Opinion Please for This Cholm Shield

[ERIC S.]

Thanks Frank for straightening me out! It seems that all posted examples except Richards / Bryans piece have the center bar H and the short M - Myself, Dez, Gene, and now Franks shield.These are the types I've come to know as original issue pieces. Does anyone have a shield that they know without a doubt is original and was award issued with the low bar H and long M so we may compare it to Bryans? If this is a valid style( a style I was not aware of except on fakes), I'm curious to know if they too were issued pieces or strictly private purchase. I have seen a few private purchase shields before and every one of them was like the issue pieces- center bar H, short M. Stijn, where are you?
ERIC

[Stijn David]

Cholms hield

Hello,


the shields that Bryan ( the shield in question ) and Richard shows are still not types that I would go for ( im only mentioning these shields are these seem very close towards each other and these are the ones that are in question in this thread ), the main reason for me is the head => the eye + the wholehead section does not seem detailed enough.

On Richards former shield => I do also not like the kind of paper backing for a Cholmshield + the so called price is a mystery towards me. It is priced : 2.5 RM , but when we look at the official ( November 1944 !!!! ) LDO prices :

Cholmshield with cloth backing & backing plate in wrapper : 1.10 RM.
Cholmshield with backing plate in wrapper (no cloth): 0.95 RM.
Cholmshield without backing plate & cloth in wrapper : 0.85 RM.
Cholmshield as stickpin (9 mm.): 0.50 RM.
( therefore see also the article )

So I do not believe that prices could jump up so highly ( from 1.10 towards 2.50 !! ) in the remaining 6 months of the 1000 year Reich ( untill the surrender in May 1945 ). THis is a point that is often overlooked ( even by fakers => as they do not know in many cases ) but this so called price is only one factor that forms my disliking about these 2 shields .

I would not go for the redecorated theory also, as IMHO any person who is holding a real ( even corroded ) Cholmshield would still keep it in the way it is ( at least I would )as it is a very desirable and delicate object, these shields are made out of really Thin metal so brushing them to heavely would certainly ruin them towards a non unusable extent !!!!

Iff it is not redecorated then the heads detail is not convincing enough from the camera shots we see here ( and this is the dangerous part => as we know, a camera can lie ), I advise you Brian iff you have your doubts to let it examine in the flesh though a third person, etc .... ( altough I have found out that once you doubt that is often a indicator for a piece to stay away from it or gett rid of it )

I know this does not add towards the Lettering theorys but IMHO a original Cholmshield is not so easy to find and tehrefore any piece that does not have the exact looks falls out of category for me ( as Fakes are improving with every word we type on our beloved forum !!!! ) .

Hoping I have helped some persons ( + mayby the confusion is even larger now )

Cordial Greetings,

[Anthony]

Here is mine for comparision as well.

Regards,

Anthony

[Rich G]

Stijn

Let's cut the waffle and get to the point...

are you, or are you not, calling this shield a fake? Simple question therefore simple answer:

YES

or

NO



Richard

[Gene]

Out of my three shields, the one without any backing is the only one that was awarded and worn.

[Gordon Williamson]

This piece appeared in a European magazine about 17 years ago in an article on the Cholm Shield, highlighting the differences between the originals and the fakes.



Alongside this copy.



Note the copy has far sharper detail than the original. Many modern fakes are known for having better detailing than the originals. If we had two examples of the "long" M type and one was highly detailed and the other poorly detailed, there might be a point to it. As the two types here are clearly different, its hardly
conclusive. Other shields, especially the Krim, with so many makers, will show considerable differemnces in the level of detail from one original to another.


Unfortunately knowing the price of a Cholm in November 1944 isn't much use unless you knew the shield in question was manufactured and sold in November 1944. Prices fluctuated.
I have part of a wartime Steinhauer catalog which lists the Silver Wound Badge at RM 2.95. By November 1944 it is at RM 1.70.

The Spanish Cross in Bronze is down from RM12.60 to RM9.00.

The price of a Cholm may well have been RM2.50 at some point

[Rich G]

Thanks for providing that factual information, Gordon.

Cheers

Richard

[ERIC S.]

Hello Gordon,
Thanks for posting the 17 year old pictures. I see this one is of Richards / Bryans type, but again with the price on the back ( private purchase? ). We all know a lot more now about medals and badges now than we did back then thanks to some meticulous research by eager individuals. I laugh when I look at the "fake" in that old article because I don't believe that would fool anybody as being original today. But, if that was the only "fake" to go by back then, then IMO it would be pretty easy to pass off a shield with better details closer to that of an issued piece as original. Look at the reference books from back in the late 70's and 80's - We admit now, because of the research that has gone into the awards, that there are some blatant errors in those early references, and some of the pictured pieces are indeed not real. So, to me anyway, these older articles don't hold much water. I'm sorry, but I don't believe in Bryans type of shield.
Anthony was kind enough to post a pic of his shield also - again the known and accepted issue style ( center bar H, short M ) Why do all these members possess this style and not Bryans style?
ERIC

[Gordon Williamson]

Eric

Doesn't surprise me in the least that most of the shileds posted, and indeed owned in collections, are of the type with the short middle leg to the "M", it is by far the most common type. Cholm shields are of course quite rare. If around 35 years of collectiing I have only had around 12-15 of them of which only two were the "long" M type. They are much harder to find. ( Incidentally Detlev shows both types in his price guide).

I have not yet seen a fake of the "long" "M type, but no end of fakes of the "short" M type. Everyone has things they don't feel comfortable with, I would not touch a four prong Cholm, though they supposedly exist, but I do know of a two prong Cholm which is one of the finest specimens I have ever seen and I'd buy it in a heartbeat if the owner ever thought of selling.
I personally am comfortable with the "long" M type. Doesn't mean I don't think its possible fakes of this type exist, though I haven't seen one yet (the Souval Cholm has a kind of "long" M with the centre leg longer than normal but not quite like the "long" type).

I've yet to hear any sort of convincing argument that there is anything wrong with the "long" M type.

[paul w]

cholm shield

Hello guys,I picked this shield up last year and believed it to be original,after reading some of the observations here though!As you can see the shield is heavily corroded front and back and most of the paint has come away.Two of the three pins are missing.It seems to have the same characteristics as Bryans shield.I've posted a few pictures for comparison and any opinions will be most welcome,
regards,
Paul

[paul w]

cholm shield

rear

[paul w]

cholm shield

eagle

[paul w]

cholm shield

bottom of shield

[Dez H]

So did only one firm produce the Cholm shield?
If there was more one than one firm producing these we would expect some differences in the shields, maybe even attribute differences to certain makers.

[kennethc]

: