Soviet restoration of medals

[bifter]

Hi!!!

Sometimes when i buy medals with damaged or missing enamel i cannot help but repair them!! I know this takes away some of the history, but i cannot help myself.

I got a nice 1938 military merit medal which dated to the russo finnish conflict. It was in a bad way. I washed the ribbon very carfully; cleaned the medal with some silver polish & then used some of the clear red cold enamel for the letters. The dealers i showed it to were very impressed with my restoration. I couldnt help but make it shine. It looked like it needed somone to love it. I also had to find a replacement Monetny Dvor screw plate; but had to make do with a smaller unlettered one.

I understand how some folk think this is a bad thing to do, but somtimes a medal just seems to cry out for restoration!!!

[Ed_Haynes]

It is always a tragedy to see an award with history, something someone may have given their life to deserve, turned into sewage. These aren't our possessions to do with as we wish, I fear. This has nothing to do with the "market value". but with issues far more important.

So sad.

[Eric Gaumann]

Well, some folk like cleaned and reenameled medals and some do not.

Some will say a repaired medal is worth more, some will say its history has been destroyed. There's some truth to both sides. Ultimately it's up to you to decide what to do.

If you like add an image of your new medal. If you aren't allowed yet as a new member email me the image and I'll post it for ya.

[Alex K]

Hi both Ed and Eric raise some good points, I like shiny well enamelled decorations and have many in that condition, I also have several enamelled ones which do have enamel damage (I actually asked a similar question in an earlier post of mine, do I repair or not, I was convinced that it's best not to, as it's part of it's history.). That being said, does how the enamel damage?ocurred make a difference?, If it was through honest recipient wear and tear, then leave alone, but what if it was through a "Modern" accident, such as being dropped, or otherwise damaged, is there an argument for restoring it back to it's known "Original" condition? Just my thoughts

regards

Alex

[Richard LaTondre]

Hi both Ed and Eric raise some good points, I like shiny well enamelled decorations and have many in that condition, I also have several enamelled ones which do have enamel damage (I actually asked a similar question in an earlier post of mine, do I repair or not, I was convinced that it's best not to, as it's part of it's history.). That being said, does how the enamel damage ocurred make a difference?, If it was through honest recipient wear and tear, then leave alone, but what if it was through a "Modern" accident, such as being dropped, or otherwise damaged, is there an argument for restoring it back to it's known "Original" condition? Just my thoughts

regards

Alex

Perhaps the question that should be asked, is what is the final disposition of this medal going to be?

1. Did I obtain this medal for my own private collection to enjoy forever ?

2. Did I obtain this medal for possible furure trade or sale ?

I think that in the case of Nr. 1, this would be the prerogative of the owner and he should be able to do as he wishes.

In the case of Nr. 2, he would have responsibilities to maintain its original condition and not perform any modifications to the medal.

Just a thought

Dick

[Guest Rick Research]

There is nothing sadder than a Red Star with entire arms of enamel gone. That being said, I would probably never consider repairs either.

Here is an example:

This 1938 Khalkin Gold Red Banner was crudely converted to a suspension by the original recipient, who wore it proudly for more than 50 years. It is battered and damaged, but this is how HE wore it, dirty tattered ribbon and all.

This former State Security officer was still wearing this when the Soviet Union ceased to be.

That's not damage-- that's history.

[Alex K]

Hi Rick, I think that's the entire point of what I was trying to say, Recipient's decoration, worn or modified by him to suit his own personal preferences, that has genuine history and is best left alone, It LOOKS real, (BTW I personally thinks the one you've posted looks fantastic and has real history attached to it).

The other points you mention,

Point 1 collecting pieces for their historical value and authenticity where money is not the issue, again the appearance of the piece is not important, and is desirable in any condition.

Point 2, investment, where a piece is bought as an example of a decoration, this would tend to favour pieces in mint or prestiegne condition without any damage whatsoever, as to maximise any return, (may be true, may be not, who knows)

I suspect that may collectors fall somewhere between the two. (I do), In the end, as collectors we eventually find the area that we're most comfortable with. The other point I mentioned, perfectly good pieces which were accidentally damaged, I for one would, I think, consider trying to have it restored as the damage is not part of the recipient's or medals' real history, if the inherent value warranted this, providing it could be done sympathetically to the original condition.

just my thoughts

Regards

Alex

[Veteran]

This is an interesting discussion, reflecting one of the precious aspects of our civilisation : freedom.

The various points made all make sense. They have their bit of truth. And collectors are welcome to their opinions when it comes to the medals and orders they bought to add to their collections.

Now, orders and medals were never made for collectors. They are awards meant to be displayed and worn by people who have earned them. So they get knock around, they slip through their owners fingers and pieces of enamel fly, they jingle on one another (you will know what I mean if you have worn full sized awards on parade). Would a general wear a crooked or badly chipped grand cross star in uniform? Probably not, he would have it repaired, as he would have his watch repaired if it needed.

In the same way, ribbons get dirty or their colours fade. They are replaced by their owners as need may be, just so that they will look their best. It's normal. A good soldier should look neat, his awards included.

Badges are jewels which are meant to look good. They should look good. Simply, if they need repair, they probably should be repaired by a jeweler who knows his trade. If a collector has a very good enameled piece which needs help, he will be acting as the owner would have when he has it fixed. OK, it's a genuine medal which has been repaired. Let's not forget the only way to have absolutely perfect orders and medals to collect is to pick only badges that have never left their presentation cases... which is not much history to tell.

A beautiful repair job on an order that needs and deserves it is a compliment to a witness of the past. That is also what they do in museums. But if you cannot provide expert repair, the award would be better of as it is.

Now every one is intitled to a cut-and-dry opinion on the subject. We are free to have it.

Very best regards to all

Veteran

[Belaruski]

If you get it damaged, leave it. But if you break it, it's up to you to fix it!

[Brian Wolfe]

It is always a tragedy to see an award with history, something someone may have given their life to deserve, turned into sewage. These aren't our possessions to do with as we wish, I fear. This has nothing to do with the "market value". but with issues far more important.

So sad.

Hello everyone,

Ed brings up an interesting point regarding the ownership of military medals. When I was much younger an older collector told me that we don't own these medals, we are just their caretakers. At the time I thought he was a bit senile. Now that I have gained a few more years under my belt (and pounds) I know what he was saying. We are the caretakers of these treasures and some day they will pass from our hands to another. What we do to restore, if we decide to do so, should be recorded somewhere for future caretakers. One of the things we often ignor as collectors is the cataloging of our collections.

Cheers

Brian

[Ed_Haynes]

1. Did I obtain this medal for my own private collection to enjoy forever ?

Good points, all. But, Dick, how does one obtain eternal life? Like it or not, we are NOT the owners of these medals. The only 'owner' is the usually deceased recipient. It was his or her award, and he or she had certain rights. These included the right to reribbon, to modify (for example, screwback to pinback), to use fine enamel or nasty nail polish to repair enamel problems, or to carve their name on the reverse. All these rights lapsed with the death of the only real owner. Thereafter, we have become merely one in a string of custodians (unless Dick's eternal life magic is made public) who have rented (often with a hefty pricetag) the right to host this award for a few years or decades. Whether we see the medal as a short-term investment or a lifetime friend, we have only one right: to recognise that we do not have the right to make permanent changes to the medal and have the solemn duty to research the recipient to whatever extent we can so as to preserve their memory. Then, in a few decades, we pass the medal on to the next custodian in a chain that, we hope, stretches on into the future unless some intervening busy-body vandal mutilates the piece of history that once lay in our hands in and our collection.

Sorry, guys, this is something I feel strongly about. I see this 'hobby' as being 'about' history and a debt to the past and not about crass personal property or easy greedy profits. These are not 'things' or 'private possessions', these are the only tangible pieces surviving of a person's life and history.

[Guest Rick Research]

"A good soldier should look neat, his awards included.

Badges are jewels which are meant to look good. They should look good."

To most people, yes. But it seems to have been a point of PRIDE rather than poverty to many Soviet veterans--including serving officers-- to have worn their awards into battered, dirty ruins. They did not necessarily replace ribbons or repair damage. The results can be quite shocking looking, but that is something that was not at all unusual for Soviet veterans:

[Alex K]

Good points, all. But, Dick, how does one obtain eternal life? Like it or not, we are NOT the owners of these medals. The only 'owner' is the usually deceased recipient. It was his or her award, and he or she had certain rights. These included the right to reribbon, to modify (for example, screwback to pinback), to use fine enamel or nasty nail polish to repair enamel problems, or to carve their name on the reverse. All these rights lapsed with the death of the only real owner. Thereafter, we have become merely one in a string of custodians (unless Dick's eternal life magic is made public) who have rented (often with a hefty pricetag) the right to host this award for a few years or decades. Whether we see the medal as a short-term investment or a lifetime friend, we have only one right: to recognise that we do not have the right to make permanent changes to the medal and have the solemn duty to research the recipient to whatever extent we can so as to preserve their memory. Then, in a few decades, we pass the medal on to the next custodian in a chain that, we hope, stretches on into the future unless some intervening busy-body vandal mutilates the piece of history that once lay in our hands in and our collection.

Sorry, guys, this is something I feel strongly about. I see this 'hobby' as being 'about' history and a debt to the past and not about crass personal property or easy greedy profits. These are not 'things' or 'private possessions', these are the only tangible pieces surviving of a person's life and history.

Ed, I take your point and fully respect the fact that you have very strong feelings about this issue. These pieces are about history (at least the genuine stuff), and most of us believe that we are custodians and not perpetual owners. I think that most genuine collectors do not have an eye to a quick buck or "Greedy profits". We collect because we enjoy the satisfaction of having these in our possession. I have in my collection many pieces from all areas, British Campaign, Imperial and TR German and from many other European states, which I have purchased many years ago for the price of a McBurger. Some of these now have the value of a small automobile, values have increased considerably. It matters not to me that I could now flog the lot of and "Retire to comfy place in the sun". Thats not why I collect, and I would not part with any piece that I am custodian of, regardless of it's real or perceived market value.

The original point was about restoring or not. I give an example, attached is an eiserne halbemund, made by Godet, badly damaged enamel. Is the damage by recipient wear? who knows, the piece came with it's original etui, and a small piece of original ribbon just long enough to attach to a ribbon bar, the reverse shows no sign of being attached to a uniform, What's it's history? was it ever worn? who knows, it's a nice example of a decoration which at some stage has been damaged in some way. As it has no tangible recipients history to it, it becomes a piece of jewellery, which to take up on a previous comment, do you have it repaired? the whole point of the thread, I decided not to, others may feel differently, or, are you saying that one should only collect items with a provenance which can be researched? if that's the case then most of the items in peoples collection should be consigned to the trashcan as their history could never be determined. just my early hours ramblings.

best regards

Alex K

[Alex K]

etui

[Alex K]

These are not 'things' or 'private possessions', these are the only tangible pieces surviving of a person's life and history.

[Alex K]

Medal index card

[Alex K]

Croix De Guerre

[bifter]

So i am a busy body vandal for restoring my damaged medals!? When my grandad died, my gran cleaned his medals every year & even 'vandalised' them by replacing the ribbons; she even removed the wrong ribbons & bought correct ones!!! I guess she too WAS a busy body vandal. Those that refuse to tidy up a filthy peice that was picked up from the mud are insulting the memories of heroes. A war hero would probably take pride in their peices; when dead they need help to do so. If the medal deteriorates then so does the awardees existence, until it is totally gone & forgotten. The chap that was awarded the medal i have restored would probably be very happy that i restored his award to its enamelled state. To leave a peice so dirty & damaged is an insult. I assume those that consider restoration to be vandalism object to other restoration as well; such as the restoration of memorials etc.... We should let them deteriorate as well; God forbid that we should glory these evil people that risk their lives for freedom!!! If anyone were to obtain my grandads medals & leave them dirty or mismounted it would be insulting my family & the very brave things they did. You dont buy a ruined property only to leave it in ruins; you restore it & restore its pride. If your pet dog gets cancer, only an evil fool would leave it as 'that is the way it is itself'; you would remove the cancer. Restoration is needed to keep things going forward. If we all lived as jehovahs witnesses the world would crumble away without any repairs. Imagine if Patton just threw his medals into drawer full of pig ######: you now inherit his medals. Would you do the same just because it was what he did himself? Would you leave them covered in the filth?

I LIKE TO RESTORE DAMAGEDTHINGS ; YOU LIKE TO KEEP THINGS DAMAGED & IN RUINS!! WE HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON WHAT TO DO. HOW DARE YOU INSULT ME FOR BEING DIFFERENT TO YOU. IT WAS YOUR ATTITTUDE THE FREE THINKERS FOUGHT TO DESTROY. YOU WILL ACCEPT THAT I DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY; YOU NEED TO LEARN THAT IT IS RUDE TO INSULT OTHERS FOR NOT DOING AS YOU DO; YOU NEED TO ACCEPT THAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT TO YOU.

[Brian Wolfe]

Hello Bifter,

You should NOT feel insulted by what the members have posted regarding your topic. On the contrary you are to be applauded for posting something that stirs the blood of our fellow members. Passion is something that is lacking in many people and collectors of military history, and historical topics in general, are very passionate in their beliefs. My short term memory may not be what it was but I don't think anyone said that YOU should or should not have restored the medal. I believe they have only stated that THEY would or would not have done this. Another thing to remember is that one of the short comings of any email-style communication is that the recipient can not see the facial expressions, body language or hear the tone of the voice of the sender. Many an in-office fued has started because someone misinterpeted what was meant in an email. On this forum, or any email, we only get to use one of our senses and we are creatures who need all of our senses to communicate properly. Could you imagine world leaders using only email to communicate? We would be in a global war within seconds of the first internet message!

From your response I must assume you too are a collector with a great deal of passion for your hobby. Good for you!

Cheers

Brian

[Brian Wolfe]

Hello Everyone,

I see there is a second thread on the board dealing with this topic and I have responded to it. However, I would like to add something else and it is best posted here.

Restoration is an interesting topic especially when it comes to should we or shouldn't we. I have been involved with many historic buildings in my career. The Heritage folks want to restore them and developers want to tear them down. Keep and restore or remove and replace? That in itself has kept municipal councils busy over the years. The topic that causes even more argument and this is the issue here, is do we restore the building or leave it as is and just preserve and maintain it. Paintings and artifacts also fall under this topic of restore or preserve. I have listened to both arguments in the council chambers and in committee meetings and both sides have very convincing views. I was once a builder and my first thought about old buildings used to be, get me a bulldozer and I'll show you "restoration" you son of a ......! Of course that was based on financial considerations. After being involved in historical buildings and their artifacts for a while I gained an appresiation for what they were and what the mean for future generations. If it were up to me I would restore the buildings but the artifacts I would leave as is. Most of the medals I can afford come with replaced ribbons from the dealer. These are usually Indian or Pakistani medals. I see many groups for sale from India with the original ribbons and if I ever get one I will not replace the ribbons as I believe they would be the original ribbons of the soldier who won them. To think that a brave soldier held these medals and their ribbons in his hands gives it a whole new meaning to me.

I posted a medal a few monts ago on our forum that had a number scratch into it. If I could have removed this number so that you could not have been able to know it was ever on the medal I probably would have done so. When I posted it the members pointed out that this was a number scratched into the medal by a pawn shop. I would have removed part of the history of the medal. Removing history, what a crime if that case. I came close to making a big mistake, therefore I decided right there and then that I would not restore but preserve. Thanks again GMIC.

Cheers

Brian

[Colin Davie]

I know people with nice cars from the 50's.. they are beat up and rusty.

I know people with nice cars from the 50's.. they are pristine, restored and repainted.

IMO the second group care, respect and love their cars far more than the first group.

Just my opinion on restoration.

Medals were not originally meant for collectors... neither I believe were cars.

Each to their own.. BTW Bifter my Grandmother used to give me a penny for polishing my Grandfathers war medals, I'm sure your grandfather is as proud looking down on you as mine was of me.

C

Edited June 30, 2007 by Colin Davie

[Alex K]

Hi Bifter, It's suprising sometimes how a seemingly innocuous posting can stir passions . but as Brian has pointed out, and I say this as a contributor to this particular thread, people have different opinions and yours is as important to the forum as everyones, it's just that sometimes they may differ, that is the point of a forum where people can express opinions, exchange information, and hopefully create a community of (somewhat like-minded) people with a common interest in military history. It would be a pretty boring forum if someone posted a comment and the whole world just said "Yup I agree"

regards

Alex K

[Guest Rick Research]

Opinions are strong but this is a philosophical matter, which light serves better than heat.

It has been my experience in over 40 years of collecting that while Americans and most Germans are of the leave-it-as-last-touched-by-the-dead-and-gone-recipient school of thought, British collectors have generally been of the throw away old original ribbons/(re)mount/keep on polishing school as-if-still-being-worn-by-the-recipient.

Why this should be apparently a genetic National Characteristic I cannot say-- since I am myself of British origin. Must be down to my Celto-Norman DNA admixture. (What National Collecting Characteristics occur outside the Anglo-American, Teutonic, and Slav genes, I do not know. Is this philosophical divide raging among FRENCH or ITALIAN or JAPANESE collectors?...)

I would only add, from my side of this philosophical divide, that with the above noted Conspicuously British Collecting Stuff Exception, all other militaria is REDUCED IN VALUE by alterations and deductions from original matter.

Ten years ago when most Soviet awards were considered unsaleable junk ( ) "dingy, dirty" old ribbons were routinely replaced ? la Albion with brand new replacement stock. Those bright never touched by the original wearer ribbons are now at a substantial discount to the now sought after silk originals-- regardless of condition. That is also the case with all German awards.

There is thus a permanent DEDUCTION in resale value, as well as permanent alteration of original condition.

So while it may be considered quite routine for British collectors to affix a ribbon made in 2007 to a QSA, in other areas that is considered not only philosophically wrong, but financially destructive. Anything that lessens resale is not an improvement.

I've never bought anything in my life with the intention of selling it on for more cash, but as a genealogist of long personal roots, my Long View is that MY opinion isn't of much account in the scheme of things

and 200 years from now (assuming the West in its current decay manages to hold) somebody is going to want to see what the RECIPIENT wore

not what I wanted to see on my long-turned-to-dust wall.

[Alex K]

One of the things we often ignor as collectors is the cataloging of our collections.

Cheers

Brian

Brian, good point. I personally do and have done so from the very first piece I bought. I catalogue every piece with

1-Date purchased

2-My own reference number

3-full item description, including any damage, or in the case of, heaven forbid! replacement or new ribbon where one did not exist.

4-from where purchased

5-Condition (EF, NEF etc)

6-price paid at the time

I find that it allows me to keep a good eye on my collection, and as time passes, jogs the memory about any piece I have.

regards

Alex

[Richard LaTondre]

Good points, all. But, Dick, how does one obtain eternal life? Like it or not, we are NOT the owners of these medals. The only 'owner' is the usually deceased recipient. It was his or her award, and he or she had certain rights. These included the right to reribbon, to modify (for example, screwback to pinback), to use fine enamel or nasty nail polish to repair enamel problems, or to carve their name on the reverse. All these rights lapsed with the death of the only real owner. Thereafter, we have become merely one in a string of custodians (unless Dick's eternal life magic is made public) who have rented (often with a hefty pricetag) the right to host this award for a few years or decades. Whether we see the medal as a short-term investment or a lifetime friend, we have only one right: to recognise that we do not have the right to make permanent changes to the medal and have the solemn duty to research the recipient to whatever extent we can so as to preserve their memory. Then, in a few decades, we pass the medal on to the next custodian in a chain that, we hope, stretches on into the future unless some intervening busy-body vandal mutilates the piece of history that once lay in our hands in and our collection.

Sorry, guys, this is something I feel strongly about. I see this 'hobby' as being 'about' history and a debt to the past and not about crass personal property or easy greedy profits. These are not 'things' or 'private possessions', these are the only tangible pieces surviving of a person's life and history.

On the contrary. Some of us ARE the owners of these medals