gmvk

[art wall]

GMVK opinions?

[sabertasche]

Art, can you show us the medal ring and how it attaches to the cross? Also, any marking on the edges?

Greg

[art wall]

Here is a photo showing the ring attachment and a comparison of the maker mark to the medal shown here (top) compared to another gmvk.

[art wall]

I had brought this particular item up in the past and have subsequently purchased the award from Brock's guns. I was, and am, a little suprised at the paucity of information regarding the details of original gmvks. There are several small flaws that characterize this award, which were ignored or unknown when assessing the authenticity of this particular piece, as it was actually suggested to be a post war copy. Andreas S-I was easily able to identify this as a wartime award, but it appeared to cause confusion among other collectors.

If anyone would like to discuss the subtle flaws and subtleties of this award, I think it would help other collectors. The fakes on the market now (as shown by the fake photos submitted by Andreas on this site) are a far cry from the original wartime awards.

If I was a novice collector, I would have passed on this award based on observations and comments of other collectors. However, the piece posted, even with relatively poor photos, shows us all the details that we should need to be able to determine the authenticity of the medal in question. This is a good example of some salient facts that we should appreciate regarding opinions expressed on collecting forums and brings in the open a couple of points-

-The details of this award and its subtleties are poorly documented/known

-One expert is able to tell the authenticity from relatively poor photos, while others came to the exact opposite conclusion regarding a perfectly good medal.


What can we learn? This, as many other medals, needs to be more accurately characterized such that other collectors can evaluate medals on their own without the approval or condemnation of experts who may actually not be experts. Secondly, the cursory condemnation of others does not make an original award a reproduction. One way or another, an interesting exercise is a rare award!

[Don D.]

If you are happy that is all that counts.

[art wall]

Don-

That is the response that is given to a novice collector that has just purchased a fake to placate them. Rather than do that, why not actually discuss this award and the characteristics that define the piece. No one has actually posted and discussed these subtle flaws to help other collectors be able to tell what is real and what is not. This is not a fake, yet, again, I am shocked and somewhat disappointed that the forums have not been able to recognize what a real piece actually looks like. The typical response is posting a photo of what a collector feels to be a real piece and asks the collector to "make sure the piece in question looks exactly like the "real" posted piece", with no information actually stated as to what constitutes a real piece. This reluctance to reveal any relevant facts is always provided with the explicit desire not to provide "the fakers" with any details regarding the charcteristics of a real piece, when in fact, there is lack of knowledge as to what actually defines a real award- "I just know- trust ME". This calls to question the utility of such forums when a relatively simple issue cannot be resolved or disussed with any conviction. Oddly Don , this is identical to your piece, which is wartime as well. Why is there a reluctance to ask questions about this award? Why does your piece show the same identical flaws? Why is the opinion of "stogieman" trump the visual and objetive evidence? Has collecting come to the point where we no longer trust our eyes and the award itself and simply rely upon the decree of "good" or "bad" from someone that has no objective evidence to make that judgement either way? That is what I am not happy with. Any novice collector with a good photoshop program should be able to see what a real award looks like compared to the cast fakes you have posted on GMIC. The difference is worlds apart and it should be inbcumbent upon knowledgeable collectors to show the differences and not hide the facts as protected secrets.

Should anyone be interested in these "protected secrets", I can post them in order such that anyone, expert or not, can look for them to determine what is real and what is not. I would challenge anyone to actually state some specifics and risk the embarrassment of not knowing everything in order for us to collectively actually understand this piece. I do not know everything, but am willing to offer this, rather than dismiss an authentic award to placate the decree of experts that have no evidence whatsoever to make an assumption either way.

[Don D.]

Art, we've discussed your piece. You believe it is good, others don't. You say Andreas says it is good yet he is a member here and on GMIC and has not commented. Why is that?

By saying something is good over and over does not make it so. Perhaps in hand yours looks and feels good. I am happy for you then. Perhaps if you were happy with it you would not be trying so hard to vet it.

[art wall]

Don-

I really do not care whether my piece is good or not. That is not the issue, as that is simply a matter of money which is irrelevant. What is real and what is not real is the pertient question and why one would simply accept the opinion of an "expert " who has no criterion whatsoever to make the factual determination of authenticity one way or another. The "determination" that this piece is not real was made by people who did not post specifics as to why this true or not, but simply posted photos stating "this picture is real- take it or leave it". In contast, I can show many details as to what constitutes a real piece and what does not, such that anyone can see. The very, very sad issue here is that few can tell what actually defines a real award and what does not, as many have not evaluated this piece in detail and are intimidated by the mandates of some "experts", who apparently are really not experts at all.

Let's turn it around. Your piece is fake, and here is why. It has the exact same die characteristics as the piece I posted and is thereore a fake. I would ask you to explain why

1. There is very subtle line flaw seen in the "gutter" to the left of the crown at 10- 11 oclockl on your piece and every ww1 wartime piece. This can be seen on every wartime original and is seen on your piece as well as the piece posted.

2. There are identical number of "beads" seen on the pillars of the crown

3. There are identical background flaws seen between the pillars of the crown

4. there is a "dot" at the end of the scroll on the right hand side of the crown side

5. The left hand termination of the scroll is tuncated on the crown side

6. There is a flaw on the "T" on the inscription side'

7. There is a flaw in the "N" on the inscription side

8. There are numrous other subtle identical flaws including the "bridge flaw", and "helix flaw" which are seen on original pieces.

9. The reverse show a flaw at 9 oclock in the gutter

The good news is that your "fake" shows all these flaws, as well as the piece I posted, that is seen on original wartime pieces. The real problem is that some "experts" don't know these common flaws. It is fortunate that Andreas does.

[gregM]

One reason you are getting so few responces to this thread is that
these pieces are so rare that 99% of us will never actually see one
in person. I have been a member here for some time and I can only
remember seeing 1 or 2 of these ever being posted.

My advice to you is to post it on GMIC. there are a couple of
guys over there that have some experience with some of the
less common Imperial awards. Another option would be to send
your piece to one the dealers who handle these kind of awards
and let them look at it. Andreas would be one such person. In the
past, I have sent a piece to Detlev Niemann to get an expert opinion.

good luck

[Don D.]

"The real problem is that some "experts" don't know these common flaws." Perhaps an expert will chime in. Andreas has not. I personally don't know of any experts, just people with opinions.

[Wild Card]

Although I have one of these crosses which I have been told by people who’s judgment I respect is a “good” one, I am hardly qualified to pass judgment on this issue. I would like to ask, however (and I am surprised that no one else has) what the dimensions and weight of the piece in question are.

Thank you,

Wild Card

[Don D.]

This is the second thread on this award from Art. Here is the link to the first: http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=247806

[art wall]

For those interested, here are photo comparisons of several subtle flaws on Don's gmvk compared to the gmvk posted. As one can see, both show these identical flaws that are seen on wartime awards. We can conclude that either both are fake, or both are real. These are characterisitics of wartime gmvks beyond the better known "T" and "N" flaws.

[art wall]

second

[art wall]

'line flaw"