Gentlemen,
This medal bar, (Fig. 1), has just been acquired but it leaves me with some nagging questions. A similar bar, but lacking the Reuss Military Merit Medal was previously shown by a WAF member. The general 'look' of the bar is very convincing. The ribbons are consistent in their appearance, wear, fading, soiling, etc. The medals are also consistent in these aspects within themselves and with the ribbons; i.e. the bar, to me, 'looks' like it should.
The troublesome details are:
1. As can be seen in Figures 2 & 3, two different methods have been used to mount the ribbons on the bar. The EK II, Friederich Cross and Military Merit Medal ribbons are folded over themselves and each overlies the following in succession. While the Military Merit Medal ribbon overlies the ribbon of the Hindenburg Cross the latter is folded over the 15 year long service cross. Its as if there are two groups of medals. Can this be legitimately accounted for by the fact that the last two medals were awarded much later than the previous three and added to the pre-existing three on a new, (larger), bar?
2. The suspension device on the Reuss Military Merit Medal is not the usual. It lacks the 'webbing' above the intersection of the sword blades. No evidence of the 'webbing' having been cut off and/or filed down is visible. Two rings have been soldered to the blades and around the ring on the bar itself, (Fig. 4) - quite a professional job. The suspension ring has also been cut, (Fig. 5). Why? To allow attachment of the medal to the swords after the ribbon was wrapped? This doesn't seem to make much sense as the other medals would have been in place during the process. The suspension setup does not appear to be recent as evidenced by the well developed and consistent patina on all the components. That the medal and swords have been together for quite some time is shown by the wear on the edge of the medal from the sword hilts, (Figs. 6 & 7).
3. Finally, the EK II frame is separated on the 9 o'clock arm. There is evidence of re-soldering on all arms. What would be the motivation for removing/swapping the core from the EK II in this case? It doesn't make any sense to me therefore my confusion and questions.
Something is going on with this bar, but are these genuine period 'adjustments' or has this bar been deliberately messed with? Your thoughts and comments would be appreciated as an aid in deciding whether this item should be returned for a refund.
Cheers,
George
This medal bar, (Fig. 1), has just been acquired but it leaves me with some nagging questions. A similar bar, but lacking the Reuss Military Merit Medal was previously shown by a WAF member. The general 'look' of the bar is very convincing. The ribbons are consistent in their appearance, wear, fading, soiling, etc. The medals are also consistent in these aspects within themselves and with the ribbons; i.e. the bar, to me, 'looks' like it should.
The troublesome details are:
1. As can be seen in Figures 2 & 3, two different methods have been used to mount the ribbons on the bar. The EK II, Friederich Cross and Military Merit Medal ribbons are folded over themselves and each overlies the following in succession. While the Military Merit Medal ribbon overlies the ribbon of the Hindenburg Cross the latter is folded over the 15 year long service cross. Its as if there are two groups of medals. Can this be legitimately accounted for by the fact that the last two medals were awarded much later than the previous three and added to the pre-existing three on a new, (larger), bar?
2. The suspension device on the Reuss Military Merit Medal is not the usual. It lacks the 'webbing' above the intersection of the sword blades. No evidence of the 'webbing' having been cut off and/or filed down is visible. Two rings have been soldered to the blades and around the ring on the bar itself, (Fig. 4) - quite a professional job. The suspension ring has also been cut, (Fig. 5). Why? To allow attachment of the medal to the swords after the ribbon was wrapped? This doesn't seem to make much sense as the other medals would have been in place during the process. The suspension setup does not appear to be recent as evidenced by the well developed and consistent patina on all the components. That the medal and swords have been together for quite some time is shown by the wear on the edge of the medal from the sword hilts, (Figs. 6 & 7).
3. Finally, the EK II frame is separated on the 9 o'clock arm. There is evidence of re-soldering on all arms. What would be the motivation for removing/swapping the core from the EK II in this case? It doesn't make any sense to me therefore my confusion and questions.
Something is going on with this bar, but are these genuine period 'adjustments' or has this bar been deliberately messed with? Your thoughts and comments would be appreciated as an aid in deciding whether this item should be returned for a refund.
Cheers,
George
Comment