EK 1939 Oakleaves... good or bad?

[Gordon Williamson]

Using Speedy's logic, should all our LDO production WW1 awards be considered "copies" :-) ?????

That was my point. They were copies. Legitimate copies, but copies nevertheless. The original wartime catalogue referred to LDO marked pieces as "Nachbildungen" -- "Reproductions", or "Copies"

In today's collector-speak "Copy" is a derogatory term, but even back then, the Germans considered LDO pieces as Copies. Identical in every way to the official award for sure but for the LDO mark, but if intended for retail sale as opposed to an official award piece, they were considered a Copy.

[Chris Boonzaier]

That is indeed a bag of snakes... :-)

That would mean that many of the Period 39-45 pieces in our collections are copies then.

Have 2 EK1s in a group, and the one the soldier bought is a copy.... but in all probability you will never be able to tell which one it is :-)

This is complicated by awards where a soldier could buy them WITHOUT the LDO mark. My wifes grandfather bought an extra destroyer badge, a schwerin piece.... technically a copy then :-)

this is a topic that deserves a thread of its own :-)

[Gordon Williamson]

Yup, an unmarked piece from before the advent of the LDO could be just about anything. Even after the LDO and its marking regulations appeared, there were clearly many firms which ignored them ( ever seen a Schwerin KM War Badge with an L/ mark ? ). One thing you can be sure of though is that if a piece does carry an LDO mark then officially, it was a Copy. Even with the 40s manufactured replacement 1914 EKs a piece supplied as an official replacement would have the Präsidialkanzlei mark and would be a real "official", the identical badge award bz the same maker purchased retail would be LDO marked and thus, a Copy.

One of the reasons I never had much liking for badges with an LDO mark - with only a few rare exceptions in high awards like the RK, they were copies bought "over the counter", not an official award earned in battle.

[Chris Boonzaier]

One of the reasons I never had much liking for badges with an LDO mark - with only a few rare exceptions in high awards like the RK, they were copies bought "over the counter", not an official award earned in battle.

Indeed.. but there the bag of snakes becomes a can of worms.....

Lets say Joe Blow was awarded a "65" EK1. He put a lot of sentimental value on it and bought himself an unmarked cross, leaving his "65" mint in a box at home.

That "65" mint in a box... I would Loooooove to have.

That unmarked copy that he wore at Stalingrad, Tobruk, Monte Casino, Normandy, in the Bulge, Last days in Berlin, hidden in his cavity for 3 years in Siberia then wore for a year as a mercenary in the Congo....would do it for me as well :-)

I think given the amount of groups that have unmarked "extras"... they are difficult to dismiss and "ugly sisters" ...

[speedytop]

Hi,

must we really talk (write) about basic definitions here?

Or do several collectors and especially sellers have their own definition for originals?

Is the OMSA definition not accepted? If it is not accepted, it is quite worthless, to discuss it here furthermore.

OMSA definition, see Post 20:

"Original" - means medals authorized by, or produced under contract to, the issuing entity during the period for which the award was authorized or awarded to the recipients of the medal.

BDOS and ÖGÖ definition in German:

Originale

Alle verliehenen Exemplare sind Originale.

Darüber hinaus bezeichnet man als Originale solche Exemplare, die im Verleihungszeitraum im Auftrag von berechtigten Personen hergestellt worden sind oder werden und welche die wesentlichen gestalterischen Merkmale von verliehenen Exemplaren aufweisen.

"im Verleihungszeitraum" = "during the period for which the award was authorized or awarded"

How could a 1941 produced WW1 iron cross be an original?

How could a 1950 or 1957 or 2009 produced EL or ELS be an original?

If you can not live with the word copy, then please say non-original or whatever you want, but never original.

Hi PK,

Not one of my requests had been answered.

Please ("please" is not an order), show me the sections or the sentences, where I can find the answers:

"1957 BRD legislation reauthorised the production ... of every grade of the 1939 Knight's Cross" [here exclusively for EL, ELS, ELSmB]

"... a cased EL or ELS ... can fairly be described as a 1957-issue award"

"A veteran ... who bought ... a set of solid silver EL from the Kleiderkasse ... was buying officially approved revised and reproduced decorations..."

Hi Gordon,

You know, that the most of the Third Reich decorations had been produced post May 1945, before the "Ordensgesetz" from 1957. Let us take one year, e.g. 1953.

What is a 1953 produced EL or ELS? An original 1953 version (pattern)?

"However, the manufacture of these was permitted and they were made alongside the "true" 57ers"

Please, where I can find the permission for a EL or ELS in the regulations?

And yes, it is not surprising, that especially the sellers of copies try to name their copies a "1957 version", because they can meanwhile expect more money for a 1957 version than for a copy.

Hi Chris,

"Using ... logic, should all our LDO production WW1 awards be considered "copies"

Yes!

But don't lump together LDO marked WW1 and WW2 decorations. That is really worth a thread of its own.

In the "Ordensgesetz" from 1957 you cannot find award regulations (Verleihungsbestimmungen, Statuten) for a specified decoration!

The "Verdienstorden der Bundesrepublik Deutschland" and other German decorations have their own award regulations.

Please see here for example, "3.3 Statut des Verdienstordens der Bundesrepublik Deutschland" together with the "3.4 Ausführungsbestimmungen zum Statut des Verdienstordens der Bundesrepublik Deutschland"on page 23 (25) ff.:

http://www.bundespra...Deutschland.pdf

For the denazified decorations of the Third Reich "Verleihungsbestimmungen" or "Statuten" does not exist, because there was nothing to award, there was no issue and no re-issue.

It was not an official new created decoration, there was and is only the allowance, to wear it in a denazified design.

That was and is the key:

§ 6 "Sie dürfen nur ohne nationalsozialistische Embleme getragen werden; für ihre Form sind die von der Bundesregierung bestimmten und im Bundesministerium des Innern verwahrten Muster ... maßgebend;"

Denazified in a defined design (Muster = specimen)

Kind Regards

Uwe

[Gordon Williamson]

How could a 1941 produced WW1 iron cross be an original?

How could a 1950 or 1957 or 2009 produced EL or ELS be an original?

I quite agree. Neither the 1941 produced 1914 EK or the Oakleaves produced by S&L on the original tools after 1945 can be originals. They are Copies. The 1941 produced 1914 EK can be described as a "period" Copy (different to a modern fake), but it is still a Copy.

Hi Gordon,

You know, that the most of the Third Reich decorations had been produced post May 1945, before the "Ordensgesetz" from 1957. Let us take one year, e.g. 1953.

What is a 1953 produced EL or ELS? An original 1953 version (pattern)?

Simple. It is a Copy. Original design, made on original tools. But is is a Copy.

"However, the manufacture of these was permitted and they were made alongside the "true" 57ers"

Please, where I can find the permission for a EL or ELS in the regulations?

I don't understand your point. If it was not forbidden, then surely by default it is permitted. It does not have to be written down in law that it is permitted. We do not have laws which tell us what we can do, more likely to tell us what we cannot do. We don't have a law to say we can buy a car, we have a law to say we cannot steal a car.

There were several Third Reich decorations which were forbidden, even in de-nazified form. If an award, like the Oakleaves, was not specifically forbidden, then surely it was permitted. Not, perhaps as an authorised "1957 type", but still permitted to be made.

Do you know of a regulation to say it was NOT permitted to make Oakleaves after 1957?

I think we agree more than we disagree, but perhaps it is a matter of definitions.

To be clear, for me if an award, such as the Oakleaves made by S&L, was manufactured after 1945, it is a Copy or Restrike made on the original tools, which because there was no forbidden NS emblem in the design, could be worn with the 1957 RK.

For sure, to me - and I think to most collectors, a nice early postwar set of S&L Oakleaves even if defined as a "Copy" would certainly be more desirable than a modern "true" 57er RK made in the 1980s

[Chris Boonzaier]

"Alle verliehenen Exemplare sind Originale.

Darüber hinaus bezeichnet man als Originale solche Exemplare, die im Verleihungszeitraum im Auftrag von berechtigten Personen hergestellt worden sind oder werden und welche die wesentlichen gestalterischen Merkmale von verliehenen Exemplaren aufweisen."

it is too complicated to be brushed off with such a simple definition. This may be seen as a valid definition for countries where regimes are deposed, or countries like England where a soldier gets one copy of his medal.

In Countries like France or the USA where a soldier where a soldier can buy himself 2, or 5, or 50 of any medal he is entitled to... I dont think the rule as you post it applies.

2 examples...

1) Take a thing like the US Vietnam service medal. Apply "Verleihungszeitraum" to this. If a US soldier today was to walk into the PX any buy himself a Vietnam medal from an official US Govt supplier to rebuild his bar lost in a fire... THAT would be a copy... but if some vet applied retroactively to get the award and it was exactly the same as the one the soldier bought in the PX, THAT would be original?

2) A French soldier is given the diploma for his Colonial medal with the bar for "XXXXXX", has no interest awards. 40 years later he goes out to Arthus Bertrand or Paris mint and buys himself the medal (as he should have done 40 years before)... that medal is NOT original?

To paraphrase a German collector... "original are things made for a soldier to wear officially"...

This would include WW2 made 14-18 pieces and EL made after 1957 (as horrible and undesirable as they may be, I dont have and dont want any and would in noway value them anywhere near wartime pieces).

[Chris Boonzaier]

Maybe we are tripping over the word "original"

Speedytop is talking about "original" as defined by the BDOS, I think "original" as defined by a soldier.

I have about 3 sets of my own medals. Period awards and about 2 sets made up over the years. I can send you all the tin with as many books as you want and you can tell me which are "original" and which are "copies"? ;-)

For me "made for soldiers" and "made for collectors" is where "original" and "copy/fake/garbage" are split.

True you can do a further split of "original" into "period original" and "less desirable later original" if you want.

Truth of the matter is... we live in a free world, what ORIGINAL is is not decided by the LDO, OMSA or BDOS, it is decided by the individual collector.

We should simply agree to disagree. I like brunettes, you make like Blond and Gordon as a jock probably likes Ginger haired lassies... its simply a matter of taste.

Here is a BDOS anomaly... about 10 years ago I called S+L to order a 1957 RK, EL and EL and swords. Did they sell them to me?

No.

Why not?

They had none in stock, it was to expensive to make a one off for me any anyway, did not sell directly to collectors.

So... how did you go about getting them?

Well, S+L explained to me... you contacted Werner Sauer and ordered one from him. When he had enough orders he would contact S+L and they would whip some up for him... that way you could get an official 57 RK and teeleaves.

I knew Sauer and bought some EL and EL and swords from him as well as some 57 bars for the EK1.

anyone see the irony? You want to get original 57 pattern badges from S+L then you have to order them from a man who orders in bulk for collectors. And he was at the time president of the BDOS.

[Chris Boonzaier]

Another BDOS anomaly....

Lapland shields and Kurland armbands... happily accepted in BDOS magazines as original. EVEN examples possibly made after the war in POW camps.

Using their own definition, any of these made after the war should be considered fake.

Best

Chris

[Chris Boonzaier]

Hi folks,

Its me again :-)

This thought...

"For me "made for soldiers" and "made for collectors" is where "original" and "copy/fake/garbage" are split."

maybe needs a bit of reworking....

You know where the REAL problem here is?

It is indeed semantics.... and aggravated by the fact that each little internet community has its own lingo.

You see it all over....

Remember when only 10 people knew what a "rounder" is? Now EVERYONE knows... or do they? OK, lots of folks do... but it gets more arcane than that...

Ever wandered into a thread and wonder what the hell a "Backtoed army para badge" is? and you feel to shy to ask what the hell "Daisy seed panzer" or "5 dotted high fleet" or "droop beaked hollow punched 3rd pattern sub badge" or the "two thread twist afrika cufftitle" is?

Ever see the incomprehension on the cyberface of 2 collectors when you go into a thread and ask "ummmm... guys? Whats a "3rd pattern chicken toed crooked 4th leaf from the top non maker marked infantry assault badge" and one of the guys posts "Duh! you MUST be a newby? You aint never heard of the chicken toed Infantry assault badge variation ?!?!?!?!?".... and you scroll up the thread and see they had just invented the term 10 minutes before?????????

The world is biiiiiiiiiiiiig.

Even if Uwe, Gordon, Prosper and I solve the worlds problem and agree on what "original" is..... in a weeks time someone will discover this thread and say "what the F you guys talking about???? For me Original is......."

Solving the worlds problems is not getting people in a closed circle to agree with you when there are still 8 billion people not in on the secret!

It is easier to agree to disagree on definitions, unless you are selling something then it is up to the buyer and seller to find a comman definition.

:-)

[Chris Boonzaier]

You guys want more?

The patch worn by US Soldiers on the right sleeve for units they were in combat with...

If a guy served in the XXX Infantry in Vietnam and the unit was disbanded in 1978. He needs the badge for his new uniform so he orders one from a govt supplier and sews it on.... is he now wearing a copy or an official patch???

Best

Chris

[speedytop]

Gordon,

I accept, and I think (hope), that we agree in the 1957 versions (1957ers).

EL and ELS, made post May 1945, are not originals and not 1957 versions.

The definition of "1957 versions" must be precise, and the only way is the acceptance of the (illustrated) decorations in the "Beilage zum Bundesanzeiger Nr. 41" from 1958.

When one say, that only a few decorations without the changed design were 1957 versions too, we must and can say consistently, that nearly all decorations of the world, made post 1957/1958, were 1957 versions. A horror vision!

Chris,

I think, that the most important term is the officially "award period".

I'm not fit in foreign (for me not German) regulations, but when I look on the 1914 EK's with the official award period till 1924, it is for me not a problem, to say, that 1914 EK's made in this period till 1924 were originals. But that is not the same e.g. for a PlM, the award period ended definitely in 1918.

And if the American, British or French officially award period is longer, till now, for me it is not a problem, to say original, if made by an authorized maker.

The "Sauer" and S&L anomaly is not a BDOS anomaly, it is a "Sauer" and S&L anomaly.

You cannot combine Kurland and Lappland, the first is accepted official, the second is not official.

And please be fair, there had been controverse discussions in the BDOS magazine, especially about the Lappland shield and the corresponding documents! And a magazine like that from the BDOS is for discussions.

At the end of the "Begriffsbestimmungen" (definitions) you find the text:

"Diese Begriffsdefinitionen wollen einen Beitrag zu einer künftig größeren Klarheit im Gebrauch derselben leisten."

It is not the bible, it is open for discussions.

But the line above show:

Oakleaves... good or bad?

Uwe

[PKeating]

Chris and Gordon have summarised my points quite well. I tend to agree with Gordon regarding LDO-marked awards. I think an LDO-marked Zimmermann/Godet RK should sell for about €1,000.00 while the PKA-marked version sells for €10,000.00. This should make Uwe Speedytop happy. Copies are copies are copies. Of course, we're in trouble with an Assmann L/64 "A" Fallschirmschützenabzeichen because it bears two type of maker's mark. But if it bears an LDO mark, it is just a copy.

In the end, the only important part of of the award from the viewpoint of the recipient was the award document. The medal or badge simply indicated that a soldier possessed the document. I remember selling Sean Barry Weske copies to German veterans in London in the late 1970s. They were Nazi-pattern medals and badges and the veterans were very happy with them because they could wear these at private reunions amongst their comrades. The medals and badges were well-made fakes or copies of museum quality, marked with SBW's amusing clover leaf hallmark, based on the SBW mark, but they were real enough for the veterans. Today, we see veterans' document groups with medals and badges purchased in the 1960s and 1970s, both 1957 and 1939-45 types. The 'hardware' is worthless but the documents are real...and the documents are the really important thing where German awards are concerned. The document is the award.

PK

[Chris Boonzaier]

Chris,

I think, that the most important term is the officially "award period".

I'm not fit in foreign (for me not German) regulations, but when I look on the 1914 EK's with the official award period till 1924, it is for me not a problem, to say, that 1914 EK's made in this period till 1924 were originals. But that is not the same e.g. for a PlM, the award period ended definitely in 1918.

Hi,

the "award period" may be where we diverge... Award period may have ended in 1924, but it did not become illegal to produce, seel and wear them.

How about an EK1 made in 1925 on the same dies used in 1924?

If it was worn by a Reichswehr officer I doubt any collector would loose a second before buying it.

Even if it were made on different dies, with your statement you are condemning maybe 50% of WW1 EKs in collections to the schmuddelecke. I think we agree it is not realistic?

I would never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever argue that a period wartime original set of oakleaves had the same value as a set made after the war, but in the same way a set of oakleaves made in 1957 is JUST as valid as an EK1 made in 1929 and worn by a Reichswehr officer.

Why is the 57 set of oakleaves dirt and the EK1 a "fantastic screwback " for big bucks on a dealers site?

Anyway, its late.

Gnight folks....

[PKeating]

The definition of "1957 versions" must be precise, and the only way is the acceptance of the (illustrated) decorations in the "Beilage zum Bundesanzeiger Nr. 41" from 1958.

When one say, that only a few decorations without the changed design were 1957 versions too, we must and can say consistently, that nearly all decorations of the world, made post 1957/1958, were 1957 versions. A horror vision!

Yes, indeed. I already agreed with you about this. Let us look at it this way: a PLM made in 1934 is much more highly prized by collectors than a PLM made in 1964, even though the 1964 PLM is just as legitimate as a wearing copy intended for PLMT. I am not talking about fakes or copies made by militaria dealers in Britain and the United States. I am talking about PLM produced by serious, reputable German medal manufacturers. So you understand this? Collectors, including OMSA members, will place more value on a PLM made before the fall of the Third Reich than a PLM made after 1945.

So a set of EL or ELS made by, for example, Steinhauer & Lück between 1957 and, if we take the 27-year period from 1918 to 1945 as a guide, 1974 are surely worth more than than the cheap rubbish produced after the end of the 1970s by firms intending to sell to collectors. The last Wehrmacht veteran retired from the Bundeswehr in 1984. I agree with you that the design of the EL and ELS did not change following the 1957 legislation but I do not agree with you that a set of ELS by a firm like Steinhauer & Lück, made in silver from, say, 1957 to 1970 and supplied in a case for retail purchase by recipients of this grade of the RK is the same as a set of ELS made by John Smith of London, circa 1980, for sale to people in the Portobello Road antiques market are the same thing. That is like suggesting that a 1950s or 1960s PLM by a major German medal manufacturer is the same as a PLM copy by Nicholas Morigi.

I think you are being too absolutist. I also think that you are rather rude and aggressive. I have been collecting and studying the Iron Cross since I was about twelve, in 1973, and I do not know who you are. I have read some posts by you on various forums but I cannot recall reading anything that really impressed me. Sorry to be harsh but there we are.

PK

[Chris Boonzaier]

The 1957 New Form RK was not a copy. It was a revised but official decoration, intended to replace the RK bearing the forbidden swastika. In a sense, there is a parallel in the issue of the so-called "Vichy" Croix de Guerre and Croix du Combattant bearing the dates of the War of 1939-1940 as replacements for the "Republican" decorations issued by the pre-Armistice Paris government.

Hi,

I think an important differentiation must be made here.

The 57 awards are not official decorations of the Bundesrepublik but 3rd Reich decorations in a form that could be officially worn in the Bundesrepublik.

Once again semantics rears its head.

The Vichy decorations did indeed replace previous awards for 39-40 but were also kept on the books for subsequent awards... this is not the case for the 1957 German awards.

Best

Chris

[Chris Boonzaier]

I want to suggest we all agree to disagree.

I think our major difference is one of "words"

I am sure if we all met at a table and there were a 1944, 1951, 1957 and 1998 sets of EL were on the table we would agree to the cash values of the pieces in front of us.

If for me the 1951 is a postwar original because it was worn by a vet,or a postwar preofficial 57 version to Prosper, or a postwar copy to Gordon or a fake to Uwe, I am sure we would agree amongst ourselves that it has a certain phaleristic and monetary value and the 1998 bling-bling was really the only one that we could trash without a second thought.

Is it a bikini wax, bikini shave or landing strip? I dunno, but I am sure we all agree that whatever you call it... it be nice!

[PKeating]

This is what I was attempting to say. I was not trying to provoke Uwe. I understand his point very well. The discussion seems to have gotten bogged down in semantics. 'Official'...'officially approved'...'implicitly approved'. In the end, the Oakleaves and Oakleaves and Swords were officially approved. OK, so there is no government document from 1957 dictating the manufacturing specifications to medal firms but this is simply because it was not necessary, as the firms could produce or reproduce these awards according to the original 1939 and 1940 specifications because they did not incorporate the swastika or any other overtly Nazi symbol in their design. The rules mentioned several awards that did not incorporate the swastika in their pre-May 1945 form, as I said. The rules did not mention all of the grades of the RK by name but had each grade been mentioned, then perhaps we would not be engaged in these semantic arguments today. The awards could be worn on riband bars and they could also be worn in their original form, without the swastika, which is why we have photos of BW officers wearing both forms in uniform. I have not seen the ärmelbanden being worn on BW uniforms but I suppose such a photograph might surface some day.

PK

Edited September 22, 2009 by PKeating

[Gordon Williamson]

Chris and Gordon have summarised my points quite well. I tend to agree with Gordon regarding LDO-marked awards. I think an LDO-marked Zimmermann/Godet RK should sell for about €1,000.00 while the PKA-marked version sells for €10,000.00. This should make Uwe Speedytop happy. Copies are copies are copies. Of course, we're in trouble with an Assmann L/64 "A" Fallschirmschützenabzeichen because it bears two type of maker's mark. But if it bears an LDO mark, it is just a copy.

Prosper brings in two additional factors.

First - rarity. Of course the LDO marked version of the Zimmermann cross is far rarer than the official Präidialkanzlei marked "20" version. So it is no surprise that there will be collectors who will pay a premium price for one, Its a matter of personal taste. I own a "20" marked example and I would never trade it for an LDO marked example which to me, rarity notwithstanding, is a retail Copy.

I own an L/15 marked Destroyer Badge by Otto Schickle. Schickle went out of business very shortly after the LDO marks were introduced and I know of no other L/15 Destroyer badge around ( I sure there are some, but they are in a different league of rarity compared with, say, the popular Schwerin pieces) but I only bought it to get good images for a book and will trade it immediately I see an official award piece I like.

Others might no doubt keep and treasure it. Different tastes.

Second - Double marked pieces. No way of knowing of course whether many of these (eg the double marked Zimmermann or Steinhauer EK1s) started as official marked pieces then had an LDO stamp added to legitimise it for retail sale, or vice versa. These to me are in a grey area as to their original intended use, but there are of course collectors who add even more value to something like that which is double marked. Different tastes.

Chris made valid points about the second piece bought by a soldier and worn in combat. Of course to some this has extra appeal. But consider this, - the soldier probably kept his award piece safe at home because he valued it more as the official award piece than some retail piece he bought over the counter in a shop, and wasn't worried about it getting damaged.

I fully agree with Chris about terminology. It seems like every day some new "definition" is created by a cabal of collectors on some forums and almost immediately taken into general used as established "official" terminology. Best ignored. Try telling a veteran that his a "Type 1 (a) (ii) second pattern X badge by Steinhauer with a first model Juncker type pin made at the Schwerin factory" (no doubt on a Friday - by Hans- who had Liverwurst for breakfast)" and he will almost certainly look at you like you are some sort of retard. He'll probably be right.

Prosper of course made a really important point here. To the vast majority of German vets, the badge hasn't all that much worth - its the Award Document that counts. His badge is probably identical to thousands of others, but his award document is unique - it is to HIM and him alone.

[speedytop]

Ahhh, now I understand it: To ask for proofs for bold statements is rude and agressive! Only for Germans or only for Uwe speedytop?

And the deleted parts in PK's comments must be to chary and to polite for a Gentleman's Club?

Gentlemen, I have my problem with some of your comments, especially about foreign and WW2 decorations and the quality of post war copies.

The first question here had been: "Need to know if they are good or bad." with the attatchment "Even if it's an original 1957 that would be okay."

The answers are "fake", "garbage" and "a 1957 issue would not carry a Third Reich era LDO retail code like the L/50 hallmark on these Oakleaves."

My short, precise and well-founded answer was: "Oakleaves could never be an original 1957. Only an original (end in May 1945) or a copy/fake. "

Now we have nearly 40 replies, several of them against my statement and my proofs for my statement.

And than I found on my concentrated and declaring statement:

"The definition of "1957 versions" must be precise, and the only way is the acceptance of the (illustrated) decorations in the "Beilage zum Bundesanzeiger Nr. 41" from 1958."

really surprising the comment : " I already agreed with you about this".

It must be my unsufficient English, that I could not find that before .

After that had been clarified, I can now enter the discussion about the quality of post war copies of OL and OLS.

It is not the content of the thread, but related.

Yes, everybody know, that OL and OLS had been produced as copies or fakes in very different quality from several makers (I think, firms is not broad enough) in several countries all over the world. Copies and fakes of those decorations are not a German problem, it is a worldwide problem.

Some final comments.

I thought really, that I'm here in a Gentleman's Club.

Is it really important, who old a member is? Or ist it more important, what the member know about special subjects?

A true Gentleman is able to admit own mistakes also. With it I had no problems in my long life.

Kind Regards

Uwe

Edited September 22, 2009 by speedytop

[PKeating]

I think we need to clarify a few points here for the benefit of readers as this topic has one of the highest viewing figures in this section.

Ahhh, now I understand it: To ask for proofs for bold statements is rude and agressive! Only for Germans or only for Uwe speedytop? And the deleted parts in PK's comments must be to chary and to polite for a Gentleman's Club?

It is not unreasonable to ask for proof of statements or evidence to support statements and arguments. I have posted and quoted extensively from official BRD documents in this thread. I note that while you have referred to German regulations, you have not posted any supporting evidence. I do not discriminate against Germans or anyone else, Uwe. I simply dislike your attitude. As for "deleted parts", my posts have not been censored. I merely edited them to make the English easier for you to understand.

Gentlemen, I have my problem with some of your comments, especially about foreign and WW2 decorations and the quality of post war copies.

The first question here had been: "Need to know if they are good or bad." with the attatchment "Even if it's an original 1957 that would be okay."

The answers are "fake", "garbage" and "a 1957 issue would not carry a Third Reich era LDO retail code like the L/50 hallmark on these Oakleaves."

My short, precise and well-founded answer was: "Oakleaves could never be an original 1957. Only an original (end in May 1945) or a copy/fake. "

Now we have nearly 40 replies, several of them against my statement and my proofs for my statement.

My post was as follows:

Save your money. By the way, a 1957 issue would not carry a Third Reich era LDO retail code like the L/50 hallmark on these Oakleaves. Regarding these Oakleaves, the leaves are wrong, the silhouette is wrong and the stamp is wrong. Garbage. The miniature Iron Cross ribbon ties are also a bit of a giveaway. The Knight's Cross of the War Merit Cross ribbon was usually finished thus but not the ribbon of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. Even if you do find a genuine set of Godet Oakleaves or Oakleaves and Swords, as in a set conforming to known wartime issues, with PK or LDO marks, there is no way, unless you really have cast iron provenance, of telling whether they were made in 1944, 1964 or 1974, no matter what some 'gurus' and 'advanced collectors' may claim.

There are several definitions of the word "issue". The relevant definition is something coming forth from a specified source. In military and related circles, the word implies that the source is official but when one discusses "a 1957 issue", one is not necessarily implying that the issue is official. When a private firm like the Franklin Mint "issues" a commemorative medal or coin, it merely means that they have produced the medal or coin. To further clarify my statement, it is true that a set of EL or ELS produced in silver or silver-plate in or soon after 1957 primarily as replacements or wearing copies for wartime recipients would not be stamped with a wartime LDO code unless there was some intention to deceive collectors. I do not understand why this statement made you so angry.

And than I found on my concentrated and declaring statement:

"The definition of "1957 versions" must be precise, and the only way is the acceptance of the (illustrated) decorations in the "Beilage zum Bundesanzeiger Nr. 41" from 1958."

really surprising the comment : " I already agreed with you about this".

It must be my unsufficient English, that I could not find that before .

What part of the following two extracts from previous posts of mine do you not understand?

Several firms produced the EL and ELS specifically for supply to veterans after the 1957 proclamation governing the wearing of Nazi-era decorations. These "1957" versions superficially resemble the 1939-1945 type. They are certainly "copies" or "reproductions" but of an official nature and some EL-Träger and ELS-Träger certainly wore them as replacements, along with the 1957-pattern RK.

By "of an official nature", I meant that these post-1957 copies or reproductions were officially approved by the West German authorities for wear by recipients, both in BW uniform and civilian dress. Unless you are deliberately trolling me - go here for a definition in simple English: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling - I really do not understand why this statement provoked so much anger from you. Here is another example of my agreeing with you whilst explaining my point of view:

I will agree that these are not 'official' awards because, like the vast majority of wartime awards bearing LDO codes identifying them as retail copies for everyday wear or replacement, they were not given to the RKT/ELT/ELST by the BRD government. However, they were still 'official' in that they were the awards of, effectively, a state that no longer existed and West Germany, the BRD, passed legislation to allow them to be worn by members of the West German military.

You seem unable to accept that people can even partly disagree with you.

After that had been clarified, I can now enter the discussion about the quality of post war copies of OL and OLS.

It is not the content of the thread, but related. Yes, everybody know, that OL and OLS had been produced as copies or fakes in very different quality from several makers (I think, firms is not broad enough) in several countries all over the world. Copies and fakes of those decorations are not a German problem, it is a worldwide problem.

We use "firm" as another word for "company". Steinhauer & Lück is a firm of medal and badge makers. I would not consider a set of post-1957 EL or ELS produced anywhere outside the area known in 1939 as Großdeutschland to be other than valueless copies or fakes. There is no real problem with fakes of these decorations as far as serious students and collectors are concerned. The most problematic EL and ELS are the Godet pieces, because there is no practical way of telling the difference between a set of Godet EL or ELS made in 1943 from a set produced by Godet in 1973 using the same tooling and methods for supply to the high end collector market through a couple of top dealers in Britain and the United States. This is why I have never made an effort to acquire any Godet EL and ELS, although I might consider a cheap set as long as it came with convincing provenance to enable me to resell it if I wished.

Some final comments. I thought really, that I'm here in a Gentleman's Club. Is it really important, who old a member is? Or ist it more important, what the member know about special subjects? A true Gentleman is able to admit own mistakes also. With it I had no problems in my long life.

Had I made any mistakes in relation to 1957 awards, I would happily concede the point. I do not recall anyone here referring to your age, Uwe. The only relevance your age has for me is that I am more inclined to treat you with as much courtesy as possible because you are a senior citizen.

PK

Edited September 22, 2009 by PKeating

[speedytop]

PK:

"... my posts have not been censored. I merely edited them to make the English easier for you to understand."

You could hear my laughter?

PK:

"I have read some posts by you on various forums but I cannot recall reading anything that really impressed me. Sorry to be harsh but there we are."

There we are, no further comments in this thread from me.

Kind Regards

Uwe

[PKeating]

Thank the Gods for small mercies. Truth sometimes causes offence but at least I was economical with the truth in line with GMIC guidelines.

Now, just to round this off, I'd like to address CB's comment about Vichy awards.

Hi,

I think an important differentiation must be made here.

The 57 awards are not official decorations of the Bundesrepublik but 3rd Reich decorations in a form that could be officially worn in the Bundesrepublik.

Once again semantics rears its head.

The Vichy decorations did indeed replace previous awards for 39-40 but were also kept on the books for subsequent awards... this is not the case for the 1957 German awards.

Best

Chris

The 1939-1940 Croix de Guerre and Croix du Combattant introduced in 1941 by the Vichy government as replacements for the so-called 'Republican' versions were not actually awarded for any action following the ceasefire between French and German armed forces in June 1940. They were solely for veterans of La guerre de 1939 à 1940. After the Liberation, the French authorities established boards of enquiry to look into the circumstances of awards of the Croix de Guerre in 1939 and 1940 as it was felt that some awards were not really merited. Those recipients whose awards were approved sometimes swapped the Vichy ribands for the Republican pattern, continuing to wear the decorations with the Vichy dates.

However, the 1939 Republican Croix de Guerre continued to be awarded by the Gaullist government-in-exile and Free French-inclined colonial administrations, with crosses produced in England and in various French colonies and overseas territories. There were also Croix de Guerre produced and awarded in French territories loyal to Vichy. The so-called Croix de Guerre dite Giraud instituted by General Giraud on March 16 1943 and produced and awarded in Tunisia is an example. De Gaulle eventually forbade the wearing of these crosses after Giraud changed sides following the defeat of the Axis in North Africa. The was also the Croix de Guerre Légionnaire, instituted in January 1942 for members of the Légion des Volontaires Français (contre le Bolchevisme) fighting on the Eastern Front. However, this was not really a state award as such, the LVF being a privately supported venture.

The only official Vichy Croix de Guerre was instituted early in 1944 by the Pétain government. Being a purely military award, members of the Milice and other paramilitary and security organisations were ineligible. By that stage, the only soldiers eligible for this award were members of Pétain's personal bodyguard and the 1st Regiment of France, a purely Vichy unit raised in 1943. The 1944 Vichy Croix de Guerre is said to have been awarded for combat against partisans of various resistance groups and their SAS and SOE comrades although the 1 RF actually seems to have seen very little action, with most members joining the Free French as soon as they could. The cross bears the date 1944 on the reverse and the Vichy 'Francisque' with the legend ETAT FRANCAIS on the obverse. You can see it in the middle in the above image.

So I would stand by my comparison of the awards authorised for wear in 1957 by the government of the BRD, following revisions to the design where necessary, to the awards authorised by the Vichy regime so that veterans, whether serving or not in Vichy forces, could wear their awards for the War of 1939-1940 without causing offence to their new German friends and partners following the armistice. Adenauer's government, being in a similar position to that of Vichy, found a way to allow their soldiers to wear their valour and campaign awards without causing offence to their new friends and partners, who were occupying Germany.

PK

PK

Edited September 22, 2009 by PKeating