JapanX

Lately Paul was really concerned with my “sweeping statements”, “theories without proof”, “preconceived views”, “twisting” and “ignoring” (this is not the full list, but I think you get the general idea ). So I am thinking it will be a good thing to demonstrate how “sweeping statement” looks like. Here is two pieces with different enamel shades and reverse execution. Both have no enamel on reverse.

On second (third, forth and firth ) look you are right. This is indeed 1895 medal.

Here you can find your answer Hope you will like this one

Come on! By this photo even kite couldn't be identified with 100% accuracy (although It still looks like type 5a? or 5b?). Why you are so certain? Don't you think that upper part of medal looks too round for 1895? But maybe it's just me and you are right. What we really need is a close-up of this medal.

By the way Paul, are you sure about 1895? The medal under the epaulet looks like 14-15 or 14-20, but certainly not 1895 medal (it has specific form )

It is known for a fact? Or just because he had one and only campaign medal? Is the date when this photo was taken is known? Well, sometimes golden kites could be issued for diplomat/intelligence work. You know my reasons I stated them in the classification thread. Well. If the date of the photo is known and it is before 1914, then it is some strange looking kite (at least by photo) for 1895 kite. That's for sure. So either my attribution of this type to Taisho period is wrong or this is kite that I've never seen before and it came from Meiji period. I wonder what rivets this kite had...

Yes, it looks like Taisho piece to me. At least it should Taisho according to my classification Let me guess - the man at the photo get his kite certainly not during Taisho period?

Dear Paul please tell me where in the text of this thread I said that you applied this rule to the higher classes? You sure know a lot about me and my abilities Are you kidding me?! Do you really need a ruler for cases like 8.1 vs. 8.2 (hope you agree that these two pieces from Meiji?) or 7.2 vs 7.3 (hope you agree that these two pieces from Meiji either?). On the basis of my experience. Good luck with that! Sorry, but this approach is wrong, as my little study clearly demonstrates. Very gentlemanly remark Paul! Well Paul, usually you don't answer to my questions, so please tell me why should I answer yours? Because of imperious tone? I don't think so Paul. Not to mention all your experience of dealing with 7th and 8th classes (hundreds and hundreds...) With such vast experience you certanly don't need my humble opinion.

I think nobody At least nobody I know :lol:

But it will be wrong to conclude that every piece from Meiji epoch should have such vein! That’s all for today! Cheers, Nick

Summing-up The only part of this “vein” rule that is actually works could be formulated like that.

Minute of silence please!

2

1

But let’s turn our attention to 1st classes. That will be really something! Testing the rule for 1st class orders Same old gallery routine.

1

Same depressing picture you’ll get for 6-4 classes. By the way, it will be interesting to note striking similarity (by enamel color, manufacturing style, etc…) between later after-war specimens. Please take a look at this compilation.

2

1

Testing the rule for 3rd class orders And another set of galleries.

Well, I think comment is superfluous. But what’s up with these upper classes and our rule? From bad to worse. Allow me to demonstrate.

3

2

1

Testing the rule for 7th class orders Another set of photo galleries – this time for 7th class orders.