Opinion Please for This Cholm Shield

[David Tiffin]

Hi all,
This is a great thread. Let's try and keep on track and not let it get out of hand. We're all here to learn from one another. Stijn wrote the article on what he has observed and was nice enough to share this info. I don't think he's trying to say this is the ONLY way it can be but rather; I know this particular style badge with the short M is correct.
Thanks all.

[Gordon Williamson]

Thanks Frank for posting the links to the previous thread, interesting, especially to see Mike's fabulous example again. - with long M

Also interesting that Stijn posted a photo of what he stated was an original long M type with documented provenance.

[Bryan Poon]

NICE REVIEW

Dear Moderators and Members

Many thanks to all, especially on the opinions, photos and the reviews of this topic. They are very nice and helpful. Pleasure that we can have an indepth discussion for the Cholm shield.

Cheers
BP

[Akira Takiguchi]

Dear Gordon,

although Stijn posted a photo of a long M shield in the earlier thread AND he stated that it is from a proven source, but he (nor me) could not acquire it --- he never handled the specimen with his hands. So he is very honest by not counting it in his list of "known shields" (then the recipient had already passed away --- there was no way to confirm if it was really his own). The shield was very convincing for me, because our friend IVAN also stated that he liked this shield most.

I do not go further into this topic, but this is my understanding of the situation.

[Rich G]

Eric,

Let me just respond to your reply:

I'm not trying to bust Stijn's balls so:

@ Stijn I apologise to you if it seemed this way and I also apologise for using the glider badge scenario. It was irrelevant and uncalled for.

@Eric, I did not mean to imply that you are not a credible collector. I meant that you had only expressed that in your opinion Bryans shield was not original because it was not the same as your example. Quote:

"IMO that is definately not an original Cholm Shield. The two traits I look for immediately when trying to determine authenticity are : #1 - Look at the head, it usually tells the whole story.
And # 2 - The cross section in the letter "H" in the word CHOLM should be centered within the letter, not lower than center as your posted example shows"

As Stijn has studied this shield in-depth I wanted to direct questions at him to receive more on why he feels it is a reproduction.



I'm not trying to turn this into some mud-slinging match but I'm really trying to get to the bottom of this and why this shield is being labelled as fake. I find it so, so frustrating that on so many occasions a good topic is raised and the lack of responses leave the questions unanswered, that I thought a little aggression in the posting would get things moving and prompt us to really pitch in and really try to come up with valid reasons and not just opinion just because this shield doesn't match the other one. I really am not one for personal attacks!

So, I think I've said all I can say on this. I hope that I have not offended you all and I know that Stijn has studied this shield and the battle of Cholm more than anyone and I wanted to extract every last drop of information that Stijn has on the Cholm shield and to simulate more of us to look for the answers and really collectively put the Cholm shield on the map, and once and for all either bury the second shield or welcome it as original.

Regards

Richard

[Frank Heukemes]

Frankly, I don´t know how the discussion turned away from the Rich/Brian shield in question to questioning long M Cholms in general.
Doing something like this is to me like "all semihollow numbered PABs are fakes, only massive ones are ok". Come on, other heads have already done the math on that long M variant and it was considered to be a valid form of the Cholm long ago. Why question it now?
Just look at Mike Heuer´s long M and the long M Stijn posted in these links that Akira provides. No way these are reproductions.

I know I have not much weight in this discussion as I fell for a fake Cholm one year ago but I have learned since then.

I also know very well now what to think of Hartung expertises.

@paul w: you hold out there in the trenches buddy, the last word about your shield shown is not spoken yet, it might very well be a good one.

Cheers, Frank

[paul w]

cholm shield

Cheers for that Frank,I thought I'd got lost in the scrimmage!

[Stijn David]

Cholm shield

Hello,


Well lets go on with this one, first of al im going to answer the questions of Richard .

" 1. 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. "

=> during my search in order to write the article I have only received pictures ( and seen this particular type with veterans, etc ... that are described ) and therefore I only have included those kind of types, I never claimed that the type you are referring to is a fake type and di not exist wartime => I expressed my doubts about the the shield shown by Bryan ( and see also on page 2 from this thread the following lines written by me : " 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 " ) + let me also say towards you it is very dangerous from you to say " when something is generally accepted in the collecting world , etc ... " , It is not because 99 % of the collectors believe it is good and original that it really is ! )

" 2.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. "

=> When we discuss pieces from various ( our own, etc .. ) collection it is always the same => we express our own opinions ( in many cases ) and you know as well as me that proving something in this hobby is near impossible ( ask for example anyone who says this or that piece is fake and then ask him for his proof => what will you receive from response ? even from the highly regarded persons in our hobby , etc ... im quite sure in most cases you will have not that much respons. )

" 3 + 4 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? "

=> I never said I do not accept 2 styles ( see also the above point 1.a ) , etc ... and why did I not include it in the so called fake section => it is impossible to include all pieces in such sections that are known fakes and by the time I did write the article the shields we are discussing ( the one from Bryan and the one from your former collection ) did not surface anywhere, etc ... so how could I include them ???? + neitehr did I receive from anyone the Long M type for use in the article.

" 5 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. "

=> regarding articles for teh collecting community I can say the following => never writting anything, etc ... and following the crowd is the safest way to go but iff everyone would do that well then we all would end up with a huge amount of fakes in our collections so tehrefore we have a task to do in sharing information , etc ... + once again you reffer towards me not accepting a style, etc ... and that question has already be answered a few times by now by me so there is no need to do it once over )

" 6 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? "

=> I never claimed there was only one producer + im relatively certain there where more then one producer but Untill now nobody has ever come up with real names ( altough => Gordon mentions that they appear in a S & L catalogue, this might be so called general knowledge but untill now it is the first time it is spoken out, lets stand alone being printed somwhere in any article I have seen so far regarding this subject. ) and thats why I also asked during this thread wheter someones knows producers of the shield ( it seems that you are reading between lines towards me )

" 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 "

=> Indeed and Im very happy Gordon shares his knowledge very generous, etc .... but before we jump towards any conclusions regarding pricing, etc .. would it not be better to wait untill we have more issues from Shwert und Spaten ? , therefore the stated from Gordon is also just a theory in the same way as my answer is a theory ( so once gain I ask is there anyone who has the Schwert & Spaten issue's from the earlyer years ? )

" 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!! "

=> I can understand why you single me out I never claimed to know everything from the battle and the shield, etc ... and it is each towards his own to make up his conclusion regarding the pieces they buy as in the end it is you ( the collector ) that must be happy to with a certain piece.

Regarding the other collectors credability those are your words as whom are we to judge a fellow collector ?

Akira is correct regarding the source from the Sch. grouping and the shield => at that point when the grouping surfaced and offered for sale it was shown as a complete grouping but the docs. where separated the deal was closed by the seller , etc ... ( altough we can't be sure of that nowadays and the possibility remains that the awards where added to give the grouping a more interesting look ( Im sure that Akira can chime in here ) and that is a main reason I did not include that shield ( besides that the seller never gave me his permission to use that piece either in the article ) .

I had typed the above ( with the mark => ) in a direct reaction towards Richards previous reaction ( the sections with " " ) + I also hope im not to rude as I do not want to offend anyone, just clarifying my points , So hopefully I have answered everyones questions in a appropriate way and once again => cordial Greetings,

[Frank Heukemes]

Not that it REALLY matters but Bryan´s and Rich´s shields are ONE AND THE SAME shield.

Cheers, Frank

[Stijn David]

Cholmshield

Hello,


Thanks Frank but that was already quite clear


Cordial Greetings,

[Gene]

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!!

Refresh my memory please

[Rich G]

Gene

as per PM.

Rich

[IVAN]

Here is another shield with long M to compare

[IVAN]

....and here another with long M.

they are very similar but note differences under the beck and the end of the "9", so are not from the same die. 2 firms or one is fake?

[Rich G]

Ivan

Maybe you could start a new thread based on these 2 shields ?

Rich