SS 8 year in question

[soldat45]

Thanks in advance for any help as these are out of my area of intrest and I have absolutly no knowlege of these. Please have a look and let me know your opinions.
Thanks again
Jerry

[soldat45]

the back

the rear

[Dez H]

Hello Jerry

I would say this is a good one, the ribbon loop is the correct shape and although not very clear from the pictures the pebbling also exhibits characteristics of an original piece. Would you be able to show us a close up of the pebbling detail? Thanks


Regards
Dez

[soldat45]

Thanks Dez

Thanks Dez
I had a good feeling tward this award as it was purchased from a very reputable dealer about a year ago. I just wanted to throw it out for the pros to look at. I tried about 10 shots but my camera dont do closeups very well. I will try another trick or 2 to see if I can get a better shot of the pebbleing.
Thank you
Jerry
Also one quick question
Assuming she is good what is the going price on one of those?

[keifer kahn]

Im sorry to disagree but i dont like it.
Original ss 8 yr sunpension loops should be lightly soldered at the bottom of the loop.
The stipling in my opinion is much too heavily defined and large.The originals were much finer and were more of a random fingerprint pattern.

It looks like a lot of fakes ive encountered.

regards keifer

[Tony Barto]

I agree with Keifer.

[Spitfire]

IMHO

I agree with Tony and Keifer.

Also the loop does not look good to me - it does not have the "correct" tear drop shape, too thin and slightly oversized.

Anyhow thats my opinion

Al

[keifer kahn]

Spitfire is spot on with the shape of the suspension ring.Approx measurements are for the ring should be 17mmhigh,9mm wide.It certainly is not quite the right shape.Originals are a lot narrower at the bottom and should be soldered closed on the bottom.This one appears to have no break where it should.
Even though scans can be decepetive,i doubt it very much if this one is the correct colour either,which should be chocalate/ caramel colour.This one appears to have the typical dark colouring that is common with fake 8yrs.it is also thought by a lot of collectors as age patina.These things look like this new.

The jump ring on the above example looks to have a bevilled edge,But the ring looks too tall.I have a fake ss 8yr that has a jump ring with a bevilled edge,and that is a cast copy(the bevilled edge was reproduced in the casting).The ring on that also looks too tall.

These are the approximate measurements of an original.I feel this one will be slightly undersize.These are from book sources and considered originals I have looked at,

Diameter/38mm
Raised edge line on rim/1mm.across
swastika/26mm.across
arabic 8 on reverse/29mm.high
wreath/17mm.across
Raised line on swastika/1mm.across

tear drop ring/17mm.high/9mmwide

There are other points that indicate this is not genuine but i think we have covered the main ones

regards keifer

[Richard]

I think this topic could be a very interesting study of this award. I have attached images of an 8 year medal that I believe to be genuine. It has been given both thumbs up and thumbs down. My reasons for believing in its authenticity are primarily its source. Over many years this source has never dissapointed and has always provided material of known provenance or items that have passed the judgement of a jury of collecting peers.

First off, I would like to inquire of the individuals that are deeming the award in question at the start of this thread as a reproduction if they can unequivocably say they have seen an example of every known maker of this medal in order to issue a condemnation of this particular example without any disclaimer? I don't want to demean anyone or cast doubt on their abilities, as a matter of fact if I had a question on SS articles, there are several respondants whose opinions I would certainly like to solicit due to their expertise in this matter. My only point is that most designations of awards as fakes are made based on the comparison with examples that collectors know as real that they have seen. Just as an example that is deemed original cannot be guaranteed as such without known provenance or comparison with originals of known provenance, a fake cannot be labeled as such just because it may differ from the examples we have seen or are familiar with, unless we have seen an example of every maker and can identify the characteristics that don't match up to those makers.

The example I have posted is very similar if not identical to the original posted picture. I have made close ups of the suspension ring to show that indeed it has a break at the narrow end. All of the measurements and weights are spot on. The measurements coinciding with what Kiefer has provided. I have also provided a close up of the beveled ring into which the suspension ring is threaded.

This particular award came from a small unissued batch that was disseminated about a year ago. All had lots of sooty dirt covering them, giving them a "blackened" appearance. The soot rubs off but I have not dared to give my example a thorough cleaning as I am afraid of doing damage or overcleaning or devaluing the piece by removing what time has accumulated. The true bronze color can be seen in some spots here and there.

Included is an "expertise" identifying the item as an original by a military dealer that, I have to admit, had somewhat of a vested interest. He was provided a small group of these medals to sell. I know nothing about the dealer so cannot vouch for his honesty or integrity so the expertise may mean little.

One of the points that was brought up when I posted this medal originally, was the fact that the lower right leg of the swastika has its point encroaching on the rim of the medal. I have enclosed a close up of this. It appears the medal which started this thread has the same characteristic. It does appear the the originally posted medal has a suspension ring that is somewhat thinner than my example. In addition, I have never seen one of he medals from this unissued batch that had the ribbon attached, ready for wear.

I have collected coins for over 35 years and have worked as a professional numismatist for Heritage Rare Coin Galleries in Dallas, Texas and can state without doubt that this medal is not a cast. It is die struck and has no characteristics that would be found on a cast example.

Does anyone have any pics they can post of known (not suspected) fakes to compare, and if so, what is it that you know that makes this a fake? If everyone that has one of these would post, we can perhaps get a decent bit of information together on this medal. I would especially like to see medals with known provenance.

Here are the pics.
Richard V

[Richard]

Additional images.
Richard V

[keifer kahn]

Hi richard,
I dont have a problem with your example.I can pick several differences between the top example and yours.The point of the swastika which touches the rim at a glance looks like a similar flaw but in fact to me does look somewhat different.Yours seems to poke into the rim and makes a visible indentation,the top example seems to just touch.I personally dont think,in the case of yours,that this indicates repro.I think it is a die flaw.The top which i consider the copy,may have been reproduced from an original medal with the same die flaw.
The stipling in your photo is finer and more of a random pattern than the top example,and is finer looking even though it is an enlarged image.
The jump ring looks correct,and has the highlighted polished central strip
Suspension ring looks ok.
You can pick up (especially on the rear)distinctive red tinges,indicative of the copper in the base bronze metal.You only see this on considered originals.
The lettering ,runes and all other raised detail looks good.
Check out the runes on the top example,Very poor.The whole medal just looks flatter,and not as deeply struck.

As for knowing the characteristics of each known maker of this medal.Unlike iron crosses,kvk,s,oct1st medals etc etc,there were only two makers of this award.Deschler of Munich,and Petz and lorenz of Unterreichenbach.
Its not as if we have a large amount of makers to worry about.
Both types were almost identical,but the Petz and Lorenz versions typically have the Jump ring soldered off centre usually to the left.The Deschler version is almost always soldered directly centrally above the runes.
As for provenance of these medals.They were instituted on the 30th jan 1938,but werent manufactured till may 1939.From the 1st sep,1939 the ss received the normal wehrmacht long service awards.Another point is that membership of the armed ss did not count as national military service till 1935,so you would of been eligible for the 4 yr in 1939 and the 8yr in 1943.Way after the wehramcht awards superseded it.So the time frame for receiving an 8 yr didnt really exist.The vast majority for sale on the market now would never of been issued.
Ive read 7 different descriptions of the ss 8yr,by different authored sources.Descriptions done in germany in 1943,44,and descriptions done postwar. All information pertaining to characteristics were almost identical.I rely more on information passed down,rather than comparing the next medal to the last.If the medal i have in my hand matches what german medal experts wrote during the actual war,then that is a guide for me.

Through knowledge,observation and handling of considered original items is what i base my opinions on.And that only comes with time and equals instinct!

regards keifer

[Mark S.]

Are these medals maker marked?

[Richard]

Hi Kiefer, I appreciate your comments. I thought the two medals had a lot of similarities and may have been produced by the same manufacturer. It's interesting to find out that there were only two manufacturers, I was not aware of this fact. That certainly does narrow down the chance of very many varieties existing. What appears to be heavy stipling on the medal that started this thread, could be due to the quality of the scan or picture as well. I have had this issue with scans I have done in the past. Sometimes medals look totally different when scanned as compared to the actual thing. Is it possible that the flatness of the original posted medal, as well as what appear to be somewhat crude runes could be due to what appears to be a large volume of soot or dirt covering the medal?

I at first thought that these two were pretty nearly identical, but have now noticed some of the differences that you have pointed out. The most obvious, that I immediately saw, was the thickness of the suspension ring. It does appear quite a bit thinner than on my example. I still cannot tell if the first medal posted has a solder mark on the narrow end of the ring as the photo is really not good enough to make this determination.

Thanks very much for supplying all of this information. My education has once again taken another step forward.

Mark, I am not aware that these are maker marked.

Richard V

[keifer kahn]

Mark,These are not known to be marked.Nor does any recorded Info state such.Every example ive seen are unmarked.

Richard
One other detail to note is the distance between the raised line on the swastika and the actual outer lower edge of the swastika.You should be able to see that yours has substantially more width.This should be evident even though yours is the larger image.

One thing i do like more about your medal especially in the close ups is the colour of the metal.SS 8yrs were compsed of a bronze alloy, usually 30%tin,50%zinc and 20%copper).Repros do not approach this characteristic rich/almost golden colour.The first example posted is typical of the base metal used in repros.Which consistently seems to be a white brass alloy(copper/zinc/nickel).
I can also detect minute green deposits on your example which is consistent age characteristic with this type of medal and indicative of Bronze.
One other point to note is on the rear is the solder runoff where the jump ring is attached,another indicative manufacturing characteristic.

I see distinct differences between the detail,fonts,lettering, etc in nearly every respect.I could write a paragraph on the differences between the two,but take copies of both, enlarge the smaller one and a side by side comparison will reveal all sorts nasties with the top one.

When truly comparing the two,i think everyone should be able to see a world of difference betwen the two.
At a glance the two look identical,but that where the similarity ends.
i still stick by what i said about the stipling,and dont think it is a problem with the photo.It is a pattern i identified as soon a i saw it.Nor does soot have anything to do with the misshapen runes.
The reason i have researched the ss 8yr so much is because of those two letters on the front.SS.
and we all know the fakes associated with those initials.


regards keifer

[Joseph D'Errico]

Hello Gentleman,

Interesting thread with some helpful information. I have a couple of questions in reference to the finish as well as measurments.

I was under the understanding that the the 8 year award was a bronze base metal that was isssued in two finished. The first being the black finish over bronze the second being referred to as a chocolate finish, similiar to that of the 12 year.

Another point worth mentioning; is in reference to the dimensions given on diameter. It was my also impression that their are two excepted measurements for the diameter. The standard being 32mm and the exception being 42mm. ( The 42mm varient being an early example, possibly a prototype)

Please do not misunderstand my thoughts, the information given in the respones thus far is well done and valuable.

My response is more of what I believed to be additional characteristics of the award. I look forward to some elboration from others.

I have attached a scan for color reference only. I am away from my primary computer and do not have the larger pic just the thumbnail; sorry about that. But the color of the finish is what I am referencing.

The first example shown, not to beat a dead horse is a repo, the second example shown should be noted that the Swaz does not typically break the rim. I also put alot of province the cross thatching of this award as well as the other points mentioned. This is one of the points the repos seem to miss the mark on thye pebbling, a finer detail to be considered.

I also wanted to mention that the reference given to the attachment of the suspention loop. This was a very valuable addition to my knowledge of the award. Thanks Keifer.

Also in reference to eligibility, the award was was founded in 1938 and awarded in 1939, but the years were accumulated restrospectively after the SS established its own long service award, with the years starting in 1925 with the refoundment of the NSDAP. Double service time would account for the 25 year award.


Thank you in advance,
JD