EK1 Opinions wanted

[gregM]

All of the crosses have been accepted as originals. So PLEASE
show me what makes these copies or kopies

[saschaw]

I never said this and do not agree with it. Until the word "copy" is universally understood here, I would call an authentic Third Reich era manufactured 1914 Iron Cross this: "an authentic Third Reich era manufactured 1914 Iron Cross."

I know you didn't - but others do.

Here are four crosses I would like you guys to classify for me. I consider
all of these crosses to be original. That is--They were made to be awarded
to or purchased by soldiers or veterans of ww1. The show different
levels of quality and time of manufacture.

#1 is original, #3 and #4 are wearer's copies (and wearer copies are copies, but a special case of - at least to me. Not impossible Uwe will disagree here ). #2 is a bit tricky. I guess but don't know K.M.ST. made those in the award era. Great piece, by the way.

All of the crosses have been accepted as originals. So PLEASE
show me what makes these copies or kopies

Our discussion, please see above... is it bad to have copies? As long as we have no fakes in our collections, I don't see the issue with it...

[Don D.]

Not to mention that the guys that were getting thier crosses finally awarded to them in the 1920s only received copies since it was after 11 Nov 1918.....

[saschaw]

Not to mention that the guys that were getting thier crosses finally awarded to them in the 1920s only received copies since it was after 11 Nov 1918.....

Says who? Did you read the thread? Award era for 1914 Iron Crosses ended in 1924, and the awarded crosses up to 1924 are of course and without any doubt originals.

[streptile]

All of the crosses have been accepted as originals. So PLEASE
show me what makes these copies or kopies

Personally I would not call any of your crosses a "copy," as I have been arguing here for days.

The ones that were awarded or manufactured during the war (#1 and #2), I'd call "originals."

#3 I'd call "authentic replacement cross of 1920s - 1930s manufacture."

#4 I'd call "authentic replacement cross of Third Reich-era manufacture."

My point here, Greg, is that, in the US, a majority of militaria collectors use the word "copy" to mean "fake," so it is not yet acceptable to use the term to describe anything else but a fake, as it confuses things. Your quote at the top of this post is a perfect example of this.

In the future, if we see wide acceptance of the definition proposed by the O.M.S.A. for the word "copy," then - and only then - would it be acceptable to call your crosses #3 and #4 "copies."

I have never said anything substantially different in this thread, although I probably could've been clearer in my formulations.

I hope that's clear now?

~Trevor

[Don D.]

"... imo has dangerous implications for calling any 1914EK1 produced post-November 1918 a fake - not 1924"

There are no problems for me with the date 1918.


yes I did. A lot of sifting fly poo poo from pepper as we say here in the US of A.

[gregM]

I told myself the I would not get involved in a p1ssing match over
semantics. So I will remove myself from it.

[streptile]

If I may, I will sum up the conclusions of this thread succinctly.





Conclusion:

A definition for the word "copy" has been suggested by the B.D.O.S.:

Definition (translated and paraphrased): Any award not made in the award period, but not a counterfeit. Copies may include contemporary wearing pieces and private purchase medals not made in the award period.

I do not think this definition is workable in our hobby, and do not use it in discussions, because most US collectors equate the word "copy" with the word "fake." I think it confuses things to use "copy" to describe anything but fakes.

Uwe and Sascha do think the definition is workable, and actively use it in discussions. Further, they believe that collectors should stop equating "copy" and "fake," which would bring needed precision to the identification of awards.





That's it folks.

Sascha and Uwe, please correct me if I've misstated your view(s).

***********

Finally, Uwe believes that Detlev Niemann's "Copy Archive" or "Kopien Archiv" shows a mixed collection of fakes, and authentic awards not made in the award period, such as Third Reich-manufactured 1914 Iron Crosses. Basically, "copies" as understood by the B.D.O.S. I disagree. This issue is unresolved.


I hope this helps clear this up.

~Trevor

[saschaw]

That's it folks.

Sascha and Uwe, please correct me if I've misstated your view(s).

Yes, that's it and I don't feel misstated. Thanks Trevor!

Finally, Uwe believes that Detlev Niemann's "Copy Archive" or "Kopien Archiv" shows a mixed collection of fakes, and authentic awards not made in the award period, such as Third Reich-manufactured 1914 Iron Crosses. Basically, "copies" as understood by the B.D.O.S. I disagree. This issue is unresolved.

I do not know the said archive, but am pretty sure it shows fakes only. Are there e.g. Third Reich made WWI crosses in? As Mr. Niemann sells those as "originals" I really cannot imagine. He does not agree with our (Uwe's, BDOS's, OMSA's and my) opinion - yet, as Trevor pointed out.

[streptile]

Mr. Niemann ... does not agree with our opinion - yet.

Right!
He may soon adopt the language. So may we all. We shall see. If so, you can count yourself in the vanguard of a meaningful movement.

I told myself the I would not get involved in a p1ssing match over
semantis. So I will remove myself from it.

The conversation certainly is about semantics -- or rather nomenclature -- but I (obviously) do not think it's unimportant. After all, a movement is afoot to change our terminology. I believe that language affects thought, just as thought affects language. If this is true, then I care which word is used to describe what object.

~Trevor

[speedytop]

It is really desperate and very dissatisfactory.

We lost the thread.

If furthermore consistently (some/many?) German-speaking and English-speaking collector's and in particular traders/seller/dealers persist on her opinion, that the used meaning of Kopie (copy) and Fälschung (counterfeit/forgery/fake) in the collectors community has to be absolute different to all that, what the German and the English language contain and express, than the collectors will be cheated furthermore.

But this is not my problem, this can decide everybody for itself.

However, regardless of copy and counterfeit/forgery/fake, clearness and consensus should rule at least over, what is an original and what is not an original.

What is more important for us as collectors?
The unitary opinion of collector's organizations like OMSA, BDOS and ÖGO (and other foreign organizations) in this point, or the sales-supporting and profit-oriented opinion of the traders?

What do you think, why these organizations had edited these definitions?

To protect the collectors against deception!

The lowest accepted step should and must be for an original: "awarded in the award period"

If not, it is really hopeless.


kay bunnecke:
"collectors know more about definition off words then awards?
is that the future ?"

Is it explicit forbidden, to have knowledge and to use correct terms?

Uwe

I beg your pardon for my bad English, but not for my opinion

[Bill M]

--Hi guys, been a while. Been checking in, but very busy so no posting...til now.

--Very simply a question to my fellow Americans here:

Would you buy a piece described by a seller as a 'copy'?

Not a 'wearer's copy' or a 'jeweler's copy', but a plain 'copy'?

--Therein lies the answer to the question of Trans-Atlantic semantics... Very simple, actually...

Regards,
Bill

[speedytop]

Hi

"... because most US collectors equate the word "copy" with the word "fake." I think it confuses things to use "copy" to describe anything but fakes."

And therefore we can equate it: a 'wearer's copy' is/must be a "weare's fake" and a 'jeweler's copy' is/must be a "jeweler's fake".

Very interesting.

And now I think, that I understand the system:

(Irony switched on)

If a piece is obviously and definitely not a piece to fool, to deceive me, and it is easily distinguishable from a period piece, based on a not period needle system or a not period used material or whatever, than it is not a fake/counterfeit/forgery. Right?

If it is not a fake, it could also not be a copy, "because most US collectors equate the word 'copy' with the word 'fake'." Right?

And if it is not a fake or a copy, it must be an original!

Right!

Whow! A perfect system. And now I know, why we have so unbelievable many "originals" around the world.

"Very simple, actually..."

(Irony switched off)

It is time for me, to leave this thread.

Kind Regards
Uwe

[Bill M]

--I don't see the problem.

--In the USA, in militaria, the word copy (by itself) suggests 'fake', but when paired with the words 'jeweler's' or 'wearer's' it suggests a 'private purchase piece' - a replacement, but not a fake.

--How does an entire thread fail to explain this nuance in the english language as used by a huge segment of the collecting community?

[streptile]

--I don't see the problem.

--In the USA, in militaria, the word copy (by itself) suggests 'fake', but when paired with the words 'jeweler's' or 'wearer's' it suggests a 'private purchase piece' - a replacement, but not a fake.

--How does an entire thread fail to explain this nuance in the english language as used by a huge segment of the collecting community?

Good luck, Bill!

I think Sascha and I reached an agreement. An agreement to disagree like gentlemen.

Collectors in both the US and Germany use "copy" to mean "fake." Uwe and Sascha want to change that. This may happen in time. We'll see.

In the meantime, please enjoy these photos of the piece that started it all, an authentic 1960s-manufactured replacement cross for World War I veterans:









~Trevor