Ed_Haynes

Tim is the man to ask, and I haven't seen him around for a while. Will try to drag him over here to this exotic venue to see the thread if he reappears.

No I surely wouldn't split these up, and I'm sure you knew that before you even asked your question, but without pretty solid evidence of provenance (and not just a named box or an assertion from a dealer or a collector), I wouldn't trust a WWII British unnamed group. Anyone who collects British awards knows what to look for and what to ignore in establishing provenance for British WWII groups. There is a lot of risk and a lot of trust involved and you can never be certain with anything unnamed. It is just that if I showed you a single GV DSO and claimed it belonged to T. E. Lawrence (even assuming he ever got his), I'd think you be fully justified in asking how I think I know that and asking me to prove it. What would constitute a standard of evidence? And what are the legitimate limits of "restoration". Some of it may be benign, but I'd hope we could agree -- at least -- that completely "reconstituting" a group of all unnamed medals around no more than a stack of paper gets pretty tawdry?

Some groups, you may never know, and it would be fraudulent and delusional to assert absolute knowledge. Other groups (especially if they come direct from the family) you may know more surely, but having a letter or statement accompanying them would seem a nice touch if you ever expect anyone to believe you.

And, of course, when you have a period-mounted, part-named group with legitimately unnamed items (or things like breast stars or neck badges), I'd feel they should stay together, though dealers and collectors frequantly split them off for profit, feeling they can always be "replaced".

I was simply trying to understand what standards of evidence apply in other phaleristic fields, but not I am really getting sorry I asked my question . . .

Another old fart adding to the chorus. The price seems certifiably insane, but I'd wager someone will pay it.

The "real" ones are, of course, the wartime Ottoman specimens. Some assert that they also awarded the BB&Co ones, though I have never seen convincing evidence (just assertions). Most of these, however, are just postwar jewelers' concoctions, awards from a state that no longer existed (just like the postwar manufacture of all the defunct German imperial awards).

Regardless where these are made, they are Ottoman and not German awards. If German jewelers made (as they did) copies of Tsarist Russian awards, would we see them (and categorise them) as "German awards"? Contemporary Libyan awards are mostly made by Italian firms; should they be in the "Italy" section? Only if you wanted to confuse people? I saw this post only bacause I routinely use the "View New Posts" function. Had I looked in the Ottoman category, where I'd expect to find it, I'd have missed this post.

Yes, I am, Francois. I come to this from a number of collecting fields where attribution is more than just word of mouth and intoning "trust me". Sorry, though, if my question offended you. Feel free to ignore it.

Well, I knew I had seen one SOMEWHERE.

H. D. Rauch, 29 April 2003 auction, lot D4591. I have no note as to what it sold for, but the estimate was EUR 500. Made by Spink.

I cannot find any copyright notice in their catalogue, but I still feel twitchy posting this. If I should remove the image, let me know.

Curious outsider's question: For an unnamed, unnumbered, undocumented award, on what basis are RK collectors able to "attribute" these? Provenance? With what sort or proof and/or documentation?

And wouldn't there likely be a better discussion if this were shifted over to the Ottoman section??

I have had very positive experiences with:

http://bulgariana.com/index.php?cPath=60

I nice one, that I need to find. Do you have ascan of a case or anything that shows the real name?

Oh, that is a lovely one.

A stupid question: Does anyone know if Roth worked from the original rolls or from photocopies? If from the originals, it may not be much better than the copies Rick has? Though, sometimes, copies are clearer than the originals.

Also, were these rolls prepared in only one copy? Most that I am familiar with (non-German, of course) had multiple copies. If any survive it is a cause for joy, but on occasion, duplicate copies survive and some may be clearer than others. In any case, to use any archives, you need to start with an understanding of how and why and for what purposes any document was created and then, further, understand how and why and by whom they were filed (by what method, if any). When confronting a new body of records, I always want to see the manuals that guided the contemporary officials as to how they shuffled their papers.

But, in the final analysis, there may be no option but to use the rolls in the archives?

Are they really this expensive now?!?!

<a href="http://www.collectrussia.com/DISPITEM.HTM?ITEM=17476" target="_blank">http://www.collectrussia.com/DISPITEM.HTM?ITEM=17476</a>

While Igor's prices always tend toward the high end of the curve, these are the sorts of prices one encounters, yes. For that reason, it has become widely faked. Hence, my questions about my second class.

E-Bay junk makes me laugh.

Or, maybe, just cry. As someone actually buys this dreck, believing they have something collectible and of any value at all.

Very good news.

And a detailed closeup view.

Thanks, Owain!

The photo.

Send it to me or Paul, Owain. We can resize and post it. Thanks!

But I still think the basic rule is: Do not sell things you do not possess.

The ethics behind this are pretty clear.

Many individials from the vilayats that were made into Iraq after WWI served in the Ottoman army. A nice photo, but not especially surprising. Arabs were well represented in the Ottoman military. They received awards from their government, the Ottoman Empire, and also awards from their wartime ally Germany.

DISCLAIMER: Do not read my comments as supportive of the popular (in some circles) fraudulent theory that Iraq is an artificial construct. All nations that aren't islands are, after all, artificial. Iraq is no exception.

Not so hard though, as with most things, it may take some practice.

1- Take you scan (photo) into your image editing program.

2- Reseize it too 666 pixels as its largest dimensions (not for ritual reasons, but because it is easy to type) (or maybe 555?).

3- Save it to disk.

4- Go to the "Select a file"/"browse" section at the bottom of where you enter your message.

5- Find your way to where you saved your image.

6- Upload it. (Important to remember).

7- Add your reply.

Should work. But the gods can get angry and the Luddites were right, after all.

Hope that helps.

By the way: If your image turns out too large, make it smaller by resizing it (see step "2") by making your largest dimension smaller and save it under a new file name (the pesky program has a 'memory') as "Image 1a" or whatever then go to step "4" and try again.

Good luck!

Nice salty medal as I like them! Ed do you have any other partisan medals in your collection or you are expecting to find one in a group one day?

This is the only ONLY one. Came "rogued" into a "group" (as referenced above), but my peculiar joy lies in groups (with HISTORY), and partisan groups are almost too good ever to hope for (these dark days of Soviet collecting).

But is it "kosher"??? About these medals, I have much fear.

Oh . . .

I am in

Gotta find one . . .

Congratulations Ed, good to see some interesting stuff is still to be found

Jan

Yes, Jan. But not so easy anymore.

But . . . watch this space . . .

Honestly . . . very honestly . . . this makes me want to weep. That some SOB is selling it . . . .

Yup-but note the ribbon seems different.

"Different" or "Faded" (= "later [or earlier] dyes"??)???

But this can't be yours, so the IMAGE is yours . . . but . . . . Don't wanna break the Law and get to go to Cuba via Gitmo?