Hanseatenkreuz Bremen

[speedytop]

Phil,

it could not only be based on the translation. I really know, that my English is not good.

I don't say it is a fake!

I don't call it a fake, because the difference is visible.

I say, that it is not an awarded piece.

I think, in my opinion, I believe etc., that it is not an original, made up to 1918.

And I don't know, in what period they werde made.

Please remember, it is now nearly 100 years ago!!! To be precise, 93 years

All these pieces had been copied after 1918; in the 20s, the 30s, the 40s, the 50s, later and up to now.

I don't have proofs for my opinion, only my experience.

Once more, don't put words into my mouth, which I had never said.

Uwe

[Phil Steele]

Uwe,

I have never intended to put words into your mouth. As I said I feel it is in the translation. So let me get this right. You do not feel that Ricardo's medal is an awarded piece as you believe it was not made during the period 1914 - 1918. Uwe I agree with you on this, I always did.

You however, say that it is not a fake which is where I and I think Ricardo are getting confused because to me to me a medal is either a reproduction (meaning a copy) or its not. I have never really heard of collectors labeling awards as Originals (that being awarded during the period of conflict). Non awarded pieces meaning those that were not awarded during the period of conflict BUT such pieces are not fakes. And lastly fakes. Have I got this right on is this another break down in the translation? As a newcomer to Imperial awards is this the normal method of labeling such awards?

To me the award is either (1) genuine in that it was MADE (no reference to awarded) by German (or Austrian) companies who were contracted to make such awards and I dont really care about the time line. If that were so then none of us would have any 1914 EK's made during the TR era in our collections. OR (2) it is a fake made to fool anybody into thinking it is something other than what it is.

In this case with Ricardo's Bremen......I believe it was made by such a manufacturer as described in the first description number (1) but who knows when...maybe 1920's or even 1930's. In my mind and because I judge things maybe different to you then I class the medal as Original.

[speedytop]

Phil,

"... then I class the medal as Original."

Do whatever you want.

For me, and not only for me, there is a difference between original, copy and fake/forgery.

A piece made after the award period could not be an original. This is my firm belief.

It could be a copy, with easy detectable differences.

It could be a fake/forgery, not direct and easy to detect. See for example the Rounder KC, detectable only with very special material examinations.

Several collectors are not willing to differentiate between a copy and a fake/forgery, therfore I normally use the terms "original" and "not original".

If you can not accept this, then another discussion with me is not required.

"... so then none of us would have any 1914 EK's made during the TR era in our collections."

It is not forbidden, to have "not originals" in a collection.

Uwe

Edited December 4, 2011 by speedytop

[RRicardo]

"... so then none of us would have any 1914 EK's made during the TR era in our collections."

It is not forbidden, to have "not originals" in a collection.

I think in this case the most important is to know exactly what do you have and to decide if it's acceptable or not.

Regards,

Ricardo

Edited December 5, 2011 by RRicardo

[Phil Steele]

I tell you what Ricardo if you want rid of it I will take it off your hands as it matches the one as displayed in the members gallery by David Gregory as a small medal bar with the EK. Which by definition is thus not an original medal bar. One thing I have learnt is that if am to stay in this field I will in future have to catagorise awards into the following:

1. Original Awards that were indeed awarded prior to the cessation of hostilities.

2. Awards that were not awarded in which case they are classed as non original (I still cannot get my head around this) but were available as replacements for lost, stolen or damaged original awards.

3 Fakes that being those made in backyard sheds or sweat shops in China, Pakistan or wherever and made to fool collectors.

I tell you if I ever have to replace one of the medals I have been awarded due to it being stolen or whatever then heaven help the guy who tries to tell me I am not wearing an original award else he might find himself counting the clouds because he will be flat on his back.

Phil

[RRicardo]

One thing I have learnt is that if am to stay in this field I will in future have to catagorise awards into the following:

1. Original Awards that were indeed awarded prior to the cessation of hostilities.

2. Awards that were not awarded in which case they are classed as non original (I still cannot get my head around this) but were available as replacements for lost, stolen or damaged original awards.

3 Fakes that being those made in backyard sheds or sweat shops in China, Pakistan or wherever and made to fool collectors.

Hi Phil,

There is another situation you don't have listed above: In some cases the medal is awarded soo much years after it's conflict end. Here in Brazil the last WWII Combat Cross was awarded at early 90's, medal itself was a reposition model very different from the WWII era model. We can say it's the vet's original awarded medal, but not the original produced model.

Regards,

Ricardo

[Phil Steele]

Well I did indeed learn something in this thread. Uwe you must understand my confusion and maybe this will help. During my years of collecting TR badges and medals I never heard this method or anybody catagorising their awards this way. All I ever saw was " Unissued" which to me says unawarded. Never have I heard it said Unissued or Unawarded so its classed a copy. Then again I have never been a prolific user of these or other forums so I could well have missed something.

Phil

[redeagleorder]

Just wanted to share my own set of these beautiful medals

[Wild Card]

This is an interesting variation featuring three-part construction of the Luebeck from the Ernst Blass collection being sold by Thies this month.

A very curious piece to be sure. I don't recall ever seeing one like this.

[Claudio]

Me neither... but nevertheless interesting, also note the ring (Öse) in a different position than usual.

[Claudio]

Another better image from the reverse...