War merit cross 1st class brunswick

[saschaw]

Awards ceased on November 8th, 1918 according to Nimmergut, so any crosses produced later, especially by other makers, are not "originals" but (in best case) wearer copies.

Nice display! I totally agree that post WW2 crosses (which by the way were also produced pre-1957!) are part of it and have the same legacy as a 1920s, 1930s or 1940s wearers copy.

One question... who is said to have been the official maker of this crosses? The blue box looks C. F. Zimmermann-ish to me.

[gen_key]

hi mike

very nice ones. that are contemporary copies and good!
and not like the others modern fakes.

One question... who is said to have been the official maker of this crosses?

I'd like to know aswell.

regards

[speedytop]

Hi bolewts58,

"... if you mean a "wearer's copy" (i.e. private purchase) from the 1920s, 1930s or pre-1945, then many collectors would consider these as original"

""Copy" implies fake to most collectors."

Ahhh, now I understand it:

Then a "wearer's copy" is a "wearer's fake".

Very interesting!

Uwe

[Coburg]

Would it be possible for someone to post the measurements of this award, both size and weight?

Thanks

Jim

[Wild Card]

No need for discussion on these. Obviously private purchases; but I think of the period.

[Brian L.]

Hi bolewts58,

"... if you mean a "wearer's copy" (i.e. private purchase) from the 1920s, 1930s or pre-1945, then many collectors would consider these as original"

""Copy" implies fake to most collectors."

Ahhh, now I understand it:

Then a "wearer's copy" is a "wearer's fake".

Very interesting!

Uwe

Perhaps we should use the term "replacement" or "replacement copy", then.

This is the term used in the military, in my experience. I happened to have served in UN peace-keeping forces at one time. I misplaced my UN medal (since found) and bought a replacement. Since I'm the recipient, is that replacement still considered a fake according to the definitions being used here?

Obviously, as a returning collector (after many years absent) I'll go with the majority view in the current collecting community. I'm just curious as to whether there is a majority view. Or, does the debate still continue without a consensus.

[speedytop]

"Perhaps we should use the term "replacement" or "replacement copy", then"

No, let us use original and not original.

A "wearer's copy" could be original, made in the award period by authorized makers, and a "wearer's copy" could be not original, made outside the award period.
It is the same for the word replacement.

Not original could be a copy or a fake/forgery/counterfeit.
Don't say, it is a German problem. In English and in German the terms copy and fake have the same meaning.
Only a few collectors, or must I say better, a few dealers and sellers, created by own decision, that the word copy is synonymous with the word fake.

How could the word copy mean, that it is a fake, and the term "wearer's copy" stand for an original. That is not logical for me.

Uwe

[gen_key]

hi

what is the definition?
A "copy" is a time period piece, made by official makers.
A "fake" is a modern "copy" for betray aims.
"Original" are the awarded typed pieces, these ones you get with your award-documents.

bolewts58
in this definition your piece is a "copy" of your award you gained by the officials.
There is no cause calling it a "fake"

regards

[Valter Gorenc]

hi

what is the definition?
A "copy" is a time period piece, made by official makers.
A "fake" is a modern "copy" for betray aims.
"Original" are the awarded typed pieces, these ones you get with your award-documents.

bolewts58
in this definition your piece is a "copy" of your award you gained by the officials.
There is no cause calling it a "fake"

regards

This was discussed several times on this forum, recently in length about turkish Galipolli star.

I think the majority consensus is:
"original" is a piece made by official producer, in award time, to be awarded to the recipient.
"wearer's copy" or "replacement" or "private purcase" is made both in award time or after, but for official recipients who lost the awarded piece or wanted a duplicate for another uniform, medal bar, or wanted a piece made better/nicer than originals etc. These are considered originals by many.
"modern copy" is made well after awarding time (i.e. after WW2 for WW1 awards) and used for display, reenactment or gap-filling purposes.
"fake" is made to decieve collectors; modern copy can easily turn into fake, if it's well made.

[Brian L.]

Ok. I get it.

How about the term, "Repro", then?

[ctcole77]

great picture

I still love this post because the picture of all those crosses for future comparison. thx man