Announcement

**ERIC S.** · 01-20-2003, 02:16 AM

It's right because Detlev looked at it. Hmmm? Now there's the evidence we've been looking for! Well I guess I can't beat that one.Thanks Ken for THAT vital information . I guess it comes down to " to each his own" - so without solid proof either way I guess it's up to the individuals own beliefs. So, my parting advice to Bryan, for what it's worth, is stick with the better known pattern so you won't have this discrepancy when you try to sell at a later date.
ERIC

**Dez H** · 01-20-2003, 02:21 AM

Detlev had inspected it.

Detlev has never been wrong in the past? I am not questioning his knowledge, experience or integrity just that you can’t put blind faith into someone, it is far better to have evidence over opinions. Evidence is exactly what we need here.

**Stijn David** · 01-20-2003, 06:25 AM

Cholmshields

Hello,

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

I have never seen one like the one in question ( Bryan's Cholmshield ) that came from a impeakable source, etc .. so im not convinced of the originality of that certain piece ( or in other words => IMHO it is a fake ). I also never would accept a piece because there is a certificate of originality ( it is all the same for me from wich dealer, expert, etc ... it is => a good piece stays a good piece with or without a paper certifcate and the reverse is also true ! )

It is generally accepted that several producers where active in the production of the Cholmshield but untill today nobody ever came up with a name of a certain producer ? ( iff anyone has a name and further details, etc .. please share it here )

Regarding the pricing, as Gordon says that there exist a possibility that prices dropped during the war, this might be very likely but I would like to see a list ( official => for example from Schwert und Spaten from the earlyer years, lets say : half 1943 ) that can proove this.

Cordial Greetings,

**Rich G** · 01-20-2003, 07:32 AM

Re: Cholmshields

Stijn

Thank you for your reply. I'd like to ask further on your remarks:

Originally posted by Stijn David

I have never seen one like the one in question ( Bryan's Cholmshield ) that came from a impeakable source, etc .. so im not convinced of the originality of that certain piece ( or in other words => IMHO it is a fake ).

Define impeccable source?

I have problems with your answer...Just because you don't know if there were 2 types you assume it is fake. I recall a similar event when you called another members Glider badge a fake when in fact it was not. Therefore I question your ability to state whether this shield is original or not because from past events you have been wrong.

I see a dangerous situation in that because you wrote the Cholm Shield article (which was a good article) then this, in some peoples eyes, makes you an 'expert' on the Cholm Shield.
- Are you an expert on the Cholm shield?
- How many veterans have you spoken to and how many Cholm shields, direct from the original recipients hands, have you examined?
- Who was/were the manufacturer(s) of the Cholm shield?
- What evidence do you have that proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that there was only one 1 manufacturer?
- Why could another manufacturer not have cashed in on the production and selling of Cholm shields?
- Where is the evidence that the LDO didn't appoint another manufacturer the licence to produce the Cholm shield?

So far, you have not produced any facts (apart from an LDO price list, which has already be discounted as irrelevant!), but just your opinions and as one very experienced scholar of this hobby often says: "opinions are like noses, everyone has one."

We're all here to learn, so I look forward to some facts, not hearsay.

Regards

Rich

**Stijn David** · 01-20-2003, 02:39 PM

Cholm shield

Hello Richard,

I will try to answer your questions as adequate as possible in chronological appearance :

1 )

I have problems with your answer...Just because you don't know if there were 2 types you assume it is fake

Where did you read that I do not know that there exist 2 types, => please read the article once over and you will see that the above quote does not make sence at al ( you will even even read that there is mention of a thoird type => the one that Gordon also mentions with the 2 prongs ! )

2 )

I recall a similar event when you called another members Glider badge a fake when in fact it was not

The originality of the Glider pilots badge that you mention was never proven IMO and I stand by my point , I also recall from the same thread that persons who defended the badge ( and where in many cases persons who owned such a badge or where the seller at a certain extent !! ) where always fencing with the same arguement => It has a certificate of originality, etc .. etc ... but that does not proove anything.

3 )

Therefore I question your ability to state whether this shield is original or not because from past events you have been wrong.

Regarding this point that is your opinion about my capablity about recognizing the originality of awards, etc ... We have al been wrong in a certain way and it is the only way of learning ( have you never been wrong ? ) but it is in no means fair to state the above regarding the other thread you mention ( GLider pilots badge ) as there was never a general conclusion and each is entitled towards his own opinion.

4 )

I see a dangerous situation in that because you wrote the Cholm Shield article (which was a good article) then this, in some peoples eyes, makes you an 'expert' on the Cholm Shield.

+ the following in direct relation towards this Phrase

Are you an expert on the Cholm shield?

I never claimed to be an expert in anything and I also do not want that title ( or whatever you call it ) as we are all here to learn => regarding the article I did write it because I have a great interest in the battle and the award that came towards us, etc ... and therefore I wanted to share the info I have gathered so far ( whomever who writes something will always receive Flak from certain people and that is a risk we ( the writer ) take ), it is up to everyone for himself to make his own opinion about something but remeber that is always more easy to give critic towards someone from the sideline then to do it himself .

5 )

How many veterans have you spoken to and how many Cholm shields, direct from the original recipients hands, have you examined

Regarding the Cholmveterans, I have had the luck so far to have spoken and know 11 living Cholmveterans ( Glider pilots ) from whom 3 still had there original award, documents, etc ... and all where untill now from the same type ( and yes you can say that that is nothing in percentage, etc ... etc ... regarding Cholmshields awarded but I do ask you the same => Howmany Cholmveterans do you know personally ? and I believe this question is more then right because you question my integrity and then I do the same , etc ... )

6 )

Who was/were the manufacturer(s) of the Cholm shield?

+ the 2 following lines that you type are directly related towards the above question

Iff you do read the article once again and my previous answer you should know that I also do not know whom the producer(s) and that is the reason why I ask about it.

you also ask about the evidence regarding the LDO manufactureres, etc ... => I do not have it and to be frankly with you im pretty sure that not that many have it ( ask for example Gordon about the LDO magazine " Schwert und Spaten " or any other serious collector, etc .. and you will see that there is much talk about this but nobody has ever come up with the actual magazine, etc ....

7

So far, you have not produced any facts (apart from an LDO price list, which has already be discounted as irrelevant!), but just your opinions and as one very experienced scholar of this hobby often says: "opinions are like noses, everyone has one."

This is something that you know is a very dubious question and is very sharp knife and that we can discuss untill the ends of time without ever coming towards any further FACTS, etc ....

Therefore I once again do point you towards the article and read the contributors list + the articles I used, etc ... and read each article on his own, etc .. and those are the sources I used.

Hoping that I was of some use for you and I also invite you to show serious Facts ( or evidence as you call it ) in this discussion so I also can learn, etc ....

ps : why am I the only one in this thread that you call out for further explanation as you would see that Eric S. also shares the same opinion as me towards the shield in question ?

**ERIC S.** · 01-20-2003, 04:08 PM

Not only you and I Stijn, but Gene and Chet also gave the thumbs down on this one. Bryan asked to see more pics of this variation, but all we've come up with so far is a 17 year old magazine article.
@ Gordon: you previously stated in an earlier post that you have not seen a fake of the long M type - I have two in my files I'd like to share here. I hope the original posters don't mind me sharing them.
The first is one from Merdock:

Attached Files

merdock cholm.jpg (83.7 KB, 271 views)

**ERIC S.** · 01-20-2003, 04:11 PM

This one was from Tim C.

**ERIC S.** · 01-20-2003, 04:17 PM

Tim C's shield is IMO the one most often encountered. The "helmet" head is a dead giveaway on these. I believe on Bryans shield that a main sticking point is the detail to the head rather than the H and the M.
ERIC

**Rich G** · 01-20-2003, 05:11 PM

Re: Cholm shield

Stijn

Thank you for your response and here are mine:

Originally posted by Stijn David
Hello Richard,

I will try to answer your questions as adequate as possible in chronological appearance :

1 )

Where did you read that I do not know that there exist 2 types, => please read the article once over and you will see that the above quote does not make sence at al ( you will even even read that there is mention of a thoird type => the one that Gordon also mentions with the 2 prongs ! )

A) The article refers to the 2 type purely on the attachment pins and not the 2 styles of shield. In the collecting world these 2 styles of Cholm shields are widely accepted.

2 )

The originality of the Glider pilots badge that you mention was never proven IMO and I stand by my point , I also recall from the same thread that persons who defended the badge ( and where in many cases persons who owned such a badge or where the seller at a certain extent !! ) where always fencing with the same arguement => It has a certificate of originality, etc .. etc ... but that does not proove anything.

A) But it does prove that by making a statement that it was fake was not proven either by fact but simply because your opinion said it was.

3 )

Regarding this point that is your opinion about my capablity about recognizing the originality of awards, etc ... We have al been wrong in a certain way and it is the only way of learning ( have you never been wrong ? ) but it is in no means fair to state the above regarding the other thread you mention ( GLider pilots badge ) as there was never a general conclusion and each is entitled towards his own opinion.

A) Yes, I have been wrong many times and this is why I'm writing this now to learn more and seek the facts.

4 )

+ the following in direct relation towards this Phrase

I never claimed to be an expert in anything and I also do not want that title ( or whatever you call it ) as we are all here to learn => regarding the article I did write it because I have a great interest in the battle and the award that came towards us, etc ... and therefore I wanted to share the info I have gathered so far ( whomever who writes something will always receive Flak from certain people and that is a risk we ( the writer ) take ), it is up to everyone for himself to make his own opinion about something but remeber that is always more easy to give critic towards someone from the sideline then to do it himself .

A) Why does the collecting world accept two styles of the shield but you do not? Why have you not included it for discussion rather than blanking it out because you think it is fake? If you're so sure it's a fake then why did you not include it in the fake section of your article?

5 )

Regarding the Cholmveterans, I have had the luck so far to have spoken and know 11 living Cholmveterans ( Glider pilots ) from whom 3 still had there original award, documents, etc ... and all where untill now from the same type ( and yes you can say that that is nothing in percentage, etc ... etc ... regarding Cholmshields awarded but I do ask you the same => Howmany Cholmveterans do you know personally ? and I believe this question is more then right because you question my integrity and then I do the same , etc ... )

A) I know none but I didn't write an article on this shield and I do not turn against the collecting world and try to say that this second style is fake, whereas you do.

6 ) + the 2 following lines that you type are directly related towards the above question

Iff you do read the article once again and my previous answer you should know that I also do not know whom the producer(s) and that is the reason why I ask about it.

A) So you base your decision that there was one producer because the 3 veterans that you know who have their original award are of the first style therefore anything else is discounted?

you also ask about the evidence regarding the LDO manufactureres, etc ... => I do not have it and to be frankly with you im pretty sure that not that many have it ( ask for example Gordon about the LDO magazine " Schwert und Spaten " or any other serious collector, etc .. and you will see that there is much talk about this but nobody has ever come up with the actual magazine, etc ....

A) I do not deny this nor try to say I know anything about the LDO. Gordon Williamson has researched it and has no reason to make up his findings on pricing through the war.

7

This is something that you know is a very dubious question and is very sharp knife and that we can discuss untill the ends of time without ever coming towards any further FACTS, etc ....

Therefore I once again do point you towards the article and read the contributors list + the articles I used, etc ... and read each article on his own, etc .. and those are the sources I used.

Hoping that I was of some use for you and I also invite you to show serious Facts ( or evidence as you call it ) in this discussion so I also can learn, etc ....

A) That's why I'm writing this and challenging your opinions and article... to find out the facts.

ps : why am I the only one in this thread that you call out for further explanation as you would see that Eric S. also shares the same opinion as me towards the shield in question ?

A) I single you out because you have written the Cholm article and I want to show that because you have written an article does not mean you know everything about this shield and that because you think this second style of shield is fake that everyone should take that as Gospel.

Eric has no credibility in this discussion as he has not written the Cholm article, I have no idea who Chet Sowersby is, he could be an expert wannabe and Gene's post on this is a little mystery for me because when I owned this shield he told me it was original!!

Thanks for listening

Regards

Richard

ps I say again, I have no beef with this shield whether it be proven to be fake or otherwise. I'm trying to find the facts so that I know what is real and what is not.

**Gordon Williamson** · 01-20-2003, 05:32 PM

Eric

Thanks for posting the photos of the fakes . I guess I should have said that I haven't seen any convincing copies of the long M type.

The first type you posted is actually the Souval design I mentioned. The second I hadn't seen before but can't imagine many being caught out by it.

By the way, regarding the price list in Schwert & Spaten. I do actually have a photocopy of the original magazine. Likewise the pages from the S&L Catalogue. Unless someone carefully planted "fake" catalogues and magazines in the 1940s they are pretty convincing proof that prices did fall between the early and late parts of the war.

**Frank Heukemes** · 01-20-2003, 05:34 PM

Mike Heuer has a very beautiful and highly detailed Cholm Shield of the long M type that I have in my files. If Mike reads this, I am sure he will post some of these pics. I also remember that around when I joined the forum, a Japanese member showed his long M type. Was that you Akira?

With Mike H´s, possibly Akira´s (?) and Richard´s/Bryan´s shield we can make some good comparisons between theses 3 long M type shields. This will surely bring us further.

Cheers, Frank

**Frank Heukemes** · 01-20-2003, 05:38 PM

Btw, here is a long M type FAKE that I once fell for. It is a bit better than the "ugly beak" type fakes shown before. I call THIS one here the baseball helmet fake:

**paul w** · 01-20-2003, 07:01 PM

Cholm shield

Hello guys,I know this thread is rightly concentrated on Bryans shield but I wonder if I might ask if some of you might take a look at the shield I posted on page three.My queries are; do you think it is the same make as Bryans or is it different, in which case is it an out and out fake?Any opinions will be most appreciated.

**Akira Takiguchi** · 01-20-2003, 08:06 PM

Hello Frank,

I do not own one yet, but when I was trying to get one, I posted the following thread:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...=&threadid=520

Then, a scan of the actual specimen I was trying to buy was posted by our friend Stijn:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...&threadid=4138

This was also your baseball helmet fake thread.

The specimen is supposed to be from the late glider pilot Sch. --- I have a lot from his estate except for the badges. Unfortunately I could not acquire this shield. Long M.

**ERIC S.** · 01-20-2003, 08:40 PM

Richard,
You forgot to criticize Dez too - maybe he too is an expert wannabe or just simply like me - not credible! This isn't a pissing match here. I've yet to see someone here criticize you on your beliefs by calling you names. We're all trying to get to the bottom of this matter, not just you!! You swear they are real - we're just asking for some concrete evidence to prove what you say. We say we don't like it because we have not seen proof that it does exist in wear, in a vets posession, etc., so we in turn stick to the generally accepted type. Stijn himself told you he is no expert but yet you break his balls about the article. He wrote it to try to help the rest of us in understanding the Cholm battle in general. He has more information about this battle and its wares than you, me, and the rest of us posting in this thread. He obviously did not come across a shield of Bryans style in his research, which was pretty damn thorough in my point of view as well as others, so he did not write about it. You yourself called him out on it - " yes or no" So he told you, "IMO it's fake" That's "IN MY OPINION" not a general accepted truth! I hope for all our sake it is good, but until something conclusive comes along I'm going to stick to my guns and stay with what I do know IS good. If you can, help here - don't sling mud because others don't agree with you - ERIC
P.S.
I would love

to see Mikes shield Frank speaks of - and would be ever curious to know if he knows it's original source!

Announcement

Opinion Please for This Cholm Shield

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread