Is It Time For a Change?

[Tony T-S]

I'll stray off topic for just one more post. I think Unfront and Nigel have hit the nail on the head about the different ways people from different parts of the world use the same language. Copy is the one that bugs me too. Not original also means fake so that doesn't work either. Post 45 works, but then post May 45 are also supposed to be copies so that doesn't work. Perhaps we need to pioneer a code word for the post war material made by wartime manufacturers we consider as "57er" and other post war genuine pieces. They are not copies, as people are now actually making copies of them.. hence our ebay hall of shame.

Back to the real topic. I agree Nigel, I'd love to hear from the others who disagree with the idea of a name change, and good on Uwe for sharing his thoughts.

[Tom B]

Looks to me like Most are in favor of the change ! I agree & think it's a good move ! Tom

[Unfront]

Hi,

Please, think a few minutes (seconds?) about the situation at the beginning year 1957, when the West German government decided, not to allow the wear of Third Reich (TR) decorations; as it happened in East Germany, where it was strictly forbidden.
All the parts that some want to include in this 57 section had been produced for several years, at least since 1952; that is fact and not an assumption.
To wear all the Imperial, Weimarer time, West German and foreign decorations was allowed, but not the TR pieces.
How would you call all these not original TR decorations, all "early" pieces, produced after May 1945 and before July 1957?

In Germany they are called "Kopien" (with visible differences) or "Fälschungen" (not direct visible differences, and with the aim to fool/deceive). And after the law with the allowance for TR decorations, including "changed form decorations", there was and is no change of the name/term possible, always "Kopie" or "Fälschung".
And your name?


Not the name of a not original decorations is important, it is important to know, what is original and what is not original. If one will not accept the word copy, he can use, without any problems, the term "not original".

I think, that all of you want to be taken seriously by other collectors.
1957 collectors claim to accept the term original for the 1957 versions, the TR decorations with a changed design (it is not seperateable, the short term "1957er" is identical with the longer term "changed form decorations").
TR collectors say convinced no, because in their opinion originals can only be the decorations that had been awarded between 1934 and 1945.
And, to make it much harder, you try to include decorations into the 1957 section, which are definitely not originals, identifiable for everybody! With adventurous constructions like "57er era", "57er related", "57er oaks" etc. etc.
That can nevertheless only intensify the problem, the acceptance of the other collectors becomes still smaller!

Is that your aim?

Uwe

Nope. That is not my aim. I, along with just about everyone here, am just fine calling my OLS to my 57er knights cross as a set of "57er Oaks."

What you are saying Uwe is exactly the same as calling the ribbon of a 1914 EKII a copy, since it is not from 1813 (when the original ribbon was made).

Nope. Not calling them copies Uwe, not today, not tomorrow, not ever. If a set of Oaks was produced by an authorized producer, then they are not copies. They are 57er Oaks. They are 57er cases. I never said that I am trying to call them original to the Third Reich, and I would never even think of lumping them into that category, It wold be like trying to lump a 1914 EK into the 1813 category. That would be stupid and that is NOT what I, nor anyone else is trying to do.

[Tom B]

Nope. That is not my aim. I, along with just about everyone here, am just fine calling my OLS to my 57er knights cross as a set of "57er Oaks."

What you are saying Uwe is exactly the same as calling the ribbon of a 1914 EKII a copy, since it is not from 1813 (when the original ribbon was made).

Nope. Not calling them copies Uwe, not today, not tomorrow, not ever. If a set of Oaks was produced by an authorized producer, then they are not copies. They are 57er Oaks. They are 57er cases. I never said that I am trying to call them original to the Third Reich, and I would never even think of lumping them into that category, It wold be like trying to lump a 1914 EK into the 1813 category. That would be stupid and that is NOT what I, nor anyone else is trying to do.

I AGREE!!!! 25 to 5 .......good enough for me ! Tom

[speedytop]

Hi,

this discussion about the naming of not original pieces is not OT, it is direct combined with this thread, inseparable.


Hi Tony T-S,

"Not original also means fake so that doesn't work either."

Never before in my long life I have heard that!


Unfront,

"What you are saying Uwe is exactly the same as calling the ribbon of a 1914 EKII a copy, since it is not from 1813 (when the original ribbon was made)."
"It wo[u]ld be like trying to lump a 1914 EK into the 1813 category."

I don't see any connection to my comment(s).

You copied my comment into your thread, but did you read it complete?


Once more, not only for Unfront and Tom B:

Please, reflect a few minutes about the situation at the beginning year 1957.
All the pieces like PlM, cuff titles, Ostvolk medals, OL and OLS had been produced for several years, at least since 1952; that is fact and not an assumption.

You could order in 1953 for example 20 OLS in silver, for 12,70 DM each (6,35 €/8.70 $), the OLS silvered for 7,50 DM each.
In 1956 you had to pay for an OLS in silver 14,50 DM, for an OLS silvered 9,50 DM.

How would you name all these not original TR decorations, all are very "early" pieces, produced after May 1945 and before July 1957?

Uwe

[Unfront]

Hi,



You copied my comment into your thread, but did you read it complete?

Yes. I read it complete. I feel that calling them "copies" is shooting from the hip. You copied my post as well. Do you comprehend it?

Please, reflect a few minutes about the situation at the beginning year 1957.
All the pieces like PlM, cuff titles, Ostvolk medals, OL and OLS had been produced for several years, at least since 1952; that is fact and not an assumption.

You could order in 1953 for example 20 OLS in silver, for 12,70 DM each (6,35 €/8.70 $), the OLS silvered for 7,50 DM each.
In 1956 you had to pay for an OLS in silver 14,50 DM, for an OLS silvered 9,50 DM.

How would you name all these not original TR decorations, all are very "early" pieces, produced after May 1945 and before July 1957?

Uwe

Call them "Pre-57er's"

[speedytop]

In 1953, 1956 and before the law from July 1957?

Uwe

[Tony T-S]

Uwe in plain English not original means not original. If it is not original then it is a copy/ fake because it is a copy of the original. We don't regard any of these genuine post war awards (be they 57er or otherwise) as copies or fakes. They are post war examples made by companies that made them or supplied parts for them during the TR period.

I'm happy with the phrase "post TR" or "post war" to describe them, with a subsection being called (as they are) 57ers. I will never be happy with the word copies. They are not copies, but are more of the same, made after a certain date in the middle of 45. There are copies being made as we speak. These are fakes and many collectors (even of 57ers) are falling for them. The ones we speak of here are not.

[Unfront]

In 1953, 1956 and before the law from July 1957?

Uwe

Yup! That is why I would say to us the term Pre-57er. As in before or prior to 57.

[Tom B]

Can't wait for the poll to end....along with other things Tom

[Unfront]

Okay, I'll stop the sarcasm.

Back on topic, I'd say change the sub title to read:
For new form Third Reich Awards and other awards produced post war.