EK1 Opinions wanted

[Mike Kenny]

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?

Bottom line for me, the cross at the top of the thread is an original/genuine example from the 50s/60s period.

As we are collectors on a collectors forum, I think defining the crosses from a collectors perspective, rather than a wearers perspective, is fully justified.

The discussion has been interesting in it's semantics (I won't say I haven't learnt anything!) but imo has dangerous implications for calling any 1914EK1 produced post-November 1918 a fake - not 1924, as Imperial awards ceased to exist after Nov 1918, regardless of whether individual units or the Weimar government continued to authorise awards after that date.

For me as a collector, specifically regarding 1914 EK(1)s, there are wartime awards, wartime private puchase (wearer's duplicates), late teens/20s examples (good luck distinguishing any of those crosses with 100% certainly unless directly from the veteran), probable 30s examples, TR (LdO) period examples, late 40s/50s examples and examples assicoated with the early 57er period (say, late 50s and 60s). Examples from any of those peiods are for me original examples from that period based on manufacturing "criteria" (basemetals, hardware, size, etc) - regardless of the intent behind the purchase/wear/use of the cross, which we will in 99% of cases never know. Anything after the 60s for me is getting into a grey area of "for collectors". Anything 80s onwards (remember, I'm only talking 1914 crosses) is for me purely for collectors.

There are new/recently made (and, of course, older) reproductions attempting to pass themselves off from all of the above periods - these are made to fool collectors (regardless of the term "museum quality" or anything similar) and are the true copies/fakes in my book.

Regards
Mike

[streptile]

The discussion ... has dangerous implications for calling any 1914EK1 produced post-November 1918 a fake

Precisely.

This is why I've been arguing so vociferously. It is dangerous indeed.

Your entire post is well stated and very welcome here, Mike.

[speedytop]

Hi Mike,

"... 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.

But I do not exclusively say fake

I say first, "not original", "not genuine", "not legal", "not legitimated", "not legalized"

Please see your own comment:
"... as Imperial awards ceased to exist after Nov 1918 ..."

And I say secondly "Kopie" or "Fälschung".

Based on these definitions, please read once more, now without my translation:

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

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

... as Imperial awards ceased to exist after Nov 1918 ...

Please, be precise, I also try it

Uwe

[saschaw]

Please, be precise, I also try it

Uwe

I'm starting to wonder why...

Noone called this EK a fake. Noone did. We called it a "Kopie" and also a "copy" what means exactely the same. It's not made to fool someone but most likely as a replacement. In Germany, there are as well many who do absolutely do not like the term "Kopie" as they claim it were the same as "Fälschung". It isn't, neither in German nor in English! Uwe explained it quite well and several times. I guess we can stopp it here, as there won't be any resuls...

[streptile]

Noone called this EK a fake. Noone did.

No one thinks anyone called this a fake.

"Kopie" and also a "copy" what means exactely the same.

I'm sorry, but that is not true.

In English usage the word "copy" has many nuances of meaning.

For example, in publishing, "copy" can mean "original":
I've sent you a copy of my latest book.

or it can mean "text":
The copy is ready for proofing.

In business it can mean "duplicate":
A copy of your report is on my desk.

In the news it can mean "newsworthiness":
Murderers make good copy.

In militaria it means "fake":
Your Iron Cross is a copy.

"Kopie" ... the same as "Fälschung". It isn't, neither in German nor in English!

How do you know it's not the same in English, in our hobby? I truly don't mean to be rude, but must now point out that both Sascha's and Uwe's English display many errors: of usage, of nuance, of punctuation, of spelling, and of grammar. Why anyone without a complete grasp of a foreign language feels qualified to expound on the finer points of said language's usage has now become the central question of this thread as far as I'm concerned. I would not presume to explain German to you. I would listen to your explanations and thank you for the lesson.

Also, as you are no doubt aware, it is well nigh impossible for anyone to effectuate a fundamental change in the way anglophone collectors use a particular word. Thus the suggestion that we ought to change our understanding of the word "copy" to align it with another language's understanding is both foolish and impossible. Perhaps such a project would be within the powers of a central research body similar to the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ordenskunde, but we lack a comparable organization.

I guess we can stopp it here, as there won't be any resuls...

I think there have been results. If nothing else, I have learned about an interesting system proposed in Germany to categorize awards, and you have learned a bit about the word "copy" in all its glorious complexity.

~Trevor

[Tiger 1]

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"?


Kind Regards
Uwe

Uwe,

What I mean by "a false representation that is blatant fakery" is that a piece , which may or may not be genuine, is modified in some way as to be something it's not or represented as such.

For example.... A genuine EKI with a dealer or collector added engraved insciption to some famous personality. Or a falsified document to go with a grouping. I'm sure you can come up with your own examples of such fakery.

Or for that matter a reproduction or replica decoration advertised as the genuine article.


I used the word 'blatant' here in the same way I could have used 'shameless'.

As I mentioned before we can easily get diverted from what we are discussing by simple semantics and hairsplitting nuances.

All the best,

Tony

[saschaw]

Thus the suggestion that we ought to change our understanding of the word "copy" to align it with another language's understanding is both foolish and impossible. Perhaps such a project would be within the powers of a central research body similar to the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ordenskunde, but we lack a comparable organization.

"Welcome to OMSA ... Why not join us!" I always thought they are comparable... www.omsa.org

I think there have been results. If nothing else, I have learned about an interesting system proposed in Germany to categorize awards, and you have learned a bit about the word "copy" in all its glorious complexity.

Nice you learned something here, I honestly did not. We've had the same discussion on German forums, where some others are pretty sure "Kopie" means the same as "Fälschung" does, and that a "Third Reich" era EK 1914 is an "original". This cannot be a discussion about the fine nuances of words in a to me foreign language, when led the same way amungst native speakers.

By the way, I am and was aware of "the word "copy" in all its glorious complexity".

[speedytop]

Sascha, I thank you for your encouragement.


Orders and Medals Society of America (OMSA)

OMSA definitions:

"Original" - means medals authorized by, or produced under contract to, the issuing entity during the period for which the award was authorized or awarded to the recipients of the medal.

"Copy" - means a substantially identical duplicate of an authorized medal not authorized by, or under contract to, the issuing entity, which is marked or identified as a copy to prevent confusion with the authorized medal, or otherwise clearly distinguishable from an original, restrike, or re-production. Copies may include contemporary wearing copies, private purchase medals, and collector copies.

"Counterfeit" & “Repro” - means a substantially identical duplicate of an authorized medal not produced by, or under contract to, the issuing entity, which is not marked as a copy or otherwise easily distinguishable from an original, restrike, or re-production and which a reasonable person could confuse with the authorized medal.


Original: ... authorized medal ... during the [award] period

Copy: ... which is marked or identified as a copy to prevent confusion with the authorized medal

Counterfeit ... which is not marked as a copy or otherwise easily distinguishable from an original ... and which a reasonable person could confuse with the authorized medal


Sorry, that i did not find the word counterfeit, but that is, in German "Fälschung".
And copy is, in Geramn "Kopie".

Mirriam-Webster: counterfeit = made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive

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

Kind Regards
Uwe

[streptile]

Hi Uwe and Sascha,

I really do not believe we disagree about anything at all.

First let me say that, as I have an innate aversion to the use of emoticons, I'm concerned that my tone may be unclear in some earlier posts. So, just for the record:

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

This is not my opinion, but rather a matter of fact. I will not revise this statement, because I can not. I hope you understand, I am not discussing my preferences here, but rather the facts in this country, in this community, as I witness them.

************

I am very interested to read what you wrote:

In Germany, there are as well many who do absolutely do not like the term "Kopie" as they claim it were the same as "Fälschung"

Here is another way of making my point, using your words with some minor changes:

In the US, there is a majority who do absolutely do not like the term "Copy" as they claim it were the same as "Fake."

Sascha, may I ask you: In Germany, is it a majority of collectors who equate "Kopie" with "Fälschung," or a minority?

In the US it is a majority, and this is my only point. I really don't see how we can possibly disagree about this unless you have evidence to the contrary.

************

Here is exactly what I have said, as a thesis statement, in every one of my relevant posts:

"copy" ... is often used interchangeably with "fake."

In English, in this hobby, "copy" -- unmodified with "jeweler's" or "wearer's" -- is synonymous with "fake."

a distinction between the word "copy" and the word "fake" ... does not exist (in this hobby) in English.

within our hobby -- there is no difference in English between the word "copy" and the word "fake."

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

"copy" ... means "fake" in English in the community of militaria collectors.

"copy" is not an acceptable translation of "Kopie" within the field of militaria, as it means "fake."

In English usage the word "copy" has many nuances of meaning. In militaria it means "fake."

************

Let me restate this point one final time, in a slightly different construction:

In the US, a majority of militaria collectors use the word "copy" to mean "fake."

It contains no judgement about whether this is a good thing, or a bad thing. It is only an observation.

I ask you, humbly, for an answer to this question: Can we agree on this statement above?

Phew!
Thanks.
Trevor




PS:

Uwe, it is interesting that the O.M.S.A. has adopted the same definitions as the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ordenskunde. But I'm sure I needn't point out to you (of all people, who's been fighting this same fight, apparently, in Germany) that the O.M.S.A. is not "the community" but rather an organization. Thus their official definitions make no difference to the vocabulary that the majority of militaria collectors here use and understand. At least not yet. Perhaps in time they will, and I would be happy if we could all adopt and agree on definitions for the terms "Original," "Copy," and "Counterfeit." As I have said before (see here), I think the terms are valuable. I am happy they have been adopted by the O.M.S.A.. I have said that I would welcome that development in this very thread (see previous link). I think the precision is needed. But we're nowhere near acceptance of these terms, and universal agreement of definitions, for them yet.

[saschaw]

In the US, there is a majority who do absolutely do not like the term "Copy" as they claim it were the same as "Fake."

Sascha, may I ask you: In Germany, is it a majority of collectors who equate "Kopie" with "Fälschung," or a minority?

In the US it is a majority, and this is my only point. I really don't see how we can possibly disagree about this unless you have evidence to the contrary.

In Germany, unfortunally, it is a majority as well. I have no doubts it is the same in the US, and that OMSA's influence has not more effect on the collectors than BDOS' has. I'm not much into OMSA but am pretty sure they are very well comparable to BDOS in any matter. They are doing their "scientific" thing while most collectors just want to collect... originals, of course...

Let me restate this point one final time, in a slightly different construction:

In the US, a majority of militaria collectors use the word "copy" to mean "fake."

It contains no judgement about whether this is a good thing, or a bad thing. It is only an observation.

I ask you, humbly, for an answer to this question: Can we agree on this statement above?

Sure we can. I was thinking mostly it were your opinion and I (still) cannot agree with it. As an observation, I have to.

[Philipson]

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)

Uwe

Sir,

In my humble opinion, these definitions are difficult to work with.
As these are "workinstruments" for everyday use, they need to be precise, easily understandable. This is not the case.

I'll give an example. Lets stay with 1914 ekI. I own a cross from the 1920ties.
No one knows if its made in 1924 (end of the award period) or in 1925 afther the award period.
Your definition cannot qualify it can it? And how about a hypothetical award that was produced from 1914 to 1930 without any changes at all?

When i think of veterans that wore this 1920-ies EKI, ik think of veteransreunions, i think of marches and festivities, i think of wear in the SA, partymembers, WOII army officers and men. To see these classified as copies is hairraising to me. For me, as a speaker of a germanic language, kopie is synomyme for fake to.

Personally, my point is; if is was produced for the veteran it is an original. If it was produced for others it is not.

Obviously, terms as private puchase and others are important and complete the picture.

As i said at the top, these terms are work instruments. Clearly a 1957 version 1914 EK1 is a quite precise and easely understandable definition for this award. (and i agree it is not truely a 1957)
As a workinstrument, a tool to quickly and accuratley classify an item, it is perfect. It tells you in a few words all you need to know.

To classify a 1957 EK1 the same as an 1920-1930 EK1: copie.
That is notmaking things clearer at all. Only making things very confusing.


Just my 2 cents.

[Montgomery Burns]

collectors know more about definition off words then awards.?

is that the future ?

[streptile]

I have no doubts it is the same in the US, and that OMSA's influence has not more effect on the collectors than BDOS' has. I'm not much into OMSA but am pretty sure they are very well comparable to BDOS in any matter. They are doing their "scientific" thing while most collectors just want to collect... originals, of course...

Correct. If anything, I'd say that the O.M.S.A. has less influence on collectors here than the B.D.O.S. has with German ones, and indeed on the world. For example, I had read about the new B.D.O.S. terms (that we are discussing here) when they were adopted in 2007. Conversely, I had completely forgotten about the very existence of the O.M.S.A. until you reminded me.

Is (or was) Jorg Nimmergut the chair of the B.D.O.S.?

I was thinking mostly it were your opinion and I (still) cannot agree with it.

This is my fault for not being clear enough. I was never debating my opinion, but rather the usage of the term within the community of collectors. I should have made this point 60 posts ago.

My best regards and warm thanks for the lively conversation,
Trevor

PS

some others are pretty sure ... that a "Third Reich" era EK 1914 is an "original".

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."


.

[gregM]

I have been following this discussion for a few days now and have to say
that you guys are doing more to confuse the issue then to clarify it.

Under your system, I have original (not fake) crosses that are now considered "copies" or "kopies"

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--standard flat, pin back KO. Probably one of the most awarded style
and maker of crosses.

#2-- KMST slideback. Definately not an awarded cross. Private purchase,
high quality.

#3--1920s-30s made cross. This cross is typically refered to as the
"replacement" style cross. 1914 sized silver frame, tombac core.

#4--BH Mayer screwback. Presumably made during the TR period
by a known TR cross producer. It is the larger TR size and typical
lighter weight and cheaper quality found on many TR crosses.
Accepted as an original (not fake) ww1 cross produced during the
TR era.

[gregM]

Reverse--