EK1 Opinions wanted

[speedytop]

Hi Trevor,

comments about the originality of 1939 Iron Crosses is not really my field of interest.
No further comments, because I e.g. have a very own personal opinion about L/58 and L 58 marked Iron Crosses and crosses with the same design but other maker marks.

And we are here in the Imperial section.


I think, that the Kopien-Archiv from Detlev Niemann is a mixture of both, Kopien (copies) and Fälschungen (fakes), but mostly copies.


Once more, the Germans also have problems with a differentiation between Kopie (copy) and Fälschung (fake), and the Germans have problems with the correct use of the correct term for a decoration, which is not an original.
The terms from BDOS and ÖGO are new from 2007.

The differences between the German words Kopie and Fälschung are the same as for the English words copy and fake:

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

http://www.dict.cc/?s=copy

http://www.dict.cc/?s=fake

In the translation of "Kopie" I don't find the word "fake":

http://www.dict.cc/?s=Kopie

And in the translation of "Fälschung" I don't find the word "copy":

http://www.dict.cc/?s=F%C3%A4lschung

Therfore it is in my opinion a matter for the anglophone collector's world, to change the allocation.

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

To equate in the collector's world "Kopie" and "Fälschung" in German and "copy" and "fake" in English is in my opinion a bad habit.

Uwe

[dmytro]

Interesting use and understanding of words.

What would this fall under? Copy or fake?, it's a 1939-45 made EK1 14-18 made by S & L. The obverse is identical to the one that started this post but with a 39-45 pin and clasp arrangement typical of S & L. I always thought that it was a legitamate piece, made for wear by original recipients, albeit many years (at least 21) after the presentation, as numerous recipients went on to serve in the Wehrmacht.

regards

Alex K

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/9...8flatcopy2.jpg

PS posted in the 57 section also

[speedytop]

Hi Alex,

I'm really not a specialist for setups and the makers of decorations.

If you know, it was made in the period 1939-1945, please try it yourself.

Original (original):
- an awarded piece or an authorized produced piece in the award period (that could be a replacement, a duplicate for a wearer etc.)

Fälschung (fake):
- produced to fool, to deceive someone (that could be made also in the award period)

Kopie (copy):
- all the other pieces (here you can insert all what you want)

And I think, that we can see in this system, that a duplicate for a wearer, a "wearer's copy", could be an original.

And therefore I don't like the additional term "Zweitanfertigungen" (duplicate, second manufacture) between the terms original and copy, because e.g. a duplicate for a wearer or for a museum could be an original, a copy or a fake.

Uwe

[streptile]

comments about the originality of 1939 Iron Crosses is not really my field of interest.

Fair enough, but if we stipulate that the example posted above was manufactured before May 1945 by Otto Schickle, as I said in my post, it is an "original" under any definition, yours included. You just dance around the issue by refusing to state that.

Hi Trevor,
I think, that the Kopien-Archiv from Detlev Niemann is a mixture of both, Kopien (copies) and Fälschungen (fakes), but mostly copies.

All right, I guess we disagree about this. I think Detlev's archive is a compendium of fakes.

The differences between the German words Kopie and Fälschung are the same as for the English words copy and fake:
http://translate.google.de/translate...20eine%20Kopie
http://www.dict.cc/?s=copy
http://www.dict.cc/?s=fake
In the translation of "Kopie" I don't find the word "fake":
http://www.dict.cc/?s=Kopie
And in the translation of "Fälschung" I don't find the word "copy":
http://www.dict.cc/?s=F%C3%A4lschung
Therfore it is in my opinion a matter for the anglophone collector's world, to change the allocation.

I think now you're being a mite recalcitrant, as everyone knows that online translators do not convey nuance of usage. In the case of "copy," as used within our community, I've explained that nuance in many posts. I don't mean to sound grumpy; you just seem unwilling to accept the facts of our language, which will only add to the confusion in our community rather than help us move towards the "precision" you seem to seek.

Thanks, Uwe, for the lively debate!

~Trevor

[streptile]

deleted

[Tiger 1]

Whew!

Gentlemen.......

We seem to have spread this discussion out to cover many distinct eras from 1870 all the way to 1957 with often differing but specific requirements. Some of what I mention below will apply to all and some of it will apply to specific eras.

It is my understanding that a government awarded piece would be the 'original' decoration that accompanied the award document or urkunde. Often an award piece was marked with the the manufacturor's name or mark in the case of Imperial awards and with a proper government procurement number for the TR era but not necessarily so with all or early awards. I am not refering to LDO numbers here but government procurement marks used by official awards providers.

We also have to remember that in Europe, the urkunde or award document, was more important than the actual award itself. The urkunde was proof that the recipient was authorized to pocess and wear a particular decoration or award. In many cases, regarding higher decorations, the urkunde also had monetarily valuable ramifications such as land grants, pensions, disability payments, etc.

This ever important urkunde also allowed the holder to present this document to authorized retailers or manufacturors in order to buy commercially offered copies or duplicates of his original award. These copies would often be identical to official award pieces other than the LDO marks used to denote a 'commecial copy' or duplicate. It is important to remember that these 'commercial copies' or duplicates where often of a much higher quality in materials used and finish. Reason being that governments universally , then and now, seek to procure a suitably acceptable item at a specific price point. The commercial buyer is not limited to a price point other than what his wallet could bear in regards to the level of quality he wishes to buy.

To sum this windyness up...........

An award piece is the true 'original' item.

A duplicate or a period copy, such as those LDO marked and period manufactured, though not in the strictess sense 'originals' can and are genuine period examples.

Other examples not specifically manufactured to meet the the reqirements of current soldiers or veterans in a specific era should be considered 'collector's examples' or replicas. These collector's examples/replicas are not genuine awards in any sense but are merely representations.

Now, if these collector's examples are put forth as 'originals' then they should rightly be condemned as fakes (as they are not what they are presented to be) and those attemting to sell them as charletons.

Just some thoughts,

Tony

[streptile]

Hi Tony.
Thanks for weighing in on this. I must say I was getting exasperated.
I agree in every particular with what you've written:

1. An award piece is the true 'original' item.

2. A duplicate or a period copy, such as those LDO marked and period manufactured, though not in the strictess sense 'originals' can be and are genuine period examples.

3. Other examples not specifically manufactured to meet the the reqirements of current soldiers or veterans in a specific era should be considered 'collector's examples' or replicas. These collector's examples/replicas are not genuine awards in any sense but are merely representations.

The single salient question of this debate has become this:

Can an example of an award that falls into your category #2 above be accurately referred to in English simply as a "copy"?

In my view any of these terms could be correct, depending on the circumstances:
"replacement copy"
"period copy"
"wearer's copy"
"jeweler's copy"
...but not "copy," as this means "fake" in English in the community of militaria collectors. I can't really articulate it again and make it any plainer.

Uwe believes that because "Kopie," in German collecting circles, doesn't mean "fake," that it shouldn't in English, either. As I can't effect such a change myself, we've agreed to disagree.

~TR

[Tiger 1]

Hi Tony.
Thanks for weighing in on this. I must say I was getting exasperated.
I agree in every particular with what you've written:



The single salient question of this debate has become this:

Can an example of an award that falls into your category #2 above be accurately referred to in English simply as a "copy"?

In my view any of these terms could be correct, depending on the circumstances:
"replacement copy"
"period copy"
"wearer's copy"
"jeweler's copy"
...but not "copy," as this means "fake" in English in the community of militaria collectors. I can't really articulate it again and make it any plainer.

Uwe believes that because "Kopie," in German collecting circles, doesn't mean "fake," that it shouldn't in English, either. As I can't effect such a change myself, we've agreed to disagree.

~TR

TR,

Unfortunately, semantics often boil down to hair splitting definitions or sublte, untranslatable nuances. Especially so when more than one language or translation is involved, the problem can easily become unsolvable to everyone's satisfaction.

Since we do collect and strive to learn about another county's decorations, Germany in this case, maybe we should adapt a reasonable acceptance of the terminology used in Germany.

I don't see great difficulties in differentiating between something...

A)'original'.

B) something genuine, whether it be a duplicate or period 'copie'.

C) a collector's replica, reproduction, or lastly...

D) a false representation that is blatant fakery.

Granted, my standards may not satisfy enyone else. For some, I may seem to be too much of a strict traditionalist. On the other hand, I have been known on occasion to take 'leaps of faith' based on what I have learned over the years of willfully studying of my chosen hobby. Overall though, Being cautious when it comes to antique collectables is never a mistake.

"When in doubt, leave it out." may be a good mantra for collectors when adding or contemplating adding an item to one's collection.

If you don't know...find out the answer. If you still don't know, then at least be able to articulate your reasons about a particular item based on the study you have done to satisfy yourself.

Sorry for drifting a bit..........Still windy here.

I guess the answer to your question lies in an agreed upon terminology that transcends language differences.

Or,

A personal acceptance of terminology that allows you to differentiate the intellectual wheat from the chaff. A genuine item will remain so regardless of what inexact terms may be used to describe it.

Just more thoughts,

Tony

P.S. Just remember that wishful thinking without substance doesn't make it so.

Part of a dedicated collector's responsability is to learn as much as possible about what they intend to collect. True collecting is not just acquiring a collectable. It is or should be much more than that. To me collecting would not be complete without the persuit of knowledge and what is true.

[streptile]

Uwe believes that because "Kopie," in German collecting circles, doesn't mean "fake," that it shouldn't in English, either.

Just remember that wishful thinking without substance doesn't make it so.

Agreed!

Nah, just kidding (sorta).

But I do agree with pretty much everything you've written there.

This conversation departed from a discussion about the cross that began the thread a long time ago and became a discussion between a German-speaker and an English-speaker about the subtle nuances of the English language. It's unsolvable, I guess. Or rather: a matter of choice which words one chooses to use to describe which items.

I was hoping to reach a consensus that would be valuable to collectors in both countries, and avoid misunderstandings in the future. That goal was almost certainly unattainable in a discussion forum thread anyway, even if we did end up in agreement on the terms and definitions.

As long as I know what I'm looking at, I'm pretty happy.

~Trevor

[Steve Campbell]

So, bottom line. What does everyone think of this (the cross posted here that started this thread) or any other 1914 EK1 or EK2 manufactured in the late 50s or 60s, that concieveably was a replacement for veterans, who were still around then?

[streptile]

So, bottom line. What does everyone think of this (the cross posted here that started this thread) or any other 1914 EK1 or EK2 manufactured in the late 50s or 60s, that concieveably was a replacement for veterans, who were still around then?

Genuine '50s-manufacture replacement cross for veterans.

That's my opinion.

[Tiger 1]

IMO late 60's as the hardware on the back is not the earlier '57 type. Looks to be an S&L.

Probably the same time frame when Poellath restuck the Imperial aviation badges for the 50th anniversary.

Tony

[streptile]

IMO late 60's

I defer to you, as I haven't charted the development of the reverse hardware too much after 1945.

So late '60s it is.

Thanks, Tony.

[speedytop]

Sorry Steve, before we see the bottom line, something must be clarified.

In this thread used terms to describe the cross in Post 1 and 2:

- Certainly a 57er issue
- A nice early 57er
- 57 type Imperial cross
- not a fake
- post WWII EK
- a legitimate piece
- jeweler's copy
- postwar jeweler's copy
- wearer's copy
- replacement cross
- post WW II copy
- legit cross made for veterans

"At this point it's just semantics"

- (concieveably) a replacement for veterans
- Genuine '50s-manufacture replacement cross for veterans
- late 60's
- ?
- ?
- ?
- ?
etc.

Could it be, that we all need an acceptable base?
In German we now have a reasonably starting base.


streptile:
"you're being a mite recalcitrant"
Is this a praise or an insult?
A praise? = Okay
An insult? = I prefer factually discussions


Tony:
"Just remember that wishful thinking without substance doesn't make it so."
Agreed!


Tony, please explain me, what that is: "a false representation that is blatant fakery"?
streptile: "But I do agree with pretty much everything you've written there"

A fake is not blatant a fake, quite the contrary!
That is just the problem, to identify a fake (falsification, forgery). If it is clearly visibly not an original, it could not be a fake, no one can fool/deceive (committing fraud) a veteran or a collector with such a piece!

(no German source, no translator, but Merriam-Webster)
fake:
"one that is not what it purports to be"
- a worthless imitation passed off as genuine
"being such in appearance only and made or manufactured with the intention of committing fraud"


I think, it is a "Kopie", a post WWII "Kopie"


Kind Regards
Uwe

[streptile]

Could it be, that we all need an acceptable base?
In German we now have a reasonably starting base.

Excellent point. I agree it is needed. I support the system your German organizations have developed, and agree it should be adapted to English. I agree that precision is needed. My only point is that "copy" is not an acceptable translation of "Kopie" within the field of militaria, as it means "fake." This is true despite what any translators or dictionaries say. I can't say this any differently. I understand why a non-native English speaker would have difficulty understanding it, but it is true.

I think, it is a "Kopie", a post WWII "Kopie"

Agreed. This piece is a "Kopie," but it is not a "copy."

I don't think it's worth continuing this discussion if you are unwilling to accept this truth. I say this to you without any rancor, Uwe! It's a simple misunderstanding of English usage at this juncture.

Warmest regards,
Trevor