Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I am no expert and at first I thought it was fine but on closer inspection there are discrepancies between the one I have and yours. This could be put down to different makers but I am unsure if more than one manufacturer made these crosses. All the differences that I see are very minor and are to do with detail basically for example the detail on yours is somewhat softer than mine and the dots which look like small air bubbles with the red enamel on the circle dont look right but again this could be do to different makers. I will be keen to hear more learned opinions and are there actual repros of these medals available. Sorry not much help.

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have done a bit of looking at other crosses after seeing this thread and I believe your cross is fine and matches quite a few I saw. Mine would appear to be of later manufacture than yours thats all. To be honest I dont really believe these crosses are heavily faked if they are indeed faked but I will most certainly stand corrected if someone can show me some fakes.

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have done a bit of looking at other crosses after seeing this thread and I believe your cross is fine and matches quite a few I saw. Mine would appear to be of later manufacture than yours thats all. To be honest I dont really believe these crosses are heavily faked if they are indeed faked but I will most certainly stand corrected if someone can show me some fakes.

Phil

Hi Phil,

Thank You very much for your pictures and opinion. I observed You have aproximatelly the same opinion and may be doubts about theses crosses I have. I posted this cross here because it was questioned in another forum, but the arguments are not very consistents for me and I think differences pointeds are only due different makers or periodes. I'm posting here pictures from two crosses I think are reproductions. Observe the differences from mine and your example.

a0ykgm.jpg

350m839.jpg

2u3w3us.jpg

9kozn7.jpg

Regards,

Ricardo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are original awarded pieces:

There are several differences.

For example compare the 9 in 1914 with the 9 in the other Hanseatenkreuze.

The main difference is the upper ring. Awarded originals have a flat oval ring, see the embedded picture.

Uwe

Hi Uwe,

Yes, I observed a little difference in the 9 format between mine and Phill's crosses and mine has a flat upper ring. But wat it means, one is correct and other none or it's only periode production differences?

Regards,

Ricardo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ricardo I seriously doubt any of the medals shown are fakes. I have done a bit of research since yesterday and have seen up to 4 Bremen medals which all differ from each other in some small way. I would say this is due to different manufacturers as I am sure this medal was still being made for sometime after the war much like various other medals and badges of the time. As for the flat style ribbon ring I also saw pictures of a few medal with round rings which mine has. I also believe that these medals are much later production and could have been made for replacements to original medals that have been damaged. To call the medal a reproduction due only to the fact it does not have a flat style ribbon ring is flawed thinking as the ring is not an integral part of the medal itself. My medal as shown is on a small medal bar and does appear much newer than the EK next to it but as I said it could have been replaced at a later date due to damage to the original. I also have another medal bar where the EK ring is not original but this does not make the actual medal or indeed the medal bar a fake. There are a number of reasons why ribbon rings could be changed.

I stress this is speculation but I do believe all the examples shown are indeed original medals.

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ricardo I seriously doubt any of the medals shown are fakes. I have done a bit of research since yesterday and have seen up to 4 Bremen medals which all differ from each other in some small way. I would say this is due to different manufacturers as I am sure this medal was still being made for sometime after the war much like various other medals and badges of the time. As for the flat style ribbon ring I also saw pictures of a few medal with round rings which mine has. I also believe that these medals are much later production and could have been made for replacements to original medals that have been damaged. To call the medal a reproduction due only to the fact it does not have a flat style ribbon ring is flawed thinking as the ring is not an integral part of the medal itself. My medal as shown is on a small medal bar and does appear much newer than the EK next to it but as I said it could have been replaced at a later date due to damage to the original. I also have another medal bar where the EK ring is not original but this does not make the actual medal or indeed the medal bar a fake. There are a number of reasons why ribbon rings could be changed.

I stress this is speculation but I do believe all the examples shown are indeed original medals.

Phil

Hi Phil.

I agree with You, recently a friend show me some pictures from a WWI german General group and I'm surprise to see various medals with replaced catches and suspension rings. My conclusion about it was the General had wear his medal too much and times to times someone was damaged and periode repaired.

I don't believe your or mine medals are reproductions only due ring format or some little production differences. The only medals I think may be suspects I find on the net was the two samples I had posted above, but I not discarded the possibility they are only original periode variations.

I sincerely like to see too a reconized modern reproduction to observe the differences from a periode one.

Regards,

Ricardo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

"... made for sometime after the war"

After the war > not original > copy or fake

"... is flawed thinking as the ring is not an integral part of the medal itself."

Have a look on originals. Both rings are soldered. You must cut them, to replace them. Why should anyone do that?

"Why you think it's a fake?"

I think, that it is not an original piece (a copy).

We can clearly see the differences, therefore it is not made to fool someone (= fake/forgery).

Awarded originals have the flat oval upper ring.

With this flat but not flat oval ring it looks more like an original. The upper ring looks for me like a flat washer.

Therefore my personal opinion: pieces with the flat ring (not flat oval) are not originals. And yes, I also think, like Sascha, that these are recent made pieces.

Uwe

Edited by speedytop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please,

Why you think it's a fake?

Well, not only because it's offered frequently by a well-known fake seller, but also as the details are to bad. It's probably cast, not die struck as they should be. The enemal work is inferior, too.

They are quite well made - at least good enough to fool people. But they are neither originals nor old wearers's copies. Just fakes - meant to fool people. (referring to the 1st one in #5!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very interesting and informative. Uwe based on your statement concerning the flat suspension ring do you think the medal by Ricardo in #5 the second medal without the ribbon and marked Huesken is a fake? This medal has a round ring and is very much like the version I have which I posted #3. Saschaw I would be interested in hearing your opinion on this medal as well. I gave up collecting TR items for a number of reasons but one of them was due to fakes or at least people calling them fakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uwe and Saschaw,

Please, only for my correct education about this crosses. Weitze is now offering two Bremen crosses with the same flat ring as mine at #1 and #14, in yours opinions are they copies too?

https://www.weitze.n...__138752_e.html

https://www.weitze.n...__156658_e.html

Edited by RRicardo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to further what I was saying (I accidently pressed Post button too soon). I did not think that Imperial awards were as heavily faked as their TR counterparts so this has come as somewhat of a surprise to me when you say that Ricardo Bremen is a reproduction. I can understand TR items being heavily faked as medals from that era are in much greater demand than Imperial items. Not only by collectors but by Neo Nazi groups down to your average person who just wants a keepsake from an event that happened as far as history is concerned, not all that long ago. Plus, after 1945 awards from this war were not made again until the release of the 57 versions so there were no replacement awards for lost or damaged originals.

On the other hand the Great War 1914 to 1918 is a different kettle of fish. I am not aware of anyone who purchases items from this period other than collectors and they are much fewer in number in my opinion than TR collectors. This plus the fact that such awards won during the war years could still be purchased as a replacement for many years after the end of hostilities makes me believe that many different manufacturers could have been involved in the production of such awards hence the variation. Demand and greed is what lies behind those who are involved in reproduction awards. If there is little demand then very little profit which is why I cannot understand why anyone would go to the costly expense of trying to replicate a common award when there is very little demand for it. Of course with high end Orders and the like which sell for much more money then yes I can see why someone would try and replicate them to a degree that they would fool a lot of collectors. But for awards like this Bremen medal which are inexpensive by comparison I just cannot see why anyone would bother. And I must stress I am talking about reproducing the awards to a very high standard so that they would fool a lot of collectors. Just does not make sense to me.

As I am new to Imperial collecting I am here to learn. I am eager to take on opinions and advice from learned fellows on this hobby but I am not interested in the paranoia which now dominates TR collecting and the self appointed experts.

Uwe whilst I think of it, I do understand what you are saying about the flat suspension ring and yes they are soldered but so are EK rings and as I stated I have one on a medal bar that has a replaced ring but the medal and bar are legit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

everybody is free to believe, what he want to believe.

Knowledge is better than a believe.

I can definitely say, that the 3 Hanseatenkreuze in Post 6 are awarded originals. With the flat oval upper ring. I know that.

Per definition we can find originals only in the award period. The award period for Hanseatenkreuze ended in 1918.

All later produced pieces are not originals. This is my personal opinion, this is that what I believe.

It could be the same with the Memelland-Medaille. Several collectors say, that there is only one original medal type.

I don't believe that, because I can show 5 different medal types in contemporary sources (here in GMIC).

When I look in older sources, I can only find crosses with the (original) flat oval ring or crosses with a normal small round ring, see Post 5, the Hüsken cross.

There had been the same problems in former times, see for example HuS 1940, page 153:

"Oben in dem angeprägten Öhr ist ein gewöhnlicher Bandring mittels eines kleinen Verbindungsringchens eingehängt. (Die vielen etwas schlanker und dünner ausgeführten Nachbildungen haben dagegen eine gewöhnliche Drahtöse mit einfachem Ring.)"

... Nachbildung > copy

... mit einfachem Ring > with a simple ring

This is definitely a copy, you can see it on the center medallion:

http://www.ordensamm.../html/vs80.html

And this is the same copy type, Post 13 and the following:

http://gmic.co.uk/in...__1#entry437814

Is it a pure coincidence, that there is the same flat ring?

"Weitze ... are they copies too?

It is my firm belief, that the two crosses from Weitze are not awarded crosses.

Hi Phil Steele,

"... after 1945 awards from this war were not made again until the release of the 57 versions so there were no replacement awards for lost or damaged originals."

Do you really believe that?

Why we can find several catalogues with offers for post WWII copies before 1957?

For example Sedlatzek 1956: "Originale wie verliehen!" originals as awarded!

Uwe

Edited by speedytop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uwe you raise some interesting thoughts and yes you are right everybody is entitled to an opinion. I try (dont always succeed) to base my opinion on some fact and if that is not available then sensible reasoning and I am not one who will not or cannot say I was wrong. Ok that said, I differ strongly to your opinion that any award made after the end of hostilities in 1918 is not original and I would think so would a lot of other collectors. By this you are saying that documents dated after the war for awards won during the war are also not original. I in truth dont think you mean this exactly but to me if a soldier was awarded an iron cross during 1918 but did not get his award to 1919 it is still original and so too a soldier who may have won a medal in 1914 but lost or damaged said medal during the 1920's and purchased a new one. That too me is still an original award but you differ and I respect that.

As for the Lubeck cross you have shown yes I agree that is a fake centre and would hardly fool anyone. Ricardo's medal is much better quality than that which is why I am questioning it. That is a big call saying the crosses from Herr Weitze are fake....I know the old argument about dealers being greedy and just wanting sales etc etc. I am not in a position to say if they are or they are not but I must say it is very convincing aging on one of them if it is a fake and I am fairly friendly with one of his sales persons so I might just email him for his opinions on the two crosses he has for sale. Now you are also saying that crosses with the normal round rings as shown on Hueskens photo are ok. I am confused here because you and one or two others have said only flat rings.

I agree with you Uwe that knowledge is better than believing but it all depends on the source of the knowledge.

And will all that I do not mean any offence by any of this.

Edited by Phil Steele
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Phil Steele,

in your comment is so much wrong, that it is not easy for me, to answer.

"I differ strongly to your opinion that any award made after the end of hostilities in 1918 is not original"

Wrong! I wrote here about the Hanseatenkreuze. The iron cross award period ended in 1924.

"That is a big call saying the crosses from Herr Weitze are fake"

Wrong! I said, that these crosses are not awarded pieces. I'm sure, that not awarded original crosses exist. I think, with a normal ring.

"Now you are also saying that crosses with the normal round rings as shown on Hueskens photo are ok"

Wrong! copy > with a simple ring.

And when I write: in my opinion ..., or: I think that ..., or: It is my firm belief ..., you should not declare it as factual claim!

Please be precise.

Uwe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That is a big call saying the crosses from Herr Weitze are fake"

Wrong! I said, that these crosses are not awarded pieces. I'm sure, that not awarded original crosses exist. I think, with a normal ring.

Uwe,

From what periode these pieces with flat ring like Weitze's and mine at #1 and #14 you believe are made?

Are they modern post WWII fakes or pre WWII repositions?

Regards,

Ricardo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uwe I think maybe the problem lies in the translation and please do not read any disrespect in that statement. For me it is easy as English is my only language whereas I assume German is your native tongue. This I feel is where we are having a bit of a break down in communications and with me being Australian, we are well known for using common phrases applicable to our country which even confuse others from English speaking countries. That plus the fact we are often borderline rude without meaning so does not help but believe me when I say I in no way mean to offend anyone.

I think for the purpose of this thread I agree to disagree with you. You say the subject Bremen medal as posted by Ricardo is a fake and I say it is not. Let us just leave it at that I feel. I am not learned enough to judge 100% the authenticity of any badge or medal based upon two dimensional pictures alone. Maybe if I had it in my hand I could judge it better but based on what I see I stand by my opinion.

I have found this thread informative and I would indeed like to see more threads based upon what I call the common soldiers medals.

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...