Soviet restoration of medals

[Alex K]

Hi Richard, valid and good point, never thought about that option, if they are yours, feel free to do what you want with them, and wait to see if you get condemned.

regards

Alex

[Richard LaTondre]

Hi Richard, valid and good point, never thought about that option, if they are yours, feel free to do what you want with them, and wait to see if you get condemned.

regards

Alex

After 30 years in the U.S. Marine Corps and serving in WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam, I may have a different view on this subject.

[Colin Davie]

The only time I have changed a ribbon is to either put a new piece on a medal obtained with none or to replace a new replaced ribbon with an original old one if I can get one.. yes some people do sell their old ribbons when they personally like to see new ribbons. I prefer old ribbon for the same reason I like salty insignia over mint unissued, and has nothing to do with pleasing the spirit world.

C

Edited July 1, 2007 by Colin Davie

[Ed_Haynes]

Given conditions of climate and the systems of primary medal 'wholesaling' that prevail, it is rare that I see even a post-independence (post-1947) Indian group with original ribbons. Even groups come tied together with string or wire. So, unless one likes their medals naked, reribboning is an unfortunate fact of life. Sometimes reribboning is necessary to preserve the scraps of original ribbon that survive, but they are preserved. While old ribbon can be found, it is getting rarer than the medals themselves.

Among collectors of British medals, reribboning has perhaps become too common, especially given the incredibly ugly modern ribbons that exist.

Yet, I'd suggest that there are VAST differences among:

1- Reribboning naked medals.

2- Stripping off old ribbons and replacing with new glow-in-the-dark synthetics just becausde you like the tacky look.

3- Polishing medals and stripping away decades of sexy patina.

4- Dipping the medals in shiny plating stuff because you like sparkly things.

5- Enameling your medals pink, engraving your name on them, and drilling holes in them simply because you feel they are yours to do with as you wish.

While we may differ on where the "good practices / naughty practices" line falls, we (or maybe at least most of us?) may agree that some of these are beyond the limits of ethical behavior.

Tens of thousands of years ago, when I worked as a summer intern at the Smithsonian, two basic rules of preservation were stressed over and over: (1) Do no restoration that is not an obvious restoration, that can ever be confused with the original. If George Washington's uniform jacket needs reinforcing, do it where it cannot be seen with modern white chemically neutral thread and make no effort to use "replica" "period" thread. Do not try to fake originality. (2) Do no restoration that cannot be easily reversed without doing additional damage and above all make no permanent changes. If the enamel on General Pershing's Legion of Honor is cracked to the point that it REQUIRES fixing, do not under any circumstances re-enamel it, but use a white water-soluble material (I think it was something like a cornstarch and water paste with water colors mixed in) to reinforce it (that can easily be washed off later on).

Aren't these fair guidelines for us?

Edited July 1, 2007 by Ed_Haynes

[NavyFCO]

Yes, this is an interesting debate and there are good arguments for both sides.

I have a good friend who routinely replaces Soviet ribbons and polishes his Soviet awards. 60+ years of patina gone in one fell swoop. But, he believes he's doing the right thing as if they were the medals that he had earned (and he has his own chestful, from Silver Star on down) he'd clean them up the same way.

Another fellow collector and friend remounts even the US groups he owns in the British court-mounting style. LUCKILY he keeps the original ribbons, and DOESN'T polish the medals, so they are "fixable" (as I fix them when I get groups from him!)

I think Rick Research is right when he says that cleaning awards is very much of a cultural thing... I've seen many a nice, shiny British group with new ribbon sell for tons of money, with the clean (and new) ribbon being a "plus" for the value. For the Soviets, there's no way to stereotype, but I've personally never seen a group directly from the veteran that had brand new ribbons on it. Yet, at the same time, I owned probably the "classic" Glory Cavalier group that had the living tar polished out of it being polished every day for over 50 years!!!

"Restoring" is also hobby-specific... My dad collects model trains and since I can remember (he started collecting in the early 1950s) he routinely restored them. He prided himself in being able to take a rust-covered, dirt-encrusted train and restore it to it's original glory. To him that was the enjoyment of the hobby and was perfectly acceptable to everyone that I knew in the hobby. Think of collectors of military vehicles and vintage cars... a "ground up" restoration is a PLUS to the value, not a detriment!

At the same time, imagine document collectors "restoring" paper... Could you see someone take a piece of scotch tape to the backside of a Honus Wagner baseball card in an attempt to perhaps "strengthen" a potential tear in the card??? I think you'd have baseball card collectors die from shock!!!

It's an interesting debate, and I'm not sure if there is a "right" answer. I do like the Smithsonian's take on things though... don't do anything that could be mistaken for a period repair, and make sure everything can be undone. That seems reasonable and prudent - perhaps the "best" way for a compromise.

Dave

P.S. For my own personal medals, when they get dirty, I throw them out and buy new ones.

[Ed_Haynes]

As I shall soon share here, I have an ethical dilemma brewing. Just picked up, yesterday, two nice WWII-era Soviet medals here in New Delhi (how'd they get here?): A four-digit "No." Medal for Bravery and a 1944-ish Medal for 'Combat' Service. They came with all suspension rings, but no suspenders and no ribbons. I am inclined to leave them loose. But . . . ???

[Belaruski]

Ed, I think I have an original combat service medal ribbon that I got in a bag of Soviet things, it's nicely worn, and if you decide to remount the medal, you can have it!

[Carol I]

This is an interesting debate, but I think that what to do to a damaged piece, how much and how depends on the piece and the type of damage. As an example I will show a Knight's Cross of the Order of the Crown of Romania with the tips and hilts of the swords bent.

I am very much tempted to straighten the swords, but what would you do? Leave it as it is? Is the straightening a welcomed restoration or an unwanted repair? If one decides for restoration, should this be done with a pair of coarse pliers to leave obvious marks that a restoration has been performed? Or you would better seek the help of a jeweller to do the restoration as finely as possible?

As a foot note, personally I do not like enamel restorations/repairs.

[Alex K]

Hi Carol I, somewhat unusual damage, for me I would be inclined to seek expert advice from a jeweller to see if they could be straightened without actually damaging the piece, as looking at the picture the extent to which they would have to be straightened may well take it past it's fracture point, thus breaking the tips of, therefore no point in creating further irreversible damage, in this case I think leave alone.

regards

Alex

[Carol I]

Hi Carol I, somewhat unusual damage, for me I would be inclined to seek expert advice from a jeweller to see if they could be straightened without actually damaging the piece, as looking at the picture the extent to which they would have to be straightened may well take it past it's fracture point, thus breaking the tips of, therefore no point in creating further irreversible damage, in this case I think leave alone.

Thanks Alex for the advice. I have the badge for some years now but I haven't done anything yet out of fear that I would damage it even more. Personally I would incline towards an operation at a jeweller who would probably have the means and expertise to improve the fluidity of the metal to bend it without breaking it. But for various reasons the operation would still have to wait some more time.

However, I think it is an apropriate topic of discussion for this thread. How would such an operation be regarded by the various members of the forum? Is it acceptable or not?

[Alex K]

perfect topic for this discussion. These things can sometimes be accomplished by slightly heating the metal,which as you say would improve the malleability. personally if it could done, I would go ahead and do it.

regards

[Kev in Deva]

Hallo Gents

I would be inclined to leave it be, if a jeweller heats the swords it might cause damage to the original enamel work.

Some of the Romanian enamel work is so fine even a change in tempeture has been known to crack it:

(i.e, taking a piece from a controlled temprature of a house / appartment outside into the winter climate on the way

to a collectors meeting!!

Kevin in Deva

[NavyFCO]

Carol I brings up an interesting thought....

What's the difference between "repair" and "restoration"???

I wouldn't have an issue with him having a professional jeweler un-bending the piece, as it should be a simple and easy repair.

But my gut hates the thought of polishing a Soviet For Valor medal or replacing the enamel.

Kidn of a mix of emotions!!! (the pain! the pain!)

I once bought a HSU group that had a very early Lenin and Red Banner that had been originally screwbacks. The veteran had converted them to hanging (as he was supposed to do) and then a collector attempted to reconvert them to screwback by removing the hanging loop and drilling "base" holes for the screwposts.

When I got the group, I took it to my local jeweler (a professional goldsmith) and had him replace the hanging loops on the awards, and then replaced them on the original hanging bar that had come with the group.

Was I right in doing that? That's subject to debate. I repaired them to the way the veteran wore them.

And no, I DIDN'T polish them!

Dave

[Carol I]

Carol I brings up an interesting thought....

What's the difference between "repair" and "restoration"???

That was precisely my point Dave. But I think the difference between the terms should be explained by someone with experience from a museum environment (Ed?) as well as how much it is allowed to work on a damaged piece.

[Brian Wolfe]

Hi Carol,

I would be very careful about taking this or anything to any so-called jeweler, at least here in Canada. The trade has deteriorated to jewelery sellers and not what we were used to decades ago. I have heard many horror stories of botched watch and ring repairs by these "jewelers". Perhaps it is different in the rest of the world but I wouldn't trust these trinket merchants unless you know for sure that they are true professionals.

The other thing to take into consideration is whether you are prepared to take the chance that even a true professional will not break the tips of the swords off in the process. At the moment you have a piece that is at least whole. I think it is worth more as it is, both for it's historic and monitary value. Would you be happy with it in pieces? If not then don't risk it.

Cheers

Brian

[Alex K]

Hi Carol, just out curiosity, any idea how they got bent that way in the first place?

regards

Alex

[Carol I]

Hi Carol,

I would be very careful about taking this or anything to any so-called jeweler, at least here in Canada. The trade has deteriorated to jewelery sellers and not what we were used to decades ago. I have heard many horror stories of botched watch and ring repairs by these "jewelers". Perhaps it is different in the rest of the world but I wouldn't trust these trinket merchants unless you know for sure that they are true professionals.

The other thing to take into consideration is whether you are prepared to take the chance that even a true professional will not break the tips of the swords off in the process. At the moment you have a piece that is at least whole. I think it is worth more as it is, both for it's historic and monitary value. Would you be happy with it in pieces? If not then don't risk it.

Cheers

Brian

Thanks Brian for the advice, but as I said I am not going to do anything for a while.

[Carol I]

Hi Carol, just out curiosity, any idea how they got bent that way in the first place?

I have no idea Alex. It's not as if someone has dropped the badge. Had this happened I suspect that only one or two of the tips would have been bent, not all of them. Furthermore, except for a couple of hairline cracks and minute flakings, there is no damage to the enamel. All these make me think that the damage was done intentionally. However, I can find no reason for this except that it was done by someone who played with the medal.

[Alex K]

Hi Carol I, that's the reason for asking, it was obviously no accident, but purposely done, which does seem slightly odd.

regards

[Guest Rick Research]

I agree that any attempt to straighten those sword ends will most likely snap them right off. WEIRD as that is, I would leave the Order exactly "as is" because there is always a chance (stranger--far far stranger things have happened) that in 2 days or 30 years from now-- you might well find a nice portrait photograph of the original wearer proudly posing with his award squished that way...

so the tips would not chip Orders on either side of it?

I once had a 1939 EK1 in a group that had been "vaulted" with pliers. It was won 6 weeks from the end of the war-- I obtained it and other awards (including a "self-vaulted" Luftwaffe Ground Assault Badge) directly from the original recipient. When asked WHY he did this, he said

1) he wanted HIS EK1 to look like his dad's from WW1

2) the damned wings on the LGAB kept catching on his overcoat lining and jiggling the pin out of its catch

and perhaps most important of all

3) he had absolutely no idea that the war was GOING to be over in 6 weeks.

Here's an example from today's militaria show here:

I just paid $10 for this Moscow Jubilee Medal because even though most of the extra finish is gone from the medal (which somebody has polished in an attempt to compensate ) because it is on an original suspension with the OLD lime green ribbon, rather than the grass green replacement ribbons so often seen. The RIBBON and suspension is now worth what I paid, even if the medal had been missing.

"Parts" become "valuable" once they start... disappearing. With finite numbers, any deductions means Less Original Available. And in EVERY field of collecting except British, THAT is going to INCREASE the value of untouched pieces.

[Alex K]

so the tips would not chip Orders on either side of it?

An interesting possibility, not thought of that, maybe he should have left it as it was and just sewn the awards to the ribbon to stop them jingling about, we will never know. BTW a very interesting thread this has become

regards

Edited July 1, 2007 by Alex K

[Ed_Haynes]

To clarify - Not all collectors of British medals like the plated and shiny ribbon look, no more than all US medal collectors like the anodized look that has been invented by some dealers. Yes, reribboning is more accepted than among, say, German collectors, but whose standards constitute the 'norm'?

[Guest Rick Research]

Mine of course.

OK, so now we're all agreed forever?

[Wild Card]

Gentlemen,

Well, it seems that we have a real minefield here I find the range of philosophies as well as the ?why?s and why not's? very interesting and few without merit. In reading the thread, I naturally found myself searching for where I might fit in; and came up with a really mixed bag. I think that if I explain my own rules, and the reasoning behind them, there may be a point or two that can be applied to much that has been posted so far.

The part of my collection that applies directly to this thread, although it is not the major part of my collection is, of course, The Soviet. With regard to my Soviet pieces, I leave them ?as is?. Whether they are missing enamel and/or ribbon or are bright and shiny, I like to believe that this is how they were when they left the recipient?s possession, and that is the key word - recipient. Most all of my Soviet pieces are recipient identified and it is that connection that attracted me to Soviet; so condition is really secondary.

The second part of my collection consists of a few Mongolian pieces; which presents the opposite position. What attracted me to this area is the incredible enamel work which is found on some of these pieces, especially the early ones. Therefore, I try to buy pieces which are as mint as possible. The recipient, and I should point out that none of mine are identified, is not a factor.

The third part, and by far the largest part of the collection is Imperial German. I must confess that in this area, I do tend to clean pieces that really need it. At the same time, some do look best with a good patina; and those are left ?as is?. Interestingly, my two mentors in the Imperial German were George Seymour and Eric Ludvigsen, both of whom were among the most highly respected scholars in this area; and both of whom took exactly opposite positions on this issue - one wanted his pieces ?as they were when presented? while the other kept his ?as worn? although when patina presented the the threat of turning to oxidation. he took action.

In the end, I must admit that when it comes to Soviet pieces, I am not offended by the ones ?with character? and would never consider changing them. It?s part of the package. This also applies, to a degree, to Imperial German pieces, especially 19th century medal bars. At the same time, when it comes to display pieces, I will hold out for the (as close as possible) flawless examples.

To some, the piece below may be ; but to me

Thanks for reading and best wishes,

Wild Card

[Alex K]

Hi Wild Card, now from my point, with a little tin of red paint....... ?only joking

regards

Alex