A Medal Bar to discuss........ Round 2

[Stogieman]

I don't think this bar is real....... who can tell me why?

[Stogieman]

Reverse of suspect bar:

[Stogieman]

Your final clue:

[CHRIS W]

Is it that the ring attachment on the Prussian Cross is thin instead of thick and ball shaped? It looks like they tried to hide it with thread. Also is the backing plate metal wrong?

Chris

[Stogieman]

DING DING DING!!!!!!! First try is absolutely correct. The MEZ has a more "ball-shaped" ?se and the one shown here is way too thin to be correct. Close, but not quite the right shape. Even for a piece that the seller claims was awarded in 1866. In addition, the seller told me that "Please, note that the medal is marked "AW" in the medallion rim for the jeweler Anton Werner."

Whoops, major problem there as these were only made by Wagner.....

Edited December 31, 2005 by stogieman

[Stogieman]

Here's an undisputable original, also awarded in 1866:

[Bob Hunter]

Tip o' the hat to Stogie! That is the kind of knowledge that comes from a lot of hard earned experience.

Edited December 31, 2005 by Bob Hunter

[Stogieman]

Reverse of same........ note the difference in patina and appearance. This cross was STRIPPED off a complete bar that was awarded to a Prussian during the 1866 era and included a pre 1870 Turkish Medjiji Order....... It was an amazing bar, now destroyed forever except in the memory of those of us who will not forget these people who do this.......

[Stogieman]

Additional proper scans of an MEZ I once owned.

[Stogieman]

And the reverse: (sorry for the size, but the detail is important!)

[Stogieman]

Now, having said all this...... the other thing I find very difficult to accept is that this bar was made prior to 1897 and shows absolutely no indication of any type of age at all. It looks like it was made yesterday..... I have handled a decent number of pre-1890 bars and no matter how crisp, how clean...... they do not look like this at all...

[Stogieman]

And, an additional example courtesy of Niemann?, Hamburg

[David Gregory]

Am I seeing things that are not there or are there significant differences in the width of the small loop retaining the rings to the crosses in the examples above?

[Schießplatzmeister]

Hello folks:

An interesting thread! I would like to note that the "AW" maker's mark on the cylinder is correct for an 1866-era Military Honor Award 1st class (not that the piece is the group is necessarily correct). I can't recall however who exactly it signified. Perhaps Medalnet can recall (help!). As David' keen eye noted, the small loop at the top of the cross through which the ribbon ring passes is indeed tapered slightly on the originals (it is wider at the bottom than the top). I would also like to point out that the 1870 campaign medal in the group is a copy (not an "officially awarded" piece). Note that it has a this wire loop at the top and not the broad flat ribbed "ring" on official medals. The ribbons look like they are from old silk stock [not impossible (but extremely difficult) to find these days]. The backing as Stogieman pointed out is completely inconsistent with known groups from the era.

Thanks,

Schie?platzmeister

[Wild Card]

Hi Stogie,

My first impression was that it looked "awfully fresh"; but beyond that and the suspect ?se, there were two other things.

Now, it may be the lighting; but it looks to me that the outer ring (rim) of the center medallion between the arms at twelve and three o?clock has a flat spot and the inner ring between eight and eleven o?clock appears a bit wobbly. Such a flat spot is characteristic of copies which have been around for quite a few years. Am I seeing another one here?

Best wishes,

Wild Card

Edited January 1, 2006 by Wild Card

[Schießplatzmeister]

Hello again everyone:

I have a few more comments regarding the Prussian Military Honor Award 1st Class. I hope to clarify the "AW" maker's mark issue. Please note that the 1866 piece shown by Stogieman that was removed from a group is marked "AW" on the cylinder between the cross arms at the lower right side. Also note that Medalnet lists "AW" AND "W" markings as proper for this award in his article posted on his website.

Finally, in the June 1999 issue of "Orden und Ehrenzeichen", in an article by Peter Sauerwald listing pre-1918 Berlin orderjewelers, there is an entry for a jeweler Wagner, Emil August. His mark was "AW". He is known to have made pieces in the 1850's. I believe that it is probable that the "AW" mark on the Military Honor Awards 1st Class are his. Note that this is a different jeweler than Wagner, Johann & S?hne who made pieces starting a bit later, and has the mark "W" that we are all so familiar with.

Therefore, I believe that both "AW" AND "W" marks are proper for these pieces, with the "AW" pieces being from the first batches made for the 1864 and 1866 conflicts, and the "W" pieces being of later manufacture. There were 191 awards made in 1864, 415 in 1866, 29 in 1867, 52 to Russians in 1902, and from 1895-1905 201 awards made for the colonial wars. Therefore, a total of 888 awards are known, with 606 being from the 1864 and 1866 conflicts. In conclusion, I would surmise that there were at least 606 pieces of "AW" manufacture.

I hope that this clarifies things a bit. Does anyone out there have any groups which include this award? What are the markings? Please post photos!

Thanks,

Schie?platzmeister

[medalnet]

I have only seen 3 variations:

a) unmarked

b) AW

c) W

Yet, I do disagree with that statement on the wire vs. ball shaped ring attachement. The very early crosses have indeed a more wire shapped ring attachement.

Edited January 2, 2006 by medalnet

[Wild Card]

Gentlemen,

To medalnet?s point in post #17, following are pictures of a cross marked ?AW? with a thinner ?se. Is this not the one you were referring to medalnet?

Regards,

Wild Card

[Wild Card]

A thinner ?se

[Wild Card]

A thinner ?se, part 2.

[Stogieman]

Which yet again, does not fit to the bar shown. I am willing to accept the research/facts that AW may have been a maker pre-1900 however I would contend that the cross on the bar was not made by him, nor is the bar "real".

[medalnet]

Gentlemen,

To medalnet?s point in post #17, following are pictures of a cross marked ?AW? with a thinner ?se. Is this not the one you were referring to medalnet?

Regards,

Wild Card

Indeed, I did not have the picture handy when I replied yesterday. There are also crosses with even thinner oesen. Thanks Wild Card.

[medalnet]

Which yet again, does not fit to the bar shown. I am willing to accept the research/facts that AW may have been a maker pre-1900 however I would contend that the cross on the bar was not made by him, nor is the bar "real".

It is always hard to say by just looking at pictures. Especially with medals. But the bar has a good chance to be real. As a matter of fact, I know somebody with a very similar bar, with the recipients name. It is pretty much identical, yet it is missing the Iron Cross. I will try to find the picture tonight and post it here, too.

[Stogieman]

The asking price of this bar is 3200- Euro. It comes cased, with a matching trapezoid ribbon bar. The ribbon bar, case are just as minty-fresh as is the bar I showed. I would be more than happy to pass on the information of the seller to anyone willing to spend the $3800 USD on the set.

[medalnet]

The asking price of this bar is 3200- Euro. It comes cased, with a matching trapezoid ribbon bar. The ribbon bar, case are just as minty-fresh as is the bar I showed. I would be more than happy to pass on the information of the seller to anyone willing to spend the $3800 USD on the set.

Lucky you, I was offered the bar at 6000 Euro's. By the way, I compared the pictures I had received with those Wild Card posted and have to say that they are identical.