1866-1870 Medal Bar..... or is it?

[Stogieman]

I'm having major difficulties accepting this ebay offering as real.

Can you convince me I am wrong?

If not, why am I right??

[Stogieman]

Reverse:

[Daniel Murphy]

#1, The ribbons are too new and show no wear or age. They look too modern like it was put together last week. #2, The punched out hooks for the medals are something I could accept for WW1-20's ......If they were not so sloppily done and uneven. They are up, down and all around. They should be separate hook soldered on the back. #3 That pin is weird. The medals themselves look like they are real.

Dan Murphy

[Steve K.]

I saw this one too. I believe it's a fraud.

Brand new shiny ribbons.....for 1864...I don't think so.

Plus the metal used to construct the trap looks like that acid etched flashing you can buy at a hardware store (if any still exist beyond the mega-stores).

[JBFloyd]

The ribbon ends show no age.

Plus, the transitional schnalle also strikes me as an anomaly considering the period of the campaign medals.

[Paul R]

The medals seem to be the only real part on this bar, IMHO. What are your thoughts on the EK2?

[webr55]

All very well guys, BUT: Think combination, not construction!

[Tom Y]

All very well guys, BUT: Think combination, not construction!

If you mean the lack of a 64, I have no problem with that. This one came from Detlev, and I've seen photos of similar bars.

[Daniel Murphy]

What are your thoughts on the EK2?

Now that you mention it, the numbers in 1870 and 1813 look very odd, especially that big 3.

Dan Murphy

[Steve K.]

OK. It wants us to believe it was constructed after 1897, but no oaks to the EK, no battle clasps to the 1870 (but that?s not a big problem)?..however, all that time in since ?64 is not represented correctly or in a more appropriate position (next to the EK) for the time period it was supposedly constructed.

Also, I would expect the 1866 to be next to the 1870 and not split by the '64s. This bar is a mess!

[webr55]

If you mean the lack of a 64, I have no problem with that. This one came from Detlev, and I've seen photos of similar bars.

Yes, I know, you posted that bar before, right?

But even granted these examples exist, all those I have seen without 1864 medal are OFFICERS' bars. I would guess that some officers didn't want to have their bars crowded by too many mediocre medals.

The example at the start of this thread is however an NCO's bar.

[medalnet]

The 1866 cross ribbon is definetly after 1945 and younger.

[joe campbell]

i am unhappy with the EK...

that numbering of the 1870 is

beyond reasonable....

BIG 8 and 7, little 1 and 0.

joe

[Stogieman]

OK< good critique so far... but what about:

A) 1897 Centennial, but no 1895 Jubilee Spange?

B) That bar is actually made out of GALVANIZED sheet steel, very similar to what the ductwork in 99% of the offices in the USA are formed from???

hmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Tom Y]

OK< good critique so far... but what about:

A) 1897 Centennial, but no 1895 Jubilee Spange?

B) That bar is actually made out of GALVANIZED sheet steel, very similar to what the ductwork in 99% of the offices in the USA are formed from???

hmmmmmmmmmmmm

As devils advocate,

A) The '95 Spange was sold, not given. Likewise the bars. Coulda been a cheapskate.

Aa) Although not the smooth, tight weave (and delicate) issue ribbons, the '64 and'66 could be '90's replacements.

B) No way you can argue with that. After 100 odd years that crystalline pattern would be long gone. I don't particularly like the catch, either.

[Schießplatzmeister]

Hello Everyone:

This is a fine example of a fraudulently assembled grouping. To summarize all of the problems as noted above: The backing as Stogieman points out is made from NEW galvanized sheet stock. Groups from this era usually use bronze backings. The ribbons are almost all of NEW nylon (The EK, 1870, 1866, and Centennial medal ribbons certainly are) stock. As Medalnet pointed out, the 1866 campaign medal ribbon is without doubt of new manufacture. The stitching style for the ribbons is not consistent with known originals (they were simply not constructed in this fashion). The 1870 campaign medal is NOT an awarded item, but is an OLD copy. The EKII is not an awarded piece and is probably a decent-quality MODERN copy. Yes, an 1864 campaign medal is missing from the group, but a more glaring problem is the fact that the 1870 medal is next the the EKII in precidence. Usually, the Duppel and Alsen medals would come next (this was not a hard and fast rule however). Also as someone pointed out, there is a lack of 1895 "25" year anniversary oak-leaves for the EKII (He was around in 1897 supposedly to get the Centennial, so why didn't he get the eichenlauben?). A lack of battle bars for the 1870 is NOT a problem as not everyone put them on their ribbons if qualified for them.

As we can see, there is a lot WRONG with this bar. The ONLY things right are the original medals (other than the EKII and 1870). The group is a fraud and only worth the value of the genuine medals.

Best regards,

"SPM"

Edited July 8, 2006 by Schie?platzmeister

[Tom Y]

Groups from this era usually use bronze backings.

Of the 9 pre-1900 bars I have immediately at hand 5 have galvanized steel backing.

Why do you say the 70/71 is a copy?

I say again, the 95 Spange was sold, not awarded. Not everyone bought one.

[Schießplatzmeister]

Of the 9 pre-1900 bars I have immediately at hand 5 have galvanized steel backing.

Why do you say the 70/71 is a copy?

I say again, the 95 Spange was sold, not awarded. Not everyone bought one.

Hello Tom:

All of the 1864/70 groups that I have in my collection have bronze backings. The majority of those that I have seen are also of bronze. I have seen period galvanized steel backings, but they are certainly less common.

The 1870/71 is an old copy (not made by the Berlin Mint) as evidenced by the this wire suspension loop soldered to the planchet. The edge certainly does not state "from captured cannon" in German either. Look at the suspension for the Alsen cross in this group. Official awarded medals have this type of suspension. These old copies (replacement pieces) were sometimes worn on medal groupings but are certainly of lesser-value/desirability to collectors than the awarded pieces.

You are right, the 1895 EKII 25 year anniversary oak-leaves were a privately-purchased optional item. Most veterans purchased them though (the lack of them just points to something more unusual, a small detail, but one with the other facts at hand that in summary show that this piece is a forgery).

Best regards,

"SPM"