Bundesrepublik Fake 1957 RK?

[Humberto Corado]

hello all,

First of all , sorry about the bad images, I dont know why my scanner didnt give me a nice image as usual.

I would like to know your opinion about this 1957 RK, some collectors have said to me that is a fake RK so I am wondering what do you think,

Thanks in advance!

Humberto

[Humberto Corado]

back

[Laurence Strong]

All '57 awards are fakes, in the sense that it was never an official award. Yours looks like something from the 70's or 80's

[Gordon Williamson]

The question of "fake" 57 awards is one that could be argued endlessly. If the award meets the design requirements of the Ordens Gesetz then they are "57" "neue Form" awards.

However in collector terms, those which were factory made by one of those firms recognised as having made 57 awards , such as Steinhauer & Lück have a collector desirability than more modern pieces do not have. Some will classify any made in recent years by entrepreneurs for the collector market as "fakes". Technically however, if they meet the design requirements of the design they are not legally fakes.

In this case however, it looks like a casting made from a mould using a "proper" three piece struck example as a master.

As such I'd say it has virtually zero value or desirability.

[speedytop]

Hi,

one of the main problems is, in my opinion, that several foreigners use the word "award" in combination with the very special versions of TR awards, that had been allowed to wear in a revised form, based on § 6 of the German law "Ordensgesetz".

These revised versions had been shown in a special paper, edited by the German ministry of the interior:

http://www.ordensmus...16Jan0857er.pdf

Only these decorations, the not illustrated live saving medal included, can be named 57s.

It could be a (my) German problem.

But, the substantive "award" is for me combined with the verb "awarded". In my unsufficient knowledge of the English language "awarded" mean, in combination with orders, decorations and medals, a presentation for merits, there had something been handed out.

And that is not correct for the decorations with the changed, revised design.

57s had never been handed out. There was no award ceremony. There was no new institution. There was no issue, no re-issue, nothing like that.

There was only the allowance for the veterans, to wear these pieces.

The next problem is, that the law from 1957 is still/furthermore valid, unrestricted!

Gordon Williamson:

Technically however, if they meet the design requirements of the design they are not legally fakes.

My conclusions:

1. In my personal opinion it is wrong, to combine the word "award" with the 57s, it is misleading. I prefer 57 versions.

2. There cannot be legally copies or forgeries/fakes.

3. Only the decorations in the changed design (new form) can be 57 versions.

But, there are big differences in the versions in collections and on the market. Pieces with high quality, pieces really not woth a Cent, and several pieces in a grey area.

Here the collector must meet his own decision.

Uwe

Edited June 23, 2011 by speedytop

[Gordon Williamson]

1. In my personal opinion it is wrong, to combine the word "award" with the 57s, it is misleading. I prefer 57 versions.

Uwe

Agree 100%. I think the problem is that many English speakers (including myself above - my error) wrongly use the word "Award" without thinking, as a generic term instead of "Medal" , "Badge" , "Decoration" etc. Of course if something was never awarded but only authorised to be worn and had to be privately purchased, it cannot in real terms be an "award".

[PKeating]

"Version" is certainly more accurate than "award". According to this criterion, then, LDO-marked medals and badges dating from 1941 to 1945 cannot be considered to be awards as they were copies produced solely for the retail market, just like the 1957 copies. They were not award pieces, which means that a Juncker-made Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939 bearing the L/12 hallmark should be worth much less than an identical but unmarked early cross or a later cross bearing the PKA code '2'.

The Federal Government authorised the production and wear of denazified versions of 3rd Reich awards as well as those that needed no redesign as they did not include the swastika or other forbidden symbols in their original prewar or wartime design. So the 1957 versions were officially approved, as were original versions or copies thereof that required no denazification, like the Oakleaves and the Swords. Some EL and ELS-Träger, having had their originals stolen by their captors, had to acquire new ones, just as some of them had bought LDO-approved and coded copies from shops during the War. These new versions bore none of the Nazi-era marks - except for the copies made by Godet for various dealers with dishonest intentions - and so can be described as "1957 versions" and as "officiaally approved", because the authorities had to approve them before veterans serving in the new German armed forces could wear them in uniform.

In a sense, as Uwe so rightly says, it really is up to the individual collector to apply his own rules when considering "award pieces" and "wearing copies". A 1960s or 1970s Pour-le-Mérite worn by, for the sake of discussion, Ernst Junger would definitely be worth having, as long as its provenance could be proven. The same applies to a 1957 Knight's Cross and Oakleaves worn by a prominent recipient of the original awards. But they are not original award pieces. Neither, by that logic, are the LDO copies one encounters, but they are at least of the original period. I generally do not look at 3rd Reich-era copies of the 1914 Iron Cross but I have made exceptions, as in the case of a beautiful .800 silver, vaulted screwback EK1 by C F Zimmermann, in its fitted case, bearing the LDO "L/52" hallmark. I will also make exceptions for the 1870 EK2 produced after the institution of the 25th Anniversary Oakleaf clasp because they were likely to have been acquired and worn by recipients.

I still won't look at a 1939-pattern Knight's Cross by Steinhauer & Lück if it has die flaws on the beading...

PK

[Humberto Corado]

thank you very much to all for your help, I have learned a lot from you. I think then if the cross in question is not a fake, it is just a piece simply not made by no one of authorized 1957 "version" manufacturers.

I am wondering if there is always a way to find if an 1957 version medal or badge was made by one of the authorized manufacturers, I mean have you ever seen an ugly and low quality badge or medal from any of them??? that it was seen prety bad???

copies made by Godet for various dealers with dishonest intentions?? this were manufactured after the war and tried to sell as wartime pieces??

"Version" is certainly more accurate than "award". According to this criterion, then, LDO-marked medals and badges dating from 1941 to 1945 cannot be considered to be awards as they were copies produced solely for the retail market, just like the 1957 copies. They were not award pieces, which means that a Juncker-made Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939 bearing the L/12 hallmark should be worth much less than an identical but unmarked early cross or a later cross bearing the PKA code '2'.

The Federal Government authorised the production and wear of denazified versions of 3rd Reich awards as well as those that needed no redesign as they did not include the swastika or other forbidden symbols in their original prewar or wartime design. So the 1957 versions were officially approved, as were original versions or copies thereof that required no denazification, like the Oakleaves and the Swords. Some EL and ELS-Träger, having had their originals stolen by their captors, had to acquire new ones, just as some of them had bought LDO-approved and coded copies from shops during the War. These new versions bore none of the Nazi-era marks - except for the copies made by Godet for various dealers with dishonest intentions - and so can be described as "1957 versions" and as "officiaally approved", because the authorities had to approve them before veterans serving in the new German armed forces could wear them in uniform.

In a sense, as Uwe so rightly says, it really is up to the individual collector to apply his own rules when considering "award pieces" and "wearing copies". A 1960s or 1970s Pour-le-Mérite worn by, for the sake of discussion, Ernst Junger would definitely be worth having, as long as its provenance could be proven. The same applies to a 1957 Knight's Cross and Oakleaves worn by a prominent recipient of the original awards. But they are not original award pieces. Neither, by that logic, are the LDO copies one encounters, but they are at least of the original period. I generally do not look at 3rd Reich-era copies of the 1914 Iron Cross but I have made exceptions, as in the case of a beautiful .800 silver, vaulted screwback EK1 by C F Zimmermann, in its fitted case, bearing the LDO "L/52" hallmark. I will also make exceptions for the 1870 EK2 produced after the institution of the 25th Anniversary Oakleaf clasp because they were likely to have been acquired and worn by recipients.

I still won't look at a 1939-pattern Knight's Cross by Steinhauer & Lück if it has die flaws on the beading...

PK

[speedytop]

Humberto,

... not made by no one of authorized 1957 "version" manufacturers

There was and is no official authorization for manufacturers of 1957 versions.

PK,

The Federal Government authorised the production and wear of denazified versions of 3rd Reich awards as well as those that needed no redesign as they did not include the swastika or other forbidden symbols in their original prewar or wartime design.

The second part is not correct.

The Federal Government did not authorize the production of pieces that needed no redesign.

It had not and never been officially authorized, that manufaturers produce not-originals (copies or fakes).

Why should the Government do that?

They authorized only the wear.

Oakleaves and the Swords ... can be described as "1957 versions" and as "officiaally approved", because the authorities had to approve them before veterans serving in the new German armed forces could wear them in uniform.

If you mean the last sentence in combinationn with "Oakleaves and the Swords", it is not correct.

It had not and never been officially approved, that the veterans could wear not-originals (copies).

They could wear, what had been awarded to them and what had been allowed to wear based on the "Ordensgesetz" from 1957.

They could wear all the decorations as originals like "Oakleaves and Swords", the Iron Cross from 1914, the "Hindenburg Cross", all the foreign decorations, and they could wear the 1957 versions, described in the "Bundesanzeiger Nr. 41 vom 28. Februar 1958".

And If a veteran decided, not to wear his original "Oakleaves and Swords", he could wear a not-original (copy). That was not of official interest , It was not allowed, it was not forbidden. It was his personal choice.

Only denazified decorations could be 1957 versions, based on the "Bundesanzeiger" from 1958.

And for the very special 1957 versions it is really not "up to the individual collector to apply his own rules".

An addition and small correction to my comment in Post 5:

57 versions had never been handed out. There was no award ceremony. There was no new institution. There was no issue, no re-issue. There was no individual document. Absolute nothing like that.

There was only the allowance for the veterans, to wear these decorations.

Uwe

[Humberto Corado]

Thank you again Uwe!

Humberto,

There was and is no official authorization for manufacturers of 1957 versions.

PK,

The second part is not correct.

The Federal Government did not authorize the production of pieces that needed no redesign.

It had not and never been officially authorized, that manufaturers produce not-originals (copies or fakes).

Why should the Government do that?

They authorized only the wear.

If you mean the last sentence in combinationn with "Oakleaves and the Swords", it is not correct.

It had not and never been officially approved, that the veterans could wear not-originals (copies).

They could wear, what had been awarded to them and what had been allowed to wear based on the "Ordensgesetz" from 1957.

They could wear all the decorations as originals like "Oakleaves and Swords", the Iron Cross from 1914, the "Hindenburg Cross", all the foreign decorations, and they could wear the 1957 versions, described in the "Bundesanzeiger Nr. 41 vom 28. Februar 1958".

And If a veteran decided, not to wear his original "Oakleaves and Swords", he could wear a not-original (copy). That was not of official interest , It was not allowed, it was not forbidden. It was his personal choice.

Only denazified decorations could be 1957 versions, based on the "Bundesanzeiger" from 1958.

And for the very special 1957 versions it is really not "up to the individual collector to apply his own rules".

An addition and small correction to my comment in Post 5:

Uwe