Display of medals, creation of bars

[mravery]

Hello All,

I?m not sure if this is the proper forum for this thread so if not, moderator can you please move it.

In light of a few recent conversations I would like to post a thread discussing the creation of medal bars for the purpose of displays. There seems to be many comments in regards to this topic from both sides of the house. In reference to this, I would say that there is no ?wrong? answer as long as history is not destroyed in the process.

First.. A few ground rules.

1) NO PERSONAL attacks?.. This goes against the entire reason for the Gentleman?s Military Interest Club and will not be tolerated.

2) The bars in discussion are for DISPLAY purposes only and are not made to deceive or defraud in any way.

3) The items used to create these bars were acquired WITHOUT destroying any original medal bars.

4) Moderator? PLEASE watch this thread and ensure that the comments made are for the benefit of the topic in question and that it remains ?Gentlemanly? in nature.

Ok? with those out of the way?.. here is the topic?.

At what point or ?extreme? is a collector doing harm to the hobby (if at all) when creating medal bars for displays? We as collectors are all very passionate in our interests and love the hobby. We all have different point?s of view and collecting interests.

Case in point for an example??. I am a uniform collector specializing in General?s parade style uniforms. Hence, the need for medal bars. It is not often, if ever, that a collector would be able to acquire the uniform AND the original medal bar for a display (unless your lucky enough to get directly form the family). Being as such, medal bars are needed to be ?created? to properly honor the officer?s service. In my case, I use original medals/orders that are loose (I do not destroy any original bars) and create a representative medal bar once the general has been researched and his awards identified. Picture attached is Ernst I von Sax-Altenburg with a ?created? bar.

I have had conversations with many medals and orders collectors over the years that feel that this is wrong.

My reason for this thread is to discuss the reasons (pro and con) for this practice so that I can understand their reasons and perhaps they can understand mine.

A few points to consider:

Should loose medals stay loose ?

I have seen British medal collectors that take the loose medals for a named soldier and properly mount them on ribbons, backed with cardboard, for display in glass cases. Is this ok ?

If you acquire a loose medal without a ribbon.. should you put a ribbon on it for display ?

If you have a commanders neck award.. should it only be displayed in the case, or is it ok to hang on a uniform ?

If you have breast stars, should they be displayed on a uniform or left in a glass case ?

If you acquire, say, loose Italian medals, is it ?ok? to slide them back on the bar ?

For French uniforms, is it ?ok? to mount them on the uniforms individually (also applies to Austrian and Bulgarian) ?

When is the ?display? enough ?

Just some points to think about and I look forward to all replies.

Cheers

Mark

[JBFloyd]

I have no problem with creating display bars, but there's always the concern about what happens next.

I've seen numerous "display" bars that wind up in the market as if old and attributable. Usually these are obvious and not of great concern, since they have value based on the individual pieces. But I lost count at about 8 of collectors I've met who "own" Richtofen's bar. None ever had any original paper, so their attrubution was based on the presence of the REO3 and a story passed along by the previous owner (who never seems to be around anymore). They got hosed for varying amounts of money and are unhappy campers when they discover it. The opportunity for fraud is great.

I'd certainly suggest some aspect of the display bar be a key to its real age, whether new ribbons, notation on the back, whatever.

[Gerd Becker]

Well in my opinion it is okay, if you really ONLY use loose pieces and repro ribbon for the construction of a bar and it has to be marked on the reverse as a constructed group in a way, that it is not removable. In my opinion there is nothing to say against it, if you do it like this.

Gerd

[Gerd Becker]

but to answer your questions, at least the one i can say something about...

Should loose medals stay loose ?

No, not necessarily. See reply above.

If you acquire a loose medal without a ribbon.. should you put a ribbon on it for display ?

Yes, thats no problem in my humble opinion. But i do not like it to replace an old ribbon for a new more shiny one

If you have a commanders neck award.. should it only be displayed in the case, or is it ok to hang on a uniform ?

Both is okay, if you don?t have to mess with any original ribbons.

If you have breast stars, should they be displayed on a uniform or left in a glass case ?

Both is okay, no difference in my opinion.

[Tom Y]

Gerd has pretty well summed up my opinion. One thing I would suggest is using UV positive repro ribbons with "Repro" or somesuch written on the back with indelible ink, maybe even engraved on the bar itself

[Jacky]

I think that every thing is fine, as we are admiring the beauty and history of the orders, decorations and/or medals!

But the main point of re-enactment/recombining medals is what happens thereafter,

As long as no original bars, ribbons, groups etc etc have been hurt, I don't see any problem with using them for your own bars,

and if you can clearly see that the bar is not an original group but put together, I'm sure that no-one will feel hurt by your efforts!

At last, I have to say I like your displays!

Kind regards

Jacky

[Ed_Haynes]

This is not an easy one, Mark, and I sincerely thank you for raising it directly, openly, and honestly. While we (both the two of us and our wider community) may disagree, I think it is important for our attitudes to be fully and clearly understood and expressed. Andi t is equally important for us to disagree agreeably, as GENTLEMEN. While harsh vocabulary may be required, please know that no finger-pointing or personal attack is intended in what I am about to say.

This may be lengthy, and for that I do not apologize, for I truly think it is an important issue that deserves full discussion. I cannot think of any other issue on which I may be classed as a "conservative", though this one comes close to being "it".

Background and perspective: I am a phalerist. A medal collector, if you will (must). Period. I do not now collect uniforms, though I once had a few. Other than family uniforms (which I don't think of as "collecting" and about which I have no real choice) and one tunic that has, for me, significant phaleristic link-up value, I disposed of all of them years ago. This was partially due to storage problems but largely due tolsimple lack of interest. Uniforms lacked, for me, the evocative history which medals held (and still hold). I am also an unapologetic professional historian, and come to this phaleristic study in large part by that road. The history that medals represent is vitally and centrally important to me, the ability to rescurrect an otherwise lost indivdual (and era) is my motivating factor. My area of specialization is post-1947 and pre-1947 medals to the Indian Army, almost all of which are named. A medal (loose or grouped) is uniquely (and here I am using the word properly) linked to a person whose history and deeds can, with research and luck, be recovered. Subordinate phaleristic fields have become things like Soviet and Mongolian ODM which, although not named, are usually numbered, and with even more research and even more luck the hidden stories can be divulged, some day. With few exceptions, unnamed medals no longer hold much more than numismatic interest for me, except when mounted in legitimate original period groups which reflect a person, although he (or she) will likely remain forever anyonymous. For me, unifoms are no more than a curious backdrop for medals, a deep background scenery to be ignored in exchange for a focus on the main attraction: The medals are the history. I realise (but must admit I do not understand this) that for uniform collectors, medals are no more than sparkly additions to dress up a uniform. OK, I don't get it -- guilty as charged m'lord. When I have been offered medals together with the person's uniform, I have passed on the group, not wishing to sever the two, although I must admit that I have secretly wished the uniforms had not been there to complicate matters. The nuisance costume was irrelevant and uninteresting, the medals were (and are) the focus.

Basic attitudes: The medals are the focus, the historcal mesaage, the "core content". An individual's medals are his (or her) medals, named, numbered, or unnamed. Anything else is an attractive fraudulent invention, however fanciful, however pretty, but no more than an imagined fantastic made-up thing stripped out of history. When the medals are unnamed or unnumbered, research and provanance must be the only guide. I must admit that I have a couple of Soviet groups (with core numbered and researched decorations) where I have "restored" the strayed (unnumberd, unnamed) campaign medals, since these are among the very few groups that I intend someday to display. (More on this later.) And, to be quite honest, I feel extremely dirty and corrupt about having done this and am almost ashamed to admit I have committed this crime against history and nature. Medals are separate and distinct things, not pretty additions to a crop of cloth called a uniform. I am not sure how to make this clearer. Maybe the focused uniform collector would feel the same way if a button collector wanted to snip off the buttons and junk the uniform as so much irrelevant trash? Or see a uniform as merely a way to display buttons? I am not sure.

Ownership vs. custody: Whatever "things" we collect (and I fervently hope, also study), they are simply not ours. We do not "own" them. The owner is the recipient, known or unknown, living or long since dead. We have paid rent (and sometimes a lot of rent) to host these things as our guests until we pass them on in years or decades to another custodian. We owe it to the legitmate owner (= the recipient) and to history to follow the Hippocratic Oath that doctors take: First do no harm. Do nothing irreversible, do not engrave our names on the medals, do not dye the unoforms pink just because we like pink, and do all that we can do to reunite missing medals (I have paid up to five times fair market value in the cause of group reunification -- ouch). These items -- whether uniforms, or medal groups, or even single medals -- are NOT "ours" to have our way with and do with (or to) them what we wish. Overly romantic? Overly historcal? Again, guilty as charged. When I hold in my hand medals to an Punjabi sepoy who died in captivity after Kut, how can you blame me?

Display: I do not at present display ANY of my medals. Almost all of them live sadly and lonesome in bank vaults and I have only scans to fondle lovingly. I have (and I am seriously behind in my cataloging) something in excess of 300 groups and over 3000 individual medals (in and out of groups). The best I can hope for is a multi-drawer cabinet at home and two or three groups on the wall on a rotating basis. And this will require reclaiming space from my now-in-college-but-still-spatially-demanding daughter. The house next door is up for rent, and I am (no joke) tempted.

To turn to your questions:

Should loose medals stay loose ?

If unattributed and unattributable (unnamed, unnumbered) and orphaned, of course. This medal was awarded to someone, and it is his (hers). To reassemble it and attribute it to another is criminal. It is not a "thing", it is part of a person's life. Admittedly, it is a person who whill be perpetually unknown (since his group was broken up by . . . someone . . . at some stage). Issued or unissued, we may never know, though I am prepared to take the conservative stance and assume that orphaned solo medals are (were) someone's and I would be unwilling to create a monster (think: Dr. Frankenstein) by recombinig loose pieces.

I have seen British medal collectors that take the loose medals for a named soldier and properly mount them on ribbons, backed with cardboard, for display in glass cases. Is this ok ?

If medals come on the original mount, leave it alone. Most of the medals I get come to me as naked groups, tied up with string and snipped off their original ribbons. Among British medal collectors (and I know the Germans will pull out their black lights and gag in Teutonic unison here), remounting is accepted and normal (though maybe too aggressively undertaken). Getting quality ribbon is now a big problem, but it is standard practice. But, then, these medals are named.

If you acquire a loose medal without a ribbon.. should you put a ribbon on it for display ?

Sure, as a single ribboned medal, with original ribbon if possible. Naked medals should be dressed.

If you have a commanders neck award.. should it only be displayed in the case, or is it ok to hang on a uniform ?

Keep it in the case, safe and secure and happy. Unless you know for a certainty that the uniform and the medal belonged to the same person. Anything else is something between intentional fraud and cimena costuming.

If you have breast stars, should they be displayed on a uniform or left in a glass case ?

I just answered that. Sorry, but the question seems to presuppose that medals without uniforms are somehow incomplete?! To paraphrase the old feminist challenge: A medal needs a uniform like a fish needs a bicycle.

If you acquire, say, loose Italian medals, is it ?ok? to slide them back on the bar ?

Unless you know they all belonged to the same person, of course not. To do so would be to manufacture a fake "group".

For French uniforms, is it ?ok? to mount them on the uniforms individually (also applies to Austrian and Bulgarian) ?

Same as above.

When is the ?display? enough ?

Sorry, I don't know what you are asking here, but see my comments on display above.

UNASKED QUESTION: What is so wrong with "making" groups: And here I must apologize if I offend anyone, but, as my favorite one-liner from US history puts is "If this be treason, make the most of it." Making up a group that never existed from medals (or even ribbons) that never belonged together is, quite simply, fraud. I cannot see it is any different from the unethical eBay vendors for whom we as a community hold such legitimately unsuppressed disgust who manufacture "groups" of medals or faked ribbon bars or who, correspondingly but closely related, rip up previously mounted historical groups to maximise profit by flogging the medals individually. Like it or not, all these attitudes and actions feed off each other. It is all linked and we must accept this "inconvenient truth". We may feel ourselves somehow moral by saying: "Oh, I am just doing this to 'dress' this uniform. I know the groups are 'invented' and will never sell them as real." But what happens to your collection when you die in years or decades? Unless you want your entire collection to go with you on your flaming Viking funeral boat, they will go back into commerce, and will constitute even more poison in the communal phaleristic water from which the next generation(s) will drink. Do you want to be responsible for THAT??? Maybe you don't care? Maybe you should?

Sorry for the length and, at times, for the tone, but I did want to be clear. Reasonable people may disagree, but I wanted my attitude to be unambiguously stated.

Truly sorry if I offended anyone or stepped on any toes.

Edited May 13, 2007 by Ed_Haynes

[mravery]

Hey Ed,

Thank you for your reply. I truly appreciate it and I also feel that this is an excellent topic to discuss between collectors. It is/was not my intention to try to sway or convince anyone to change their way of thinking but rather to have the conversation so that we may discuss our ?passions? with an open mind. To make the discussion even of more value, it?s nice to know that you and I are at the extreme ends of the spectrum which will make this a great topic. As I had originally stated?. None of the conversation was (or will) be taken personally and there was no offense taken by me from any of your comments.

I would first like to make my disclaimer about medals. Any medals that are ?traceable? (i.e. British campaign medals named) should never be broken up? however I have used them in their entirety to create a bar. When the time comes for this bar to find a new home (I can only take so much with me in the coffin) it will fool no one as there are three separately named groups. None were mounted, all purchased as separates? so no need to take the oxygen Ed.

Being a ?uniform? collector (I know has not much more value to you than the newspaper that you line the cat box with) and the temporary custodian (yes, you and I are on the same page with this) of the uniform before it passes to the next custodian, for me, is the true passion. Many of my uniforms are named and dated via a tailor?s label. As a uniform collector there is no other proof or closer way to know and honor the original owner than by having the uniform. Yes, as you mentioned, as a uniform collector.. the medals are just ?bright and shinny?s?, replicating the original service of the owner of the uniform.

As a uniform collector and with the emphasis on the cloth, the justification (for me anyway) is that if it was not for the uniform, the medals would not exist. They were also made and awarded to be worn not locked in a display case or framed on the wall (until retirement that is). Should a Breast star or Commander?s badge be displayed on a uniform ? Heck yeah, that?s where it was originally intended for it to go. Only if it was the original one for the owner ?? who knows.. could not prove one way or the other and I would not care or try to prove it.

In regards of display?.. Go for the house next door Ed. It would drive me nuts having a collection like yours without the ability to display them. I?m sure my time will also come as I have two young boys (3 and 6) that I?ll need to deal with at a later time. As you mentioned before?. Uniforms are not the easiest things to display nor are they space saving.

As far as the ?making up groups?.. I can only speak for myself. The ?parts? that I use are replacements ribbons (new manufacture) with newly made fixtures (some brass, some plastic etc) and any medal collector who may look at these bars in the future will know the second that they get it in their hands (if not before). Anyone who tries to pass replicated bars as original is committing fraud (one of the disclaimers from my first post) and is meant to be outside of this conversation.

Oh.. and just as a final comment?. Ed? I would consider taking my collection with me on my Viking funeral barge (for what I paid for some of it I probably should)?. But that would destroy history so it?s not an option!

Cheers and please keep those cards and letters coming !

Mark

Edited May 13, 2007 by mravery

[Ed_Haynes]

Neat!

I think we have staked out the two extremes and marked our territory "appropriately".

Others . . . ?????

[Yankee]

I have been a medal collector since 13 years of age, can certainly understand Ed's concern of medals being misused for improper purposes or falling into the wrong hands. Mark is doing something out of the ordinary that few would ever contemplate. To collect both fields simultaneously in such detail is no easy task. As a collector I can see the passion for imperial uniforms they are beautiful and historic. Dress uniforms were designed ( loops ) to hold decorations here is where the collector needs to decide how far to take it. There can't be too many imperial uniforms that still exist surely time would have taken its toll. Just as decorations they need to be preserved and if necessary restored for future generations.

Sincerely

Brian