hand) because they do not show up in photos. Did you know that most if not all glass compounds, and many metals made since 1944 have radioactive trace elements in the glass or metal, while materials manufacture before the first nuclear tests do not? that's one of the little lab secrets that makes first hand examination CRITICAL and one of many reasons photos as a primary source of "information" are flawed. Your statement that E.J. wore his S&L PlM. Last night I went through some of the WAF posts and read several of your comments that "veterans bought and wore S&L's" after WWII. Do you have documentation for that? By documentation, I specifically refer to actual photographs of veterans taken after 1957 when German laws permitted military decorations to be worn publicly. There were PlM recipient reunions after WWII. Any photos of the events, or are you relying on having read it somewhere? I ask that last question because it illustrates an important point. Often someone says something and no one at the time thinks anything about asking for background or more information. Later someone hears or reads what was said, and then repeats it. Eventually statements start sounding like facts and before long "everyone knows it." So, when I ask what the basis for a statement is, I'm trying to determine where it came from, and how a person "knows" whatever it is. Les

Komtur, Thank you for going to the Museum, taking the photos and posting them! A couple of years ago, Peter Kilduff gave me the curator's name, telephone and fax numbers. I have them...somewhere, if that would help you. I agree with you about the eagles. They are not Johanniters. The heads, oval- elongated chests and much of the tail feathers are very close to Rothe eagles. The wings and legs are different, but nothing that a trained jeweler couldn't make from a Rothe eagle. Regards and thanks again, Les

Immelmann died during the war. The first example which is said to be the one worn by Linde, wasn't made during WWI. The second example from Dreseden looks like an S&L. Based on what we know to be pieces actually made prior to 1918. Both are attributed to him, but neither of those two pieces have real provenance. Neither of these are reliable examples and shouldn't be casually included in this discussion or to draw important conclusions that the "Linde" cross is real. That leaves us with the so-called Linde example. Steve, taking photos and placing them side by side isn't reliable. Some time ago, I posted a jpg of an Austrian pilot's badge on this forum along with the photo of the pilot wearing it. Stogie disagreed with it being real, and said it the placement of the wings was wrong, etc, etc. He said the image and photos couldn't be the same. Check this out: http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=5741&st=40 I took three different photos of the badge, with the same camera, but intentionally shifted the angles slightly each time. The resulting images each had a slightly different perspective on the way the same badge was seen, and each photo looked like a different badge. The placement of the wings on the wreath could be made to look higher or lower when the camera angle was shifted slightly along one plane only. Move it sideways in addition to "up/down" and things would take on an entirely different dimension. The photos you are comparing might appear to be centered, and flat on, but unless they are taken in carefully aligned positions, you can't rule out "camera(man) bias." I'll repeat this once more. There simply isn't enough detail in the Linde image to draw the conclusions you're making. Llight/shadow can be caused by more than the surface of an item. Reflected light from another source on to the surface of the cross, if it was not evenly reflected could create the illusion of something other than a flat surface on a medal. The military routinely uses "skilled" photo interpretation specialists to look at aerial and satellite photographs. There is a lot of training, skill, and more than a little bit of looking for specific hints or clues that will allow you to see or claim what you want to find. More than a few people in the military were wrong about what they said they could "see" in aerial and satellite photos back in 2003.... The PlM Charles/Epsom posted -IS- a Rothe. If you look carefully at the edges of the eagles in other photos posted on the same thread at WAF, not all of the eagle's feet don't touch the sides of the cross. Also, the tail feathers aren't evenly touching in places. If you've handled actual Rothe's with the same chasing marks on the letters, etc, you'd see the eagles were made separate from the cross and applied later. Epsom's example is a Rothe with separately applied eagles. Enamel color is far easier to change than most people suspect. Superheat the medal and then drop it into ice-water. The enamel will shatter and come off the piece very easily. Art school jewelry classes teach students how to enamel and it would be easy for them to redo the piece. A professional jewelry maker that could make and replace eagles, would regard replacing the enamel with an entirely new surface as close to child's play. Where's the actual medal in the Linde photo? Is it in the family or does anyone know where it is? Without a firmly documented example, there's far too much speculation being based on a photo we don't know much about, and with not enough real detail regarding the center of the cross, crown, lettering, etc to be sure about. Speculation is fine, provided it is clearly stated as such. Speculation should never be allowed to create a focus that leads us to see "facts" that may not be real at all. Without a specific medal that has real and solid provenance or documentation, the "evidence" is not good enough that you'd find many people willing to shell out 5000 Euros or more for one of these...at this time. It might be, but the evidence is on the shaky side. IMO, the jury is still out on this one and likely to be for quite some time. Les Les

Steve, There is not enough detail in the photo to see what the crown or other details of the cross look like. The silhouette of the two medals you've shown look a great deal like the one in the Linde image. However, there is a problem because the image of the cross posted by "Epsomgreen" or Charles on WAF has what appears to be the same types of eagles, but show differences to the two you've shown here. Can you conclusively determine whether the one in the Linde image is closer to the PlM "Epsomgreen" has, or the other two you've posted here? Since there isn't enough detail in the Linde image, -neither- can be ruled out. http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/sho...ad.php?t=239515 I "borrowed" an image of Epsom's cross and pasted it here. It looks much like the two you posted here, but there are a few differences. Can you rule this one out based on the photo details, or are you convinced it's not this one, but something like the other two? Les

Last weekend I had to rescue some books and papers that were soaked with water when an accident happened in my cellar. Books in cardboard boxes were soaked and I sorted out what was important and what to toss out. When books dry out, two things can or will happen. The covers and pages on older books will warp, may fall apart and depending on how warm the air is, can begin to mold and mildew. Printers ink can smear and pages will tear when turned if the pages are still wet. Newer books are often printed on cheap paper that is smoothed using clay, then printed using computer type jet printers. When these books dry, the clay from the surface of one page binds with the next page, and you have a solid mass....or in other words, your book is now a solid brick. There is hope, if you do something while the books are still wet. If the books, papers, or whatever are valuable enough, there is something -you- can do at home, yourself. Put each book in a plastic bag, then put the bagged book in the freezer. That will give you time to save each book, paper or whatever, one step at a time. The next step requires time and some patience, but can be done by almost anyone. Take one book out of the freezer, let it thaw a little and then use a HAIR DRYER to warm up and remove all of the moisture from the covers of the book. Then start one page at a time. Raise one page, dry out and remove all of the water/moisture from the page you are working on, then go to the next. Then, one page at a time. If you get tired, or have to quit, take sheets of -waxed- paper that you can buy at a market and use it to separate the wet pages from the ones you've worked on. Then put it back in the freezer until you have time to do more I've tried this and it seems to work. The warm pages will not lay flat when you turn them, but when the book is closed and there is weight to make them flat again, they will get their flat shape back again. Freezing also stops the clay page books from turning solid, and can be dried one page at a time. If nothing else, freezing gives you time to decide what you want to do about each problem facing you. You don't have to toss out books and papers or let warm air turn them into moldy and mildew covered lumps of garbage. Good luck if you have a problem of this sort in the future, but it's not necessarily a complete disaster. If you have the time, patience, and freezer space, you can save some if not all of the important items soaked with water. Les

Standards of "proof" or degree of information is needed to support a point of view varies according to how important the claim is. Most of us can afford to loose US$150 (or Euros) if we buy a bad ribbon bar. If we buy a Pour le Merite costing ten times that amount and we later find out it is bad, we won't react anywhere near the same as we would over a ribbon bar. A loss of E15000 would be a major disaster for almost everyone on this forum. Consequently, what is "proof" is far more important than what is "proof" for a ribbon bar. Rick is good at what he does, but if someone takes the time to read his posts, re-use pieces of original bars (including using old thread, etc), and put bars together based on what a known individual wore or could have worn....Rick might not be able to spot the difference. Bear in mind, the fakers will spend far more time and effort if they have the needed skills (or contacts) to make a high quality fake that will pass. The bigger the reward, the bigger the temptation and risk. Considering the price of a real PlM, and the ever increasing skills of fakers and modern technology, there is not much room for guesswork, wishful thinking, and flat out hunches. Photos are not, and never will be a substitute for genuine documented medals. Considering the values and risks, it is necessary to start out with undisputable facts, then and only then, to use supporting information. Using digital photos from on-line sources is not a sound source of "data gathering." Photos can reveal quite a bit, but they are not a substitute for on-hands personal examination. Photos don't always reveal information about manufacturing processes, optical quality of enamels (versus paste or cloisonne like materials) and other details that can be seen by someone that knows what to look for and has the item and good quality hand lenses in hand. Les

Anyone who pays someone to work, doesn't like seeing the employee having nothing to do while "on the clock." In the business world, a boss will find something for you to do if he sees you without anything to do. A master engraver is highly skilled and what he does takes time and patience to learn in addition to having the hand-eye skills needed to do the actual work of cutting metal. I suspect any large jewelry firm that has a master engraver on it's employee list will keep the many busy. On the other hand, a firm could contract the work out but the process of using dies in production work means dies wear out, have to be replaced, and a times new master or working dies have to be made. Apprentice engravers have to learn how to improve their skills and require practice to get better. Some hand-eye skills require routine and frequent practice at the risk of "use it or lose it." It would not surprise me if more than one jewelry firm made dies for medals that were not necessarily put into production. A boss could easily put an engraver to work making dies to keep the engraver working instead of spending time around the secretaries or hiding somewhere out of sight.... (Think about how NCO's find work for enlisted men who seem to be standing around doing nothing while on duty.) To answer your question, there were many jewelers that could have made stamping dies, but not necessarily put the dies into production. Someone sent me a copy of the image of the shop worker in the "Wagner die vault" Don D posted on WAF, but chose not to post on this forum. (Didn't someone lament about how people weren't posting on -both- forums when I commented earlier in this thread about people who weren't part of that "other" forum? I guess being members of both but posting something of interest on only one of them is ok.... .) Wagner didn't make Johanniter looking medals during WWII, but that die on one of the shelves looks suspiciously like one. That raises the question of what ever happened to -all- of the dies made and used by German firms for making medals? Did they completely and totally cease to exist on 8 May 1945 and were never seen (or used) again? Original dies from WWII (not to mention WWI or earlier!) could be dangerous in the wrong hands. Haemmerle in Munich is said to still have their original dies used during the Imperial era. What about the other firms that are no longer in business? By the way, Rothe isn't the only Austrian jeweler capable of making very high quality meals. Best known, yes, but not the only one. Les

That's the "Bellamy" salute named after the Baptist minister that wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1890's. He took the "Roman salute" and described how it could be applied to the Pledge. When the Pledge was adopted, so was the salute and used from the turn of the last century until 1942, when Franklin Roosevelt felt uncomfortable using that salute during WWII. The salute was dropped in favor of the hand over heart style currently in use in the US of A. That's not taught in schools along with so many other things..... Les

Far too many tenuous connections are being made based on "facts" that may not be sound at all, and then trying to make sense of things. I don't like using images, not photos, that are digital reproductions. In more ways than one, digital images are often not accepted in court. The images precise origins and particular details have not been given. Yes, it's based on a photo? But was it printed prior to 1945, and directly from the original negative? Can photo manipulation be ruled out? At the moment, not really. There's also the question, of where Linde''s "original" medal is....the one in the photo? Does the family have it, is it in a collection? No one seems to know, and a great deal is being made of a photo that is doesn't have enough details to eliminate one of the two medals shown in the thread. It might be one, it can't be both of them. The "other" medal I'm referring to is, a very similar one owned by "Epsomgreen" (Charles) that he's posted an image of, on WAF. It doesn't appear in this thread, but it's close similarity to the one here can't be ruled out as being "the one" in the Linde image. For the moment, let's take the image matter as a tentative given, so the next point can be addressed. There are two similar crosses, but they are not exactly the same. Which one is the one in the so-called photo? Could be either.... The eagle feathers in the photo are clearly cut or separated, but the details of the cross itself are not visible in the photo. The two crosses that have surfaced, have different core details, but neither can be conclusively shown to be the same as the one in the photo. I could go on about other "facts" being drawn on. If there were dozens, or even a dozen crosses that were either identical or very very similar, you could build a good case for the existence of a type. You have two similar but not identical candidates that look like the one in the Linde "photo" but neither one can be conclusively shown to be the one, and the other ruled out beyond a shadow of a doubt. Also, one or two examples that are very similar, but not identical pose problems for defining a "type." Consider the scientific approach to facts, hypothesis, and conclusions. Martin Popper who wrote the "book" on modern scientific thought says this. A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true. Think about how that applies to hypothesis and theories about medals, and then apply that way of thinking. Showing that something "is" or what it is claimed to be, is an elusive concept at the best of times. Les

Steve, I'm not the only person who left WAF and came here to GMIC, with no intention of ever going back there. Both Rick's are two well-known examples, and "Stogie Rick" has clearly stated why and made no bones about his decision. I left WAF in disgust when Steve Previtera, one of the WAF moderators at the time I left, decided that Ad Hominem attacks were "ok" on his part when he didn't like his opinions challenged by me, or being asked directly pointed questions (again by me) that he didn't or couldn't answer. Debating observations, discussing "facts" and engaging in conjecture (provided it is clearly stated as such, but never passed off as "factual" when it's nothing of the kind) is the purpose of forums. Personal attacks and uncivil behavior towards fellow forum members can, but not always, get people kicked off forums. When it comes from a moderator, (who should set examples of forum decorum) I consider that inexcusable, and was a contributory reason in my decision to permanently kiss posting on WAF goodbye. Personally, I like and prefer the civility that almost always predominates on this forum compared to others that come to mind. There's an old adage that you can tell a lot about the "company" a person keeps. Forums, somewhat like people, develop their own reputations. There are often good people on all types, but the bad ones can go a long way towards creating a reputation that is less than sterling. Les

The "one nation under God" was never part of the verbage used prior to 1892, when the American Pledge of Alliegance was written and later authorized. The "under God" part was not part of the original pledge. It was added in the 1950's during Eisenhower's administration. Some folks forget that the country began with church and state being tacitly separate without official "co-mingling.". Les

Nice bar. There aren't all that many good long ones around. A few years back a friend of mine gave me a 12 place bar that I posted. It was free, and Rickie (thanks again!) was quick to identify the man behind the bar, and a PlM recipient. Here's the link to save bandwith and not overly crowd the archives: http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=2488&hl= The critters in the photo are appropriately dressed for the holidays. Les

Germans have been learning to look across national borders, but there are times whether the Brits are able to do so, particularly with regards to a battle of mythical proportions Waterloo has taken on in the British national psyche. Reading accounts by British, German, and French historians (and people that were involved in the battle) can sometimes sound like entirely different battles. Brits have the tendancy to see Waterloo as a "British" versus French battle, while overlooking how much of the "British" force was made up of allied military units. Seeing the battle from a nationalistic perspective misses many of the crucial details. The battle was not won solely by the British. It was the result of the combined efforts of the allied units that were in line, the pressure of Bluecher's advancing Prussians, in addition to French mistakes, and so on. Without the Prussians, and support of other allied units, Wellington knew he couldn't do it with British only units. Bear in mind, he wasn't completely sanguine about Bluecher's support, and was actively considering getting -British- units back to the coast, and ready to get them on ships bound for the other side of La Manche. The KGL, especially the light infantry elements were deployed in front of the main line of resistance. Advance units were used to slow down and keep the main French infantry (and especially artillery) as far away from the main British line as possible, and slow down the French advance on road junctions, farm houses, etc. Any one involved in a fist fight knows the importance of keeping a forward guard so you head doesn't get pounded because the other guy is....too close, too big, etc. Ulster, nice snapshot summary of the KGL detachment the Lt was part of, and located near the chateau. The defense of Hougomont was important to the battle, but so was the defense of the sand pit (also occupied by elements of the KGL), and other parts of the battlefield as well. Soapbox mode/off Les

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWW! Amazing is an understatement. I'm truly envious. My father's mother's family are originally from Hannouver, also once upon a time, the former recruiting grounds of the KGL. I have a soft spot in my heart for the KGL, even though no family members served in it. I have family that fought during the Napoleonic Wars, and one member that served in the 4th Westphalian at Ligny, and arrived on the field at Waterloo late in the day and in time for the pursuit. He didn't get -one- single medal and no offical recognition, although his grave marker mentions he was there and his name is indeed on the unit roster for 1815. Les

According to the 1926 Ehrenranglisten, Hundrich was in the 26th, but he wasn't the only major that was listed on the unit's roster. There was one killed prior to 1915, and four others besides him. The Ehrenranglisten lists his highest rank as Oberst a.d. and a wartime brigade commander. Hammelman's volume III in the PlM series, and a few other sources do place him in the 27th, although that doesn't fit with the Ehrenranglisten information. So...to answer your question, there's a chance the boards might have been his, but if you can't rule out the other majors, the only thing that can be said is they might be....but then again, they might not be. Because there are other majors on the units roster, the odds are against them being his. The odds are 1 in 4, far from being decent betting odds. I have a pair of m15 boards for a Leutnant in the I.R. 122. I'd like to be able to think they might have been worn by Rommel, but unless I can eliminate all the other Leutnants, that lives me be guilty of having wishful thoughts. Les

One historian has estimated that roughly a third supported the war for independance, another third were against it, and the remaining third wanted nothing to do with either faction. After the war ended, many of those who were loyalists decided to leave the newly founded United States and headed for Canada. In 1781, the "brotherly" feeling was anything but. Anti-British feelings, even after Cornwallis surrendered and American independance was certain, ran high enough that the Contintental Congress considered and voted on a bill that proposed making -GERMAN- not English, the official language of the new country. The bill lost by one vote. If the vote had gone the other way, American and British relations would arguably have been considerably different over the last century or so. Les

The United States government has never recognized the formal existence of the "confederacy." The contemporary term was "the War of the Rebellion." During the 1870's, former rebellious parts of the United States who wanted their statehood back, began referring to the past hostilities as "the War between the States" and that term was used for several decades in a spirit of reconciliation between the former factions. During the first year of the war, military delegates from various European nations were dispatched to observe and report. For the most part, almost few were impressed. The German states on the otherhand, saw the war as an opportunity to train military officers and Germans served on both sides of the conflict. The use of expanded railway systems to move troops quickly from one zone of operations (or even across theaters of war from the Army of the Potomac to the Army of the Tennessee), expanded telegraph networks, and the use of new weapons particularly breechloading artillery and rifles began having major impacts on tactics and strategies used during the war. Most of the Europeans missed what was happening when they dismissed the war as nothing more than "armed rabble" and felt the conflict had litttle of value. After 1862, most of the European military officers went home, thinking there wasn't much worth watching. Arthur Freemantle of the Coldstream Guards crossed into Texas during the spring of 1863, spent a few months with Bobby Lee and was present at Gettysburg where he spent some time watching Pickett's Charge from the vantage point of a large tree. Shortly afterwards he went home to England. He seems to have been the last observer to be noticed. There is a photo of foreign officers on duty with the Army of the Potomac taken during the summer of 1861, right about the time of the First Battle of Bull Run. Most are in formal uniform, with the exception of one Brit who was wearing the dark blue "undress" get up with "bell boy" cap, and ribbaned tunic many officers favored for less than formal occaisions. The Germans on the otherhand watched the development of new technologies, new tactics, and quickly picked up on what happened during the war, and applied those lessons against the Danes (1864), Austrians (1866) and French (1870). Les

Komtur. Richtig! Von Luckner wasn't awarded the PlM. He did have the Johannitteradler he's wearing in that photo. I wondered how long it would be before someone commented on that. Btw, if that Orden mit Etui is yours....very nice. Les

v. Luckner

Gordon, thanks for posting that photo. The mini isn't centred on the ribbon, but appears to be suspended from the ribbon, similar to the one shown in the 1930's era Godet catalogue! The type usually seen has the cross -on- the ribbon, not suspended from. Neat to see photo documentation for the catalogue version! Les

If the bar has known provenance and identifiable, restoration -might- be worth considering. If it can't be idenitified, I'd look carefully at the ribbons. While silk can be professionally cleaned, any tears or holes could easily be far more trouble and expense than the finanical and other intangible values restoration might give in return. If there are any small holes, tears, or weak spots in the cloth I'd suggest a rethink of the project and how much effort, time, and money you're willing to invest. Cleaning silk even by museum conservation staff always carries with it an element of risk. Using -any- chemicals, even water, affects the chemical stability of the fibers. Museum and professional conservators aren't cheap, usually have a very long to-do list. Mounted ribbons are not as easy to clean as flat strips of cloth. Cleaning the ribbons "in place" is more difficult and can be far more expensive than removing the ribbons, cleaning them, and then putting them back on the bar mounting. (That's also major historical restoration if they are removed, cleaned, and put back on.) Money aside, some of them are picky about what they want to work on, and may decide they aren't interested. Conservators are similar to medical responders who "triage" patients and set priorities whether someone or something can be cared for. Rick's point about medals being returned by family after the death of the recipient is part of the historical past. If the bar underwent what amounts to legal and mandatory sugery by the requirements of the state, undoing that "surgery" -is- tampering with history. The bar has been altered, and Rick pointing out that possibly two very significant medals were removed, isn't the same as replacing a lost or removed "Hindenburg", "Centenary" or length of service medal. I have graduate degrees in anthropology/archaeology and am resposible for putting tonnes of artefacts into museum storage. Recovering items in the field requires making decisions on how to use conservation resources, what to spend money on for lab tests, etc. I have a great deal of first hand experience in the field, labs, and museums. Historians (and archaeologists) frequently talk about how important history is, but not everything is worth preserving. What -is- comes with experience, and weighing against time, available financial and other resources, not to mention storing "everything." Personally, I have to side with Rick. Leave the bar alone......unless you can determine what medals might have been there, and then determine who the bar might have been owned by. If you can't do both of those, you're likely to spend quite a bit having the ribbons cleaned and not get much of intrinsic or other intangible values in return. Unless you have deep pockets and how you spend your money isn't a major concern, think about using that folding currency to purchase a bar (or bars) in better condition that don't require addition input after you acquire it. Les