Polish Mounted Pair

[Riley1965]

Doc

Edited March 18, 2007 by Riley1965

[Riley1965]

And

Edited March 18, 2007 by Riley1965

[Stogieman]

A rather scarce pair Doc..

[Lukasz Gaszewski]

Hi Doc,

A nice finding, - congratulations!!! And a humble request: would any information regarding Polish decorations prior to WWII, WWII (excluding the eastern front), as well as current awards be put in the "Orders, Medals & Decorations of Belgium, France and other European Nations" section rather than the "Soviet & Eastern Block Orders, Medals & Decorations" section. They do not have anything to do with the Soviet bloc, indeed! Same regards, the decorations of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Yugoslavia and other countries that found temselves on the other side of the Iron Curtain after the war.

Best regards,

Lukasz

[Riley1965]

Doc

Edited March 18, 2007 by Riley1965

[Hendrik]

request: would any information regarding Polish decorations prior to WWII, WWII (excluding the eastern front), as well as current awards be put in the "Orders, Medals & Decorations of Belgium, France and other European Nations" section rather than the "Soviet & Eastern Block Orders, Medals & Decorations" section.

Hello Lukasz,

I've sent a message to the forum's chairman on this for his decision ...

Doc, it's indeed a lovely pair of medals

Cheers,

Hendrik

[Lukasz Gaszewski]

Thanks, Doc. It is a nice pair indeed! If Prof. Wesolowski fails, I will try to id who these two belonged to.

Best regards to all,

Lukasz

[Ed_Haynes]

Lovely pair, but we may need a better category than just cramming it in among the Belgians and French?

Frankly, had I not followed it over, I'd never have found it here (if I didn't read widely -- too widely perhaps -- across the forum).

[Riley1965]

Doc

Edited March 18, 2007 by Riley1965

[Riley1965]

Doc

Edited March 18, 2007 by Riley1965

[GregK]

Hi there,

New to this forum so please don't take my next statement the wrong way but I'm not convinced that these are original. I especially have my reservations about the Monte Cassino Cross.I have several of these in my personal collection and all of them are identical to each other but different to this one. Secondly I find it difficult to believe that a person would have been awarded these two awards and none others. At best he should have had at least had the 1939-1945 Star as well as the Italy Star and Polish Medalu Wojska. I'm 98% sure that these are bad but would really like to see side shots of the Cassino medal to be positive. I can also post my known originals for comparison if need be.

Cheers,

Greg

[Riley1965]

Doc

Edited March 18, 2007 by Riley1965

[GregK]

Hi Doc,

No offence to you or the Professor but I stand by what I said. Just because they came from the Professor's collection doesn't mean that they are original. Writing a book on a topic does not mean that you know everything. I have seen too many people get burned by trusting someone based solely on their reputation (not talking about anyone in particular...just a blanket statement). I can and will post photos of 100% originals and point the differences between mine and yours.

Regards,

Greg

[Riley1965]

Doc

Edited March 18, 2007 by Riley1965

[Paul R]

I cannot vouch on the authenticity of the grouping, but I am excited to see what the research discovers.

Regards

Paul

[Riley1965]

Doc

Edited March 18, 2007 by Riley1965

[GregK]

Hi Doc,

Sorry if I offended you. It was not my intent. As far as you calling me "Full of hot air" I do take some offence to that. All I was doing was offering another viewpoint. As far as me being unknown that may be the case on this forum but I assure you that there are many around that would back up my reputation and knowledge. If you search other forums for my user name you will see that I have a great deal of knowledge in this area.I am also a member of the local SPK and have handled literally hundreds of these particular medals in their archives so I do have some experience. I don't claim to be perfect (far from it even) but I think I do know what I am talking about. As far as the Professor selling you a copy he may not have done it intentionally (I never acused him of such). Just because you have a name to go with this # does not mean that this is the medal awarded to that individual. I can buy a set of metal stamps at the local hardware store and stamp Anders' # on cross and sell it if I wanted to. If you'd like me to I'm still willing to post photos of mine for comparison. If not then that's your loss (both intelectually and monetarily).

Ceers,

Greg

[Riley1965]

Doc

Edited March 18, 2007 by Riley1965

[GregK]

Against my better judgement I will post one example only and point out the differences. You can do with that information what you please. I'm not asking to be your only source of information...all I wanted to do was give you another point of view. If you choose to trust the professor as your source then that is your prerogative. All I can say is Caveat Emptor. I'll let the pictures speak now.

Regards,

Greg

[Riley1965]

Doc

Edited March 18, 2007 by Riley1965

[GregK]

The fron of one of my crosses. Note the detail around the box.

Edited March 18, 2007 by GregK

[GregK]

The reverse. The detail is far more clear in this photo.

[GregK]

Closer shot of the reverse. Note how sharp the stamping of the #'s is. It is like this on ALL originals. Note the soft trasition in the valleys of all the arms. On yours it is much sharper and far less uniform. See also the detail around the box. It's lacking on your example. Lastly the hole on yours appears rounded out. These were made of a very sturdy alloy. I've seen these where they looked like they were pulled behind a truck and the hole has always remained in perfect condition. Yours unfortunately is not.

You can now do with this information what you like but please note that I have many badges that are known originals that the Professor has misidentified in his book. In fact in a couple of cases he only has drawings of them and the information provided is incorrect. His book was groundbreaking in it's day but much of the information has been refuted inrecent times. He was working with the best information he had at the time and for that I applaud him but his book is now 20+ years old and needs to be amended.

[GregK]

Doc,

Didn't see your reply before I posted. Apology accepted and please accept one on my behalf. I didn't come here to make enemies. I came to share my knowledge and to learn from others. No hard feelings.

Cheers,

Greg

Edited March 18, 2007 by GregK

[Riley1965]

Doc

Edited March 18, 2007 by Riley1965