Discussion: 1914-1918 Imperial Orders Versus 1957 New Form Awards.

[naxos]

There is no 57 PLM - it would be a post WWII manufactured PLM

The Ordens Gesetz of 1957 says: for a Third Reich award to be worn by the recipient in public the apperance of the award has to be changed so it would not display the outlawed swastika.
Any awards from before the Third Reich are simply awards that according to the law of 1957 are legal to be worn by the recipient in public. There are no 1957 issues of them.
http://www.documentarchiv.de/brd/198...ichen_ges.html

Regards, Hardy

[AlikN]

There is no 57 PLM - it would be a post WWII manufactured PLM

The Ordens Gesetz of 1957 says: for a Third Reich award to be worn by the recipient in public the apperance of the award has to be changed so it would not display the outlawed swastika.
Any awards from before the Third Reich are simply awards that according to the law of 1957 are legal to be worn by the recipient in public. There are no 1957 issues of them.
http://www.documentarchiv.de/brd/198...ichen_ges.html

Regards, Hardy

So you are saying those are fakes? ...
If those plm's were made from 1957 with all the denazifide awards by the same maker, it makes them 1957 issue or production, which IS postwar, ...I don't get what you are trying to say.

[speedytop]

Hi Alikn,


"So you are saying those are fakes?"

Yes, or post WWII copies, what do you prefer?


"...it makes them 1957 issue or production, ..."

No, or better, it could be, that it is a production in the year 1957, why not?

But there is nothing to combine with the denazified 1957 versions, according to the "Ordensgesetz" from 1957.

No 57 PLM, no 57 cufftitle, no 57 Honor Cross WWI et cetera et cetera.


Regards
Uwe

[naxos]

So you are saying those are fakes? ...
If those plm's were made from 1957 with all the denazifide awards by the same maker, it makes them 1957 issue or production, which IS postwar, ...I don't get what you are trying to say.

No, I'm not saying that they are fakes. All I am saying is that Imperial awards were not subject to the Ordens Gesetz (law) of 1957. The design of any Imperial award had not to be changed in order to legally be worn.
I have no problem with the above post-1945 PLM - it is a very nice example - my objection is to calling it a 57 Reissue.

Regards, Hardy

[Peter Wiking]

These can be called 1957 reissue PLM crosses.

Definition.
Reissue: To issue again, especially to make available again.

If they are made by S&L or any of the other companys in those early years 1957 to 1965 they can certanly be called 1957 reissue PLM. It is different though to call them 1957 new form as there are no swastikas or ss symbols to remove. These are nice crosses just as the 1914 crosses produced by the same companys 1957 to 1965.

Keep in mind the reissue of the 1914 cross for veterans during the third reich. Fake? I think not.

Peter

[naxos]

Peter,
Steinhauer & Lück did not wait until 1957 to manufacture military awards again.
One could buy imperial awards and even TR awards in their original form (with swastika) made by S&L in 1956.

Regards, Hardy

[naxos]

The year 1957 is irrelevant for any German military award instituted before 1933.

Regards, Hardy

[Darrell]

There is no 57 PLM - it would be a post WWII manufactured PLM

The Ordens Gesetz of 1957 says: for a Third Reich award to be worn by the recipient in public the apperance of the award has to be changed so it would not display the outlawed swastika.
Any awards from before the Third Reich are simply awards that according to the law of 1957 are legal to be worn by the recipient in public. There are no 1957 issues of them.
http://www.documentarchiv.de/brd/198...ichen_ges.html

Regards, Hardy

Interesting. I tend to agree.

Was the PLM and WW1 EK series banned from wear during 1945 to 1957?

[naxos]

Interesting. I tend to agree.

Was the PLM and WW1 EK series banned from wear during 1945 to 1957?

No Darrell, neither were TR military awards during 45 to 57, as long as the Swastika was removed.

Regards, Hardy

[Valter Gorenc]

re-issue/replacement vs. fake

I think designation "57" in this case means re-isuue and of course has nothing with official Law from 1957, concerning TR awards with swastikas etc. But for ue among collectors, the name "57-PLM" could be acceptable, as we talk about "hindenburg cross" or "frozen flesh medal" although the official name of the decoration is different.

These crosses were (are?) produced as replacement for the decorations the original recipients lost or got damaged... Or simply didn't want to wear in public due to safety or whatever reasons. It's quite common practice in most countriesthat a recipient can buy an extra (or at least replacement) decoration, and this is an official award jut like the issue piece. maybe not that desirable, but maybe even more, as is the case with soviet replacement orders.

BUT we should ask these questions:

1) was the production of re-issue PLM or any other WW1 decorations regulated in any way? Were there some "official" producers of these awards or was it completely open-market issue?

2) who was entitled to buy a re-issue decoration? Only recipients who could prove that with documents, or anyone from the street?

3) was the regulation of questions 1) and 2) any different for different categories of awards - like Third Reich, Imperial, Federal?

I don't know the answers, but I'm sure some of you guys do! Please post some reply, it's an interestin subject!

Regards, Valter

[speedytop]

Hi Valter,

"But for us among collectors, the name "57-PLM" could be acceptable, as we talk about "hindenburg cross" or "frozen flesh medal" although the official name of the decoration is different."

You compare potatoes to strawberrys.

The names for the "Hindenburg-Kreuz" and the "Gefrierfleischorden" are contemporary.

Have you ever heard a name like "Weimarer Republik-Pour le Merite" for a PLM produced e.g. 1930? Or a TR-PLM, produced 1936?

"These crosses were produced as replacement for the decorations the original recipients lost or got damaged..."

Yes, but they were produced in 1953 too.
Than it is a 1953-PLM?


"...a recipient can buy an extra (or at least replacement) decoration, and this is an official award just like the issue piece."

No, that is not an official award.
And that is just the problem, the real 1957 versions (please see my next post) were not re-awarded or new-awarded or re-issued, they were new-produced, and nobody awarded them. Everybody, not only the veterans, could buy them ("anyone from the street").
No regulations, no authorization for the producers.
The pieces must only match with the "Muster".

[speedytop]

We are talking (writing) here about post WWII production of decorations, awarded before 1945, correct?

And we are talking about the impact of the Ordensgesetz 1957.

It is probably difficult for some collectors, to understand and realize, that there were only nearly 100 decarations from the TR (only TR!), where the design had to be changed.

Only these pieces have the permission to carry the appendix 1957.

And these pieces are originals, 1957 versions.

Much to my regret I have only bad pictures of these decorations in a pdf-file, a copy of a bad copy from the Bundesanzeiger No. 41/1958, enclosure.

You can see here the enclosure (Beilage), first the preface

http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/9...vorwortzr3.jpg

and the pictures (pictures of the "Muster")

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/5...ersionsxq9.jpg

All the other expressions as 57-PLM or 1957-cufftitle are selfmade by collectors.
There is no match to the Ordensgesetz for these expressions.


Regards
Uwe

[Valter Gorenc]

Hi Uwe,

I have to agree with you. Only ofter my post I've read your post in another thread, and that clarified most of my questions about issue/re-issue etc. of 1957 awards.


(Have you ever heard a name like "Weimarer Republik-Pour le Merite" for a PLM produced e.g. 1930? Or a TR-PLM, produced 1936?)

Yup, that would be silly but collectors to make a distincion between early ww1 PLMs (gold), late-ww1 PLMs (gold-plated only or even less) and (usually) post-ww1 PLM, right?

"These crosses were produced as replacement for the decorations the original recipients lost or got damaged..."

Yes, but they were produced in 1953 too.
Than it is a 1953-PLM?

You're right - but how should we call a post-ww2 produced PLM? (I think I just answered that one)? And how, if possible at all, can we separate - let's say post ww1 or post-ww2 produced PLM that was made for veterans as replacement from the same awards made just for collector's market? I think before ww2 the veterans had to prove they're entitled to buy a copy of PLM or it was also available to everyone from the street?

No, that is not an official award.
And that is just the problem, the real 1957 versions (please see my next post) were not re-awarded or new-awarded or re-issued, they were new-produced, and nobody awarded them. Everybody, not only the veterans, could buy them ("anyone from the street").
No regulations, no authorization for the producers.
The pieces must only match with the "Muster

Yes, that's really the problem with 1957'ers and post-ww2 PLMs and so on... Is there any difference between post-ww2 PLM and Godet copies of old imperial decorations, that are openly sold as collector's or "museum" copies?

So, situation about "replacement" decorations in Germany is a whole different than in sme other countries, where selling / giving of replacements is strictly regulated. At least it was, especially in communist countries like SSSR or yugoslavia.

Regards, Valter

[Peter Wiking]

Well aware of the 1957 new form muster it is a academic question in the end. 1957 reissue or not the cross below from my private collection, was made by Steinhauer & Luck in the 1960's. The same tools that produced it also produced the 1957 new form iron cross with 1939 date and oakleaf. Fake, postwar or reissue is irrelevant to me. I know the producer and i know when it was made. I like the cross and the time it was born in. That is good enough for me. That is why i collect them.

All the best.
Peter

[Tiger 1]

Peter,

Could you show the reverse of your S&L EKI?.

Thanks,

Tony