Type 1 Russian Front medal

[Sebastian Bianchi]

Ok, so instead of adding more types, let's say we have two types,

Type I - "Buntmetall"
Type II - Zinc

then within those you have good finish, bad (gone) finish.

What I don't remember seen is no finish/bubbles.

Seba

[Sebastian Bianchi]

Can you spot the ribbon reproduction? (the medal is bogus too).

Under black light...

Does anyone have more photos of reproductions?

Seba

[Bill M]

--Very interesting photo! I think it's the first black-light photo I've seen on the forums, I'll have to try that.
--I assume you used a digital camera, any special settings?

[Sebastian Bianchi]

Nope, no special settings, just turned all the lights off and let it go. I did use the standard tripod and timer so as to not shake the camera and let it do its work.

Seba

[Mark S.]

Ok, now we need to figure out which ones exactly are the buntmetal ones. I just picked this one up recently, (using the information I have picked up through this thread, incidentally) a Deumer (3) marked Ost medal. I selectively tried to find one that seemed to me to be of the buntmetal variety.

Upon arrival, I noticed that this badge is much more smoother on the surface than the other one I have (a for sure zinc) and has what appears to be a lacquer (or some type) of coating on it. Although not clearly evident on the obverse pictures, the reverse clearly shows the flaking off of this coating. It also gives the silvered areas somewhat of a yellowish, almost patina looking, tint to it. I noticed that Rick's medal on the first page also has this look to it. Both of our medal have a soft matte finish to them as well, where some of the other ones posted the coloring is more of a semi gloss type color. Like Ricks medal, the finish on this one look more like a chemically applied finish, as opposed to what appears to be a type of paint.

What I was wondering, is if these early ones, or what we are calling 'type 1', all have this coating on them? I have not seen any evidence of a yellow tint to any of the ones we feel are zinc. The bare ones, the bubbled ones all seem to be some sort of different type of finish.

I weighed both of mine without the ribbon and they both weigh about the same-20.1 grams and 20.2 grams. Wouldnt a buntmetal medal weigh more than a zinc? I am pretty sure this medal would fall into the 'type 1' catagory, as it doesnt compare to ones that are zinc-but maybe it is? Anyone else weigh theirs?

[Mark S.]

Here is the maker mark on the above medal

[Sebastian Bianchi]

Interesting Mark. I will post my weights when I get home, but yes it stands to reason that a buntmetal one would weight more. If that's not the case, what are the alternatives? Are they mostly all zinc, just different quality?

Seba

[Bill M]

--For weights, mine (unmarked) - pictured on page two of this thread which falls into the Type 2 catagory weighs 20 grams even.
--I have another with slight traces of silvering around the rim and helmet (also umarked I am afraid), the black finish seems to be chemically applied, no corrosion anywhere. Type 3?
--This one weighs in at 19.5 grams:

[Bill M]

--An da revoise...

[Sebastian Bianchi]

On the 65. Buntmetal-looking one...17.3g
Zinc with bubbles....19.9g
Zinc with all finish gone... 21.3g

All 3 medals are pictured previously in the thread..

What to make of those weights?

Seba

[George Stimson]

another weight

My number two, pictured earlier, weighs 18 g.

George

[Mike Kenny]

Hi guys,

I haven't looked in on this thread for ages. It looks like you've got a lot of good info here BUT I agree with whoever commented above that basing "types" on material and finish is probably not the way to go. It's great for classifying the finish but, to me, makes no sense when trying relate a type back to a manufacturer. No-one would attempt to classify war badges (for example IABs) based on finish, we use manufacturer. I don't see why medals should be any different. Personally, if there were, say, 25 makers (this number is off the top of my head only and purely for discussions sake) and each used their own dies, then I'd argue that there would be 25 different types. Medals from any or all of those manufacturers could potentially be found in Types 1, 2, 3 and ?4 as defined so far!! Worse, poor storage of a Type 2 could easily result in a Type 3 or ?4!

I only have 2 Russian Front medals at present. One marked 13 (incuse relief), the other stamped 88 (I'll post images later). Both are zinc with fine bubbling but both only have HALF their silver finish (one is relatively bright on one side but quite dull on one side, the other has the finish remaining on the lower half of the medal only!). You will either need new types or introduce subtypes to categorise them based on finish.

The other thing about my two examples is that, although they have the same general features, they are obviously DIFFERENT in their DIE CHARACTERISTICS. NO-ONE seems to have attempted to assign types based on die characteristics so far. From a brief examination of my 2 examples and some others in this thread, there are subtle but significant differences in the lettering of "IM OSTEN" (some are serifed, others are not), there are variations in the location and style of the helmet bolts, details on the eagles' head, talons and feathering, etc, etc, - all due to different dies being used for their manufacture.

My suggestion would be that if types are to be defined, that they be defined using die characteristics rather than the metal alloy used in their construction and their CURRENT finish. The ultilmate result of this type of study will highlight which, if any, manufacturers SHARED dies and which, if any, manufacturers may have used more than one set of dies. Some of these relationships have been proposed for, eg, LW flight qualification badges and Iron Crosses, but no-one to date has bothered with the die characteristics of a common medal such as the Winterschlacht Im Osten. A lot of very useful information is already present in this thread and I look forward to reading the final results!

Regards
Mike K

PS: my intention is not to rub anybody up the wrong way, just put forward a very different viewpoint and make additional observations.

[Sebastian Bianchi]

Rub the wrong way? Nonsense! We are working toward something here. I am putting together the information and I agree that placing them into categories by finish is not a good way to do it, I was doing it by metal but it’s good to explore other options.

Seba

[Rick Research]

My medal has a chemical patina, not a lacquer. It is like the smoky grey found on the "best" type of naval war badges--not something that can peel or flake off, and would take a great deal of severe scrubbing to wear away. It is, literally, a "permanent" finish. Sorry no way to get weight on it.

[Bill M]

--My second, pictured above has this finish as well. The black is the last thing to go - this medal is worn the hell out, but the black finish largely remains (but for the highlights).
--While catagorizing by finish may not ultimately be the way to go, it's a start. Unless the finish is completely gone, it's been easy (so far) catagorizing them this way. My worn-out example could still be matched with one in better condition if only few makers chemically applied the black. The maker of an umarked piece may be narrowed down if this feature is cross referenced with die characteristics of a marked piece.
--On a thread like this one, it's hard to group medals together by die characteristics - you need to see them side-by-side for examination. Maybe we can start by listing the differences.
So far, mine look identical, I will break out the calipers and the loupe and check more closely...