Rk with Oak and Swords

[speedytop]

Oh yes, I apologize! I apologize, that my English is so bad, that everybody can read in my comments, what he want to read!


Unfront, can you please show me, where I wrote that, because I cannot find it:

"... elevate their status to that of Third Reich originals..."
and
"Uwe is trying to say that 57 collectors are trying to inflate the status of 57 related items to that of Third Reich items ..."

And yes,"... oak leaves of the 57er period are *just* copies", compared with the TR originals and compared with other real 1957 "originals".


Nigel,

it seems, that you cannot explain me the asked comment, and instead of that you try to insinuate me some allegations?
My worry counts for the collectors who, in the good belief that these are 'original' 57th versions, had to spend perhaps to much money on these not original pieces.
It is not meant personally to anyone here.

And I'm not writing here about good and bad copies, that is secondary. That must everybody decide for himself.
I'm writing here about originality or not originality, and that could be an expensive difference.


Dietrich,

I'm dissapointed. May I remember you, a few days ago:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...0&postcount=20

"... it is a copy. Post war Oaks and Oaks with Swords, even if made on the same (S&L) die, should be considered such. All of them, no matter whether pre- or post 1957."

Uwe

PS: Nils, thank you!

[Unfront]

Hi,

"The Oaks & Swords are 57's"

This is definitely wrong, without any doubts.

It is not an original, it is not a 57er, but it is a copy (in German = Kopie).

There is an urgent need for some collectors (dealers?) to respect the facts, to accept the reality.

Uwe

Here you go Uwe! Just getting started.
I think Uwe needs to learn to accept (his own) reality.
More to follow Uwe.... more to come!

[Unfront]

Hi, ...

It's proper place is in a "not originals = copies" section.

Uwe

Here's another fore you Uwe!

#selectivememory

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dietrich,

I'm dissapointed. May I remember you, a few days ago:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...0&postcount=20

"... it is a copy. Post war Oaks and Oaks with Swords, even if made on the same (S&L) die, should be considered such. All of them, no matter whether pre- or post 1957."

Uwe

I am sorry to disappoint you. However, I don't see any contradiction between my post here compared to the one you quoted. My stance on originals is very clear.

Dietrich

[Unfront]

.....
Only you and a few other collectors try to enhance the status and the value of some not original pieces like OL and OLS.


Uwe

Howzat Uwe!!!! Nice!

[Unfront]

In the Ordensgesetz are listed some "medals and badges".


§ 12 (1):
...
4. Eisernes Kreuz 1939,

...

Yes, "its worth re-stating"

Uwe

Hey Uwe, you think Section 12 part 4 may have inferred the Iron Cross in ALL its forms? I'd think so!

[Nigel N]

Uwe, there is nothing wrong with your English, it is excellent!
If you want to discuss anything raised in this thread, please either drop me a PM, or start a thread in the 57 section, which would be the correct place for it!
Apology accepted!
Thank You
-Nigel

[speedytop]

Hi Dietrich, it could have been, that you had changed your mind too.

Thanks, it is OK


Hi Unfront,

could it be, that we live in two differnt universes?

In your last 4 posts I cannot see anything related to my question about the connection to the TR awards, that you insinuate.
You took for example a comment in quoatation marks, that one could think, that it is my literal wording:

You say that "hard core 57er collectors are trying to raise the value of them...elevate their status to that of Third Reich originals..."

That is e.g. my original text:

For some time a few 1957er collectors, in the majority foreigners in anglophone forums, try to enhance the status of several not original TR decorations to 1957 versions.

Doing that show the difference between a fake and a copy.

All my by you cited comments are correct, especially the comment in Post 62.

Unfront, please read attentive the last part in Post 61:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...0&postcount=20
"... it is a copy. Post war Oaks and Oaks with Swords, even if made on the same (S&L) die, should be considered such. All of them, no matter whether pre- or post 1957."

Uwe

[Unfront]

Hi Uwe, The train has already left the station.
Have a nice day.

[Tom B]

Hi Uwe, The train has already left the station.
Have a nice day.

I agree !

[Thomas Durante]

Copy is a real bad term to use as it means fake.... S&L, Souval,.. never produced "fakes" with the intend to fool anyone in their post war production phase.

What was the intent then? If this is true, then I would think they would have marked the reverse with "reproduction" or "IMIT", etc., no?

Souval went as far as to put their L/58 stamp on a lot of their postwar items, why would they bother to do this if there was no intent to fool anyone?

Tom

[Leroy]

What was the intent then? If this is true, then I would think they would have marked the reverse with "reproduction" or "IMIT", etc., no?

No.

These companies were just producing a product for a market and did not look at this at all in the same way you (and of course many, many others) do now. They simply didn't care. If you bothered to ask them, they never pretended that a badge, medal, etc. was wartime if it was not. Souval, in fact, actually sold their "copies" in many cases for more than they would sell wartime originals they still had on hand because they were "nice and new". You really should have a long conversation with Bob Hritz, who dealt directly with Herr Umlauff and his wife. They applied their "L/58" stamp to products because it was just another link to the past and Herr Umlauff was quite open in announcing in a letter to OMSA (for "The Medal Collector" in 1967) that they had "found the old punch" and were using it as a mark on their postwar pieces. Who would do that if the intent was to deceive???

S&L (an authorized maker of the Bundesverdienstkreuz) doesn't "freeze up" to outsiders today (especially potentially meddlesome non-Germans) because it was faking anything, but because it doesn't want to remind anyone of any of its ties to the Nazi past or its use of forced labor during the war, both things which have serious "politically incorrect" (and economic, in terms of reparations, loss of current business, etc.) repercussions.


__________________

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Leroy,

I don't see a difference. Perhaps it is just semantics, but I find it very hard to believe that any badge maker that produced in the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s didn't think their wares would be passed off as wartime originals (including Souval and S&L, amongst others). The fact that Souval would include their original L/58 stamp on these wares only confirms that they were "trying to make their new products as identical to their wartime badges as possible".

Reading the exchanges between Schiffer & a collector in the US in Dietrich's Knights Cross book is pretty revealing in this regard.

Tom

[Leroy]

Hi Leroy,

I don't see a difference. Perhaps it is just semantics, but I find it very hard to believe that any badge maker that produced in the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s didn't think their wares would be passed off as wartime originals (including Souval and S&L, amongst others). The fact that Souval would include their original L/58 stamp on these wares only confirms that they were "trying to make their new products as identical to their wartime badges as possible".

Reading the exchanges between Schiffer & a collector in the US in Dietrich's Knights Cross book is pretty revealing in this regard.

Tom

I laugh (in a friendly way, Dietrich!) when I read that section of the book (and I expect others my age do, too). You need to differentiate between dealers like Schiffer and a manufacturer like Souval or S&L. Do you think that either of them (with whom you could have dealt yourself if you had walked in the door, without the mark-up to a dealer) were really intent on making postwar pieces perfectly undetectable from wartime ones? They just made what they could, as best they could, with what (and who) they had or could easily get, under the circumstances then existing.