Announcement

**Teamski** · 05-08-2009, 08:09 PM

A very interesting discussion indeed! What I think is that this was a legit cross made for veterans. Copies would be made for collectors. Now, how rare would these crosses be in the late 1950's to cause a manufacturer to make a "fake" for collectors? I'm sure these crosses were common enough that this wouldn't be the case. Just a personal opinion. I'm not saying this because this is my cross, as it no longer is......

-Ski

**saschaw** · 05-09-2009, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by Teamski View Post

Copies would be made for collectors.

Says who? That's your point of view and many here may agree.

I mainly agree with Uwe. Later pieces produced to be privat purchased are copies - copies for the wearers! That does in my opinion not in any way refer to their legacy. In my collection, I have many such "copies" - and do not mind. Most don't wantscopies and therefore don't want to be their wearer's copies to be called copies, as "copy" is often used synonyme for "fake" - but the fake has the intention to fool someone. The copy does not.

**speedytop** · 05-09-2009, 08:25 AM

Hi Steve,

"When you say the award period was ended in 1924, what does that mean? No more awards were given?"

Yes.

"Is an L/12 EK1 from the 1939 series a copy?"

Yes.

"It was produced so veterans could buys a duplicate if they wanted."

Yes, as a copy.
Could a duplicate, made outside the award period, be an original? No, never.
When I search for a German word for the English word "duplicate", then I find e.g. "Doppel", Zweitausfertigung" and "Kopie". Kopie = copy, replica.

It is not important for a piece, made outside the award period, for whom it is and why he bought it.

What is a 1957 made Iron Cross from 1914 for a vet? An original?
No, it could be, based on your interpretation, a replacement. Or it could be a duplicate.

What is a 1957 made Iron Cross from 1914, exactly the same piece of the same manufacturer, for a collector?

What is the same piece after the death of the vet, sold to a collector?
It now changes from a "replacement" or "duplicate" to a copy

?

Regards
Uwe

**gregM** · 05-09-2009, 08:32 AM

How do you feel about Jubilee era (1895) 1870 Eks? Do you consider
them to be copies as well?

**Steve Campbell** · 05-09-2009, 08:37 AM

I think the terms we are using are the problem here. Copy has a certain negative connatation. I see your point all the same. An EK1 by Paul Meybauer is the same costruction, material etc if it is awarded and marked 7 or a copy and marked L/13. What about an unissued cross meant for award but never given out, which ends up in a collection? A copy or not? Would the definition change if ths unissued cross was marked 7 or L/13?. I guess the 1870 EKs issued in 1895 are copies, but the 25 year Oak Leaves are not.

**Steve Campbell** · 05-09-2009, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by gregM View Post

How do you feel about Jubilee era (1895) 1870 Eks? Do you consider
them to be copies as well?

I never saw this post Greg, but referenced it in my post below. With that criteria, yes I would say.

**streptile** · 05-09-2009, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by speedytop View Post

Hi Steve,
"When you say the award period was ended in 1924, what does that mean? No more awards were given?"
Yes.
"Is an L/12 EK1 from the 1939 series a copy?"
Yes.
"It was produced so veterans could buys a duplicate if they wanted."
Yes, as a copy. It is not important for a piece, made outside the award period, for whom it is and why he bought it.

At this point it's just semantics. I think Uwe belongs to that very restrictive school of thought which would label any award not officially awarded a "copy."

I also notice that he uses words interchangeably which, in English, are not. "Copy" and "Duplicate," for example, are not synonymous in this hobby, in English.

Perhaps the implications of the words are different in German, I'm not sure. But for me and the vast majority of collectors the world over, an L/12 maked 1939 EK1, to take a single example, would not be considered a "copy". At this point there's nothing to do but agree to disagree.

I will say, however, that I think it's useful to have some way to differentiate between this (a terrible Latvian fake):

...and this (a beautiful 1870 EK1, but not officially awarded):

With Uwe's criteria, these are both labelled "copies."

But I don't think anyone's likely to convince anyone else here!

~Trevor

**speedytop** · 05-09-2009, 08:03 PM

Hi,

streptile:
"I think Uwe belongs to that very restrictive school of thought which would label any award not officially awarded a "copy." "

No, not quite correct.

This is the German text of a definition, published by BDOS and ÖGO:

Originale:
Alle verliehenen Exemplare sind Originale.
Darüber hinaus bezeichnet man als Originale solche Exemplare, die im Verleihungszeitraum im Auftrag von Berechtigten hergestellt worden sind oder werden und welche die gestalterischen Merkmale von verliehenen Exemplaren aufweisen.

Rough translation:
Originals:
All awarded pieces are originals.
Furthermore other pieces like the originals, authorized from entitled persons, produced in the award period.

Short version:
Originals are awarded pieces or authorized pieces made in the award period.

.... in the award period.

BDOS (German):

http://www.bdos.de/

ÖgO (Austrian):

http://www.ordenskunde.at/

Fake is the name for pieces made to deceive or to fool someone:
streptile:
"... those items manufactured with the intention of deceiving collectors."
saschaw:
"... "copy" is often used synonyme for "fake" - but the fake has the intention to fool someone."

And I find it very interesting, that several anglophone collectors (and especially sellers) write and say "jeweler's copy" and "wearer's copy" as useable, but they do not accept the "naked" word copy

Let us have a look on the pieces in this thread:

Were they original made in the award period = No
Were they made to deceive collectors = No

No original, no fake = a copy

Uwe

**streptile** · 05-10-2009, 01:15 AM

Hi Uwe,

Thank you for that explanation and the links to those organizations. These are exactly the organizations I was referring to in an earlier post when I wrote:

Originally posted by streptile View Post

I know there is a school of thought (prevalent in Germany) that holds that any decoration that is not an official award piece is a "copy."

I should point out, however, that just because the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ordenskunde and the Österreichische Gesellschaft für Ordenskunde have chosen to define "originals" and "copies" in this particular way does not make it so, no matter how impressive their names sound.

* * *

If I understand you, awards fall into 3 basic categories:

1. "original" (awarded or authorized and manufactured during the award period)
2. "copy" (anything intended for private purchase by legitimate award recipients but made outside the award period)
3. "fake" (made to deceive collectors)

Here's the problem, though. You are suggesting a distinction between the word "copy" and the word "fake" that does not exist (in this hobby) in English. In English, in this hobby, "copy" -- unmodified with "jeweler's" or "wearer's" -- is synonymous with "fake." Period. Thus your system is untenable when used by English speakers.

This may not be so in German.

Originally posted by speedytop View Post

And I find it very interesting, that several anglophone collectors (and especially sellers) write and say "jeweler's copy" and "wearer's copy" as usable, but they do not accept the "naked" word copy

It's perfectly understandable (and uninteresting) to an anglophone collector that this should happen. As I indicated above, in English, no one would use the word "copy" by itself except to describe a fake.

I don't have a problem with your categories, just your semantics. It could all be cleared up by revising it as follows for English speakers:

1. "original"
2. "wearer's copy"
3. "fake"

Presto!

* * *

Finally I would like to point out a potential discrepancy in your views. How do you reconcile the following two statements?

Originally posted by speedytop View Post

Originals are awarded pieces or authorized pieces made in the award period.

Originally posted by speedytop View Post

"Is an L/12 EK1 from the 1939 series a copy?"
Yes.

What is an L/12 marked 1939 EK1 if not an "authorized piece made in the award period"?

~Trevor

Just so there's no misunderstanding: I find this discussion lively and interesting and am not offended or upset by it.

Hope you feel the same.

**speedytop** · 05-10-2009, 11:16 AM

Hi streptile,

it all could be based on my insufficient English.
But it is not the first time, that I had such discussions about originals, copies and fakes.
Nobody, even my greatest opponent, has stated that up to now in this way.

Now I have to delete all my German, English and other foreigen translater programs, because there is a problem for me.
When I insert "a copy and a fake", it is always shown "eine Kopie und eine Fälschung".
The other way round for "eine Kopie und eine Fälschung" I can find different results:
- a copy and a forgery (6)
- a copy and a falsification (2)
With changed words "eine Fälschung und eine Kopie" it is nearly the same, but one program say now
"a fake and a copy"

http://translate.google.de/translate...20eine%20Kopie

Hence, I have some doubts about your comment:
"a distinction between the word "copy" and the word "fake" that does not exist (in this hobby) in English."

Your inquiry:
"Is an L/12 EK1 from the 1939 series a copy?"

Here it could be once more my unsufficient English.
We are writing here about an Iron Cross from 1914 (Post 1 and 2). And therefore I thought, that with the wording "Is an L/12 EK1 from the 1939 series a copy?" it is meant an Iron Cross 1914 in a "1939 series", a production in the time period around 1939.

Regards
Uwe

PS: please excuse my bad English

**streptile** · 05-10-2009, 11:37 AM

Now we're at the heart of the matter.

1. "1939"
This was a misunderstanding due to language difficulties:

Originally posted by speedytop View Post

"Is an L/12 EK1 from the 1939 series a copy?"
Yes.

Steve was asking about a 1939 EK1. You misunderstood. So we're agreed that a 1939 L/12 marked EK1 is an "orginal." OK.

2. "Copy."

Your English is superb, don't fret. But the fact that a translator or a dictionary lists different German words with different definitions for "copy" ("Kopie") and "fake" ("Fälschung") does not take into account the way these words are used specifically within the community of militaria collectors.

I don't think anyone here will disagree with me that -- within our hobby -- there is no difference in English between the word "copy" and the word "fake." It has simply always been this way. The word "copy," to a militaria collector, has negative connotations. It means "fake." Period. This is not the case in the wider world of translators and dictionaries, but it is with us.

This is the heart of the question.

"Copy" must not be used as a direct translation of "Kopie" in the way that "fake" is used as a translation of "Fälschung." When speaking of a "Kopie" with anglophone collectors, it is important to say "wearer's copy." Otherwise you've insulted the person's item by calling it a fake.

I'd be interested to hear from any native English speaking collectors who may disagree with these conclusions, but I don't think there will be too many.

Thank you, Uwe, for this important discussion.

~Trevor

**streptile** · 05-10-2009, 12:11 PM

Uwe,

After further thought I've decided to add to my last post.

Originally posted by speedytop View Post

it all could be based on my insufficient English.
PS: please excuse my bad English

I don't mean to sound supercilious, and I do understand your sarcasm (your English is excellent) but it is due to your insufficient understanding of the peculiarities of English nomenclature within this hobby. This entire thing is based on a misunderstanding of translation.

Originally posted by speedytop View Post

Nobody, even my greatest opponent, has stated that up to now in this way.

Then I am now your "greatest opponent," as I have finally untied the knot of this misunderstanding.

Originally posted by speedytop View Post

Hence, I have some doubts about your comment:
"a distinction between the word "copy" and the word "fake" that does not exist (in this hobby) in English."

You may have doubts about it, but it's true.

I could list a million examples from a thousand websites, but these two come to mind as things I've seen this morning:

On a serious note, I do not intend to question your mastery of English, and I appreciate all your help in other threads and in this one!

~Trevor

**speedytop** · 05-10-2009, 02:12 PM

Hi Trevor,

"So we're agreed that a 1939 L/12 marked EK1 is an "orginal.""

No, we're not agreed!

This is the missimg precision in many comments from collectors and dealers.

I said nothing about a 1939 L/12 marked EK1, because I thought, that we are talking about a 1914 cross.

Detlev Niemann, Price Guide Orders and Decorations Germany 1871-1945, 2nd edition, page 498:
"Remark:
c) Be aware of crosses which have been marked with "L/12" afterwards."

No futher comments.

"You may have doubts about it, but it's true."
What will you say us with the picture from Detlev Niemann's Copy Archive (Kopien-Archiv is the German name)?
If he mean a Fälschungs-Archiv, he would write it.

I think, that we have lost the real thread.

We have at first and most important to differentiate between originals (see e.g. the German definition) and not originals.

All the other terms are not really important.
And there are several German collectors who say, that we don't need an other differentiation beside the originals.

In the German spoken collectors world we have now definitions, and I say, that I do not accept all the definitions, because there is one more definition between Original and Kopie, "Zweitanfertigungen" (second manufacture). For me, and not only for me, these pieces are also "Kopien" = "not originals" (you can now choose the translation you want

).

My conclusion, let us, as Germans and anglophone collectors, speak about the originality of orders and decorations.
We as Germans have to talk about the German terms, and I think, that the anglophone collectors have to talk about the English terms.

We all have problems with that.

I think, that many not recognized "Fälschungen" are as accepted originals in collections.

Regards
Uwe

**Steve Campbell** · 05-10-2009, 03:41 PM

The L/12 was used as a reference only. I could have used L/13, L/11 etc to get my point across. The warning from Detlov involves the practice of people adding the L/12 mark to a piece, not just Iron Crosses to increase the value. It seems the L/12 mark brings more money and is the one counterfieters have used extensivley.

**streptile** · 05-10-2009, 08:15 PM

Hi Uwe,

So we've really split the thread into two questions. Let's deal with them one at a time.

Question 1

Lets solve this first.

Originally posted by speedytop View Post

"So we're agreed that a 1939 L/12 marked EK1 is an "orginal.""
No, we're not agreed!

Forget about L/12. As Steve says:

Originally posted by Steve Campbell View Post

The L/12 was used as a reference only. I could have used L/13, L/11 etc to get my point across.

So. This particular question can be answered with a simple little test.

Assume this piece (below) was manufactured before May 1945. It's an L/15 marked 1939 EK1 made by Otto Schickle.

Would you call this an "original"?

Photo credit: WAF member 5tefan

If your answer is "yes," then we agree. If it's "no," then we must agree to disagree on this first question.

***********

Question 2

The word "Copy"

Originally posted by speedytop View Post

What will you say us with the picture from Detlev Niemann's Copy Archive (Kopien-Archiv is the German name)?

What I was trying to show is that Detlev Niemann, like every other collector who uses English, uses the word "copy" to mean "fake."

You wrote:

Originally posted by speedytop View Post

If he [Detlev Niemann] mean a Fälschungs-Archiv, he would write it.

Are you suggesting that Niemann's "Copy Archive" is not an archive of fakes (awards and decorations manufactured with the intention of deceiving collectors)? I believe it is.

If it were an archive of "Kopien" -- as you define the word -- it would include, for example, Third Reich-manufactured EK1s like this L/11 marked piece:

Photo credit: WAF member George Stimson

I don't think Niemann would include the above piece in his "Copy Archive." Do you? I think his archive is a database of fakes. Does anyone have information to the contrary? This would be very important for us in the collectors' community to know.

My simple point is this:

In English, within the militaria collector's community, "copy" means "fake."

If I understand you correctly below, you agree (or at least agree to defer the question to English speakers):

Originally posted by speedytop View Post

We as Germans have to talk about the German terms, and I think, that the anglophone collectors have to talk about the English terms.

But in conclusion I must again stress that to call an award like the Deumer 1914 L/11 marked EK1 pictured above a "copy" is incorrect in English, although it may be perfectly correct to call it a "Kopie" in German.

Can we agree on that?

***********

3. Zweitanfertigungen

You brought up this word:

Originally posted by speedytop View Post

In the German spoken collectors world we have now definitions, and I say, that I do not accept all the definitions, because there is one more definition between Original and Kopie, "Zweitanfertigungen" (second manufacture).

Anyone who collects German militaria seriously is also acquainted with this term, and I personally like it and use it.

Originally posted by speedytop View Post

For me, and not only for me, these pieces are also "Kopien" = "not originals"

I'm willing to agree with that, provided you translate "Kopien" as "wearers' copies".

Originally posted by speedytop View Post

I think, that many not recognized "Fälschungen" are as accepted originals in collections.

Oh, yes indeed. Another point of agreement!

***********

4. Conclusion.

I like these categories:

1. "Original" (English) or "Original" (Deutsch) : awarded pieces or authorized pieces made in the award period.
2. "Wearer's Copy" or "Kopie" : anything intended for private purchase by legitimate award recipients but made outside the award period.
3. "Fake" or "Fälschung" : an award manufactured with the intention of deceiving collectors.

Can we agree on this now?

~ Trevor

Announcement

EK1 Opinions wanted

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread