Cased '57 Oaks & Oaks w Swords

[Adam S.]

Hi Folks,

You don't see me around here very often but after picking up my first '57 piece (S&L RK) a few months ago I set out to find myself some oak leaves.

So here they are.

[Adam S.]

2

[Adam S.]

3

[Adam S.]

And Vince was kind enough to include this miniature set. I can now say I have a fully operational '57 collection.

[Matthieu]

I wont comment on the oaks ( picture is somewhat unclear ), but the OLS are no way to be considered as 1957 issue ... just a bad, common fake set, I'm afraid.

[Adam S.]

Wow I'm glad that I popsted these up. These came from Vince Leone's collection when he posted his collection up here. I will get back in touch with him I suppose.

[Matthieu]

Sorry to bring such news ... any chance you can post some shots of the oaks without flash ... just to check.

On the OLS, you can wait for input from the others, but I fear they shall agree with my assessment ...

This is what a decent set of 57er OLS should look like ...

[speedytop]

It is really unbelieveable

There could be no other place all over in the world, where people talk/write so much and so often about post WW II copies as in this forum in this 1957 section.

No further comments.

Uwe

[LuckyLuudje]

It is really unbelieveable

There could be no other place all over in the world, where people talk/write so much and so often about post WW II copies as in this forum in this 1957 section.

No further comments.

Uwe

Although I fully agree that these oaks are no 57 awards and I will, as most members here, never call them a 1957 award.

I never saw you make any post here that is constructive in a discussion about herstellers or regarding any 57's.
So far I ONLY saw you replying when you can and will correct people that seem to use the wrong words.

I don't think that the members here have any interested to only discuss the definitions like for example "issued", "copy"or regulations over and over again.

Most members here have a passion to collect and want to learn more about their passion. They don't wan't to be part of a "defenition debating club".
So I can't blame them if they are not interested anymore to hear what you try to say.

[speedytop]

Hi Luud,

very pathetic sentences!

... you ... correct people that seem to use the wrong words

Are you and others only interested in metal, paper and cloth, and not in the history around these pieces?

Is that really your way of collecting?

The German law (Ordensgesetz) from 1957 is very special, just in the German history.

And you and others are really not interested in the financial importance of "original" and "not original", based on "wrong words"?

There are originals, in the time frame 1934 to 1945, the pieces mostly with swastika or other Nazi symbols.

There are the 1957 versions, time frame 1957 up to now.
We can call them originals too, but in a special way, because these are not the awarded or in the award period legal produced and bought original decorations.
Main distinguishing feature is the modified design.

And there are not originals, per definition copies, fakes, forgeries etc.

And there is, better, must be, a price difference between originals and copies.

The 1957 versions raised in the price in the last years.

And when I read your comment, it is okay, to name copies/fakes/forgeries as 1957 versions, with the result of higher prices. For copies!
That could be good for the seller. But for the collector?

Most members here have a passion to collect and want to learn more about their passion.

I don't see that in your comment.

Uwe

[speedytop]

There is still something to add

I never saw you make any post here that is constructive in a discussion about herstellers or regarding any 57's.

That is correct and incorrect too, because there is a thread about OL and OLS with my comments about "Hersteller" and the time period:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=330599

But it could be not constructive enough.

Uwe

[DavidM]

Hello

First of all, the oaks with swords are modern made, poor quality reproductions. The LDO case that they are in is also a modern made reproduction item. That said, as has already been requested, could you please post some clear, sharp, close in and full face on shots of the front and reverse of both the OLS and Oaks.

Second, and just for the record in the hope to stop debates beyond the items under discussion here, there are no 57 Oaks, Oaks with Swords etc. As the Oaks etc never carried any proscribed or banned symbols, e.g. the swastika, there was no need for any 'new form' versions of them. The original wartime issue pieces could be worn without alteration, and as such were not included in the new form pieces under the 1957 law.
However, Oaks and OLS etc were made post May 1945, and with the arrival of the 1957 new form items some manufacturers, most notably S&L, began (or probably more accurately, continued) producing replacement Oaks etc to go with the new form RKs. Of the post war made Oaks, OLS etc, the S&L ones are probably the most commonly encountered ones, and due to die flaws/marks that seem to originate around the period of the new form pieces coming into existance, some of these (because of their association with the new form RKs) have been labelled '57 Oaks' etc. It is these early, quality replacements that many collectors refer to as 57ers, mainly as a convienence to distinguish them from other post war made Oaks etc. An inaccurate convienence maybe, but at least it identifies a particular style of oaks. But of course, the truth and reality is that these are not, and never have been, 57 new form items, but simply post war made replacements for veterans and collectors alike.

Third, I'm afraid that I must disagree with for once with Luud. I believe that Uwe has contributed quite a lot to the collective knowledge of this forum, and others. However, Uwe, you are wide of the mark in one respect, and that is myself, and I believe most of the people who contribute to the 57 section, are very much interested in the history behind these items - and not just the history and stories of the people who owned the new form pieces to wear in place of their original awarded items, but also of the social and political history that underpins how and why the 1957 law came into being in the first place.

Regards
David

[Adam S.]

Thanks very much for the clarification on the terms. As previously mentioned I am new to the '57 game though this has been a bit of a wake-up call!

[Adam S.]

asdg

[Matthieu]

Second, and just for the record in the hope to stop debates beyond the items under discussion here, there are no 57 Oaks, Oaks with Swords etc. As the Oaks etc never carried any proscribed or banned symbols, e.g. the swastika, there was no need for any 'new form' versions of them. The original wartime issue pieces could be worn without alteration, and as such were not included in the new form pieces under the 1957 law.
However, Oaks and OLS etc were made post May 1945, and with the arrival of the 1957 new form items some manufacturers, most notably S&L, began (or probably more accurately, continued) producing replacement Oaks etc to go with the new form RKs. Of the post war made Oaks, OLS etc, the S&L ones are probably the most commonly encountered ones, and due to die flaws/marks that seem to originate around the period of the new form pieces coming into existance, some of these (because of their association with the new form RKs) have been labelled '57 Oaks' etc. It is these early, quality replacements that many collectors refer to as 57ers, mainly as a convenience to distinguish them from other post war made Oaks etc. An inaccurate convenience maybe, but at least it identifies a particular style of oaks. But of course, the truth and reality is that these are not, and never have been, 57 new form items, but simply post war made replacements for veterans and collectors alike.

Well David, I must agree this explains what we, 57er collectors, are thinking about looking at our pieces ... well said .