Blood Order

[MaxAires]

I had a look at his videos. Jo Rivett is offering $1000 to anyone who can come up with documented proof there was a Green NSKK Female Drivers Badge... If there's no proof they existed and are in fact fantasy, why are Helmut Weitze and German War Booty selling them as original if they can't prove it? Jo Rivett's cash challenge started at $100 in 2013. That's 4 years ago... He bumped the cash challenge up to $1000 alongside an article that is now almost 2 years old. Do the well known dealers not care if they're original or not?

Source: https://www.weitze.net/militaria/07/...K__238207.html
Source: http://www.germanwarbooty.com/item-m...ls%20m4824.htm
Source: http://www.germanwarbooty.com/item-m...ls%20m6588.htm (JUST IN)
Source: http://www.germanwarbooty.com/item-m...ls%20m6606.htm (JUST IN)
Source: http://www.germanwarbooty.com/item-m...ls%20m6608.htm (JUST IN)

Can someone please provide me the proof so that I can win the $1000?
Thanks in advance!

[Gary B]

As has been stated in many other threads on this forum, micro analysis of medals and other collectibles is NOT something new. It has been used in the coin collecting community to great effect and has been used by other members here, most notably, Dietrich Maerz on the RK (in 2005 already).

In many instances micro analysis is overkill on an object whose authenticity can be determined by a good powered loupe or a camera aspheric lens (which gives a large field of view) if you know what to look for.

As for Jo's language, it is his attempt at making a rather dull topic funny, but, as has been noted, takes away from the professionalism of an otherwise very professional video. I can see the earlier point if someone stumbled on the video with no knowledge of the hobby or Jo's humor how this could serve as a poor example for the people in our hobby while also weakening the credibility of the observations.

Micro analysis is just ONE tool in the hobby to be used in detection of fakes. That along with detailed measurements, accurate weighing, knowledge of the history/provenance of an object, it's historical context are all equally important in the determining an objects originality.

Gary B

[Gary Symonds]

I had a look at his videos. Jo Rivett is offering $1000 to anyone who can come up with documented proof there was a Green NSKK Female Drivers Badge... If there's no proof they existed and are in fact fantasy, why are Helmut Weitze and German War Booty selling them as original if they can't prove it? Jo Rivett's cash challenge started at $100 in 2013. That's 4 years ago... He bumped the cash challenge up to $1000 alongside an article that is now almost 2 years old. Do the well known dealers not care if they're original or not?

Source: https://www.weitze.net/militaria/07/...K__238207.html
Source: http://www.germanwarbooty.com/item-m...ls%20m4824.htm
Source: http://www.germanwarbooty.com/item-m...ls%20m6588.htm (JUST IN)
Source: http://www.germanwarbooty.com/item-m...ls%20m6606.htm (JUST IN)
Source: http://www.germanwarbooty.com/item-m...ls%20m6608.htm (JUST IN)

Can someone please provide me the proof so that I can win the $1000?
Thanks in advance!

Maybe, just maybe, Jo is wrong.

I know this is like saying there is no santa clause or easter bunny,

[SiPo]

It was an interesting video, not anything I've not observed using my loop though. I guess it's useful if you haven't specialised in an area to get a quick 101 tutorial, especially these days everyone wants all the knowledge in a few minutes that traditionally takes a lot of time to build up.
In terms of other things touched on here, I for one think it's healthy to have a mix of old hands, young bucks, and even punks! In the hobby. Just wish we could all get along a bit more and respect each other's opinions and approaches.
I'm pretty happy with my medals without the requirement to micro analyse them, the knowledge comes in handy when at a show and having to make split decisions 😂. Each to their own👍
And I'm only just in my 40s , don't mean to say I'm stuck in my ways or not open to new approaches, just prefer to maintain relationships to our elders and our young bucks, however they choose to enjoy the hobby.

Great post and totally 100% agree.

There's room in this hobby for everyone; new school or old school. And if someone comes along with new ideas or technologies then that's fine too just as long as it is understood and realised that it's not always necessary and it's certainly not necessary to vilify collectors who don't want or need to use modern technology to spot fakes amongst their chosen field.

[jabnus]

Great replys Jon and Sipo, i fully agree with you both. Anything that can help us understand the items we like better, is a welcome tool.


@MaxAires: you know the answer...money! Nowhere in the regulations are the green ones mentioned, no one can proof they existed. Why do people sell fake items? Why is almost every auction by every auction house filled with the most horrible fakes? 1000 dollar seems like an easy earning, right? If only....


@Gary: i know you very well understand how microresearch works and have your own agenda, this is really too bad. I didn't name your name on purpose on the previous page but you are one of the resons people give up discussing things, i really have nothing against you, but you seem to manouver yourself each time in a difficult position on purpose to legitimate your fakes. We could now link to a dozen (or two dozen?) topics in which you troll everything on purpose and get in a heted discussion, but why just NOT reply each time and simply learn? I suppose you dont need to collect for money with your job, so why always the trolling?

Back to Blood Orders: Jon, could you see the dots in the arches on top with a loupe? I had never noticed them before and it is not as if i haven't been looking. You know how much i value your knowledge on BO's, but im just very glad with what i discovered last week. Maybe the microscope did save me ten years of looking and looking, i gladly spent these now on other items (or maybe a first type BO? )

[Gary B]

@Gary: i know you very well understand how microresearch works and have your own agenda, this is really too bad. I didn't name your name on purpose on the previous page but you are one of the resons people give up discussing things, i really have nothing against you, but you seem to manouver yourself each time in a difficult position on purpose to legitimate your fakes. We could now link to a dozen (or two dozen?) topics in which you troll everything on purpose and get in a heted discussion, but why just NOT reply each time and simply learn? I suppose you dont need to collect for money with your job, so why always the trolling?

Jabnus,

I assume you meant Gary Symonds and not me.

Gary B

[jabnus]

Hi GaryB, Yes of course. Sorry for the confusion.

Best regards,
Gaston

[Br. James]

Hello Gaston,

In one of your notes of yesterday, you stated: "What im trying to say to Br.James was: sometimes its better to look at what one says instead of how one says it. I learned a long time ago that the proverb "wolves in sheepclothes" also counts in the collectingworld." Personally, I prefer JoeW's response: "...I will always disagree with the use of "naughty" language or personal invective, for I was always taught that such discourse was the measure of the low level of the user's intelligence. "Gutter talk"."

I don't believe that any of us here lives in a vacuum; we have been around the block a few times and we know all of the 'words.' I choose to assume that everyone here is basically honest and when a comment is made, I take it from that point of view. Nothing is accomplished IMO by demeaning anyone else, even if you assume that he/she is speaking from negative intentions. And when someone chooses to use "gutter talk" to reinforce a point or to demean another member here, that choice influences the overall comment that is being made...and to me, that is not helpful to my understanding or accepting a differing point of view. In the end, it seems to indicate a lack of respect for another member, and that, to my appreciation, is not what any of us spends his/her time here -- or on any forum -- to do.

Br. James

[JoeW]

Great replys Jon and Sipo, i fully agree with you both. Anything that can help us understand the items we like better, is a welcome tool. .................................................. .................
Jon, could you see the dots in the arches on top with a loupe? I had never noticed them before and it is not as if i haven't been looking. You know how much i value your knowledge on BO's, but im just very glad with what i discovered last week. Maybe the microscope did save me ten years of looking and looking, i gladly spent these now on other items (or maybe a first type BO? )

Gaston, I assume you are referring to the dots surrounding the thirteen circles in the frieze above the arches? Yes. And the points of quatrefoils below the frieze. And the actual mane of the lions. All are visible with a loop. I still have not found the video examination of a real BO. Did he make such a video?

Do you know why he choose to micro-analyze the crudest BO copy I have ever seen. What possible value would it be to any collector seriously contemplating expending several thousand dollars for a Blood Order?

[Erich B.]

Hello Gaston,

In one of your notes of yesterday, you stated: "What im trying to say to Br.James was: sometimes its better to look at what one says instead of how one says it. I learned a long time ago that the proverb "wolves in sheepclothes" also counts in the collectingworld." Personally, I prefer JoeW's response: "...I will always disagree with the use of "naughty" language or personal invective, for I was always taught that such discourse was the measure of the low level of the user's intelligence. "Gutter talk"."

I don't believe that any of us here lives in a vacuum; we have been around the block a few times and we know all of the 'words.' I choose to assume that everyone here is basically honest and when a comment is made, I take it from that point of view. Nothing is accomplished IMO by demeaning anyone else, even if you assume that he/she is speaking from negative intentions. And when someone chooses to use "gutter talk" to reinforce a point or to demean another member here, that choice influences the overall comment that is being made...and to me, that is not helpful to my understanding or accepting a differing point of view. In the end, it seems to indicate a lack of respect for another member, and that, to my appreciation, is not what any of us spends his/her time here -- or on any forum -- to do.

Br. James

Amen, brother!
Erich

[FrenchVolunteer]

Hi,

if i'm right, no high-end fake of the Blood Order (1st or 2nd types) currently exist or can't be spotted with good eyes, or do i miss something ?

When you know the visible features of the original 1st or 2nd types, you usually don't need extra studies with micro analysis or loupe ?
This is different to many other mass produced badges that the work of Jo studied and from which he debunked a lot of fakes.

See You

Vince

[jabnus]

I choose to assume that everyone here is basically honest and when a comment is made, I take it from that point of view.

Hi Br. James, i finally have the time to reply, my own fair was this weekend and took a lot of my time (and sleep), i could only log on on my Phone which is not ideal for replying more than a short line. I wish i still had your viewpoint on the collectingworld, the time when i thought each reply was honest is unfortunately long gone, not in the last because of reading thousands of posts on WAF and learning of many colelctingstories and history. There are so many agenda's in place each day, but as you say, we both know how it is and have been around the block a few times. Im just trying to look past trolls and certain replies, its not worty of our time. After all we are here to learn and share knowledge. Collecting has become a complicated matter, not in the last place to distinguish the real items from the many many fakes. I simply try to learn and yes, sometimes that requires reading up to or listening to other voiced opinions and facts as just the politie ones. We are obviously all free to listen to what or who we want, but i think evidence should never be ignored, no matter who or how it is presented.

A nice example of some of these complications is in this very same topic. Just look at some of the replies. I was doubting to name it, but why not? Gary already jumped in himself with his usual "opinions" despite us all knowing very well he himself knows better, especially since being a lawyer who builds cases on forensic evidence (imagine that!) himself. But at least our tone here is all adult, right? I also think i have never gotten into a situation with JoeW, been trying to remember what it could be the past two days, (perhaps the Gestapo disc, or some brooches, i really have no clue what else it could be), but for some reason he wants to discredit my BO and keeps calling it a fake a few replys above here. Funny fact is he has Pmed me a few days ago he got one awarded to an Austrian recipient connected to the Dolfuss murder. Every BO collector knows that the range number mine falls in is thought to be for medals awarded to Austrians.... yes, one would expect that he would immediatly recognize an Original as he a appearantly a similar one, right? Instead he made a few replies calling mine which is probably the same as his own, a fake. Of course im not here to throw with mud, i suppose many members know it takes a lot more to get me mad. My BO is a 100% original that has been in print for over 40 years and is well known and given thumbs up in numerous topics, also here on WAF. I simply chose to have a microlook at it too and have no problems if anyone shares information on that. Obviously i cant control how people act or present facts themselves, be it like here in this very topic or as in the Youtubevideo mentioned. Had i chosen different wording? Yes, because im simply me and have my own style.

And here it gets difficult perhaps. As i wrote on the previous page:

Its no secret (and i say this with the utmost respect for everyones opinion) that recently microresearch has been the subject of a few heated discussions.

It appears that also here again we have the same situation. While it think we all want the same (knowledge and beautifull collectibles for our own collections) and i personally have no problem with anyone in this topic, it appears that there is a bit more going on. Bob replying he was kicked of Jo's forum -> i asked Jo what this was about, but appearantly Bob was simply never let in. JoeW asking for "weights and dimensions" which he very well knows are not wat microresearch by microscopes is about. As the topic on the SS civil pins above here shows, Joe has a scope himself and very well knows that weights and mesurements are not gotten by a microscope. Strange things going on here to say it all polite....


But one should perhaps ask "why"? It appears that accepting that there is a new tool that everyone can benefit from, is a hard or maybe even not desired thing. Again, why? How many hundreths of topics of Blood Orders are there on WAF? How many terrible fakes have we seen being asked if they were originals? I agree fully with Sipo and Jon that a specialised collector with many years invested in a certain item can probably relatively easy distinguish good from bad. But what about the 99% of collectors that dont have that knowledge? What is against it that they too could with a microscope easily learn things regarding originality? I sure dont have everything, and like everyone got burned by a few fakes too, if only i had had a microscope 20 years ago it would have saved me a lot of money. Maybe i am naive, but i really hope that the WAF membership will embrace this new tool and that it will make WAF better again. Dreaming aloud: what a great reference database would it be to have forumsections with topics with proven by evidence original items, i really can see only a win situation. Maybe some experts will loose their expert position, but i honestly think that they too could learn from this tool.

The no doubt best line from this whole topic is the following:

Just wish we could all get along a bit more and respect each other's opinions and approaches.

Jon, you know ho much i value your BO knowledge, this is really the best thing anyone could say. Not just troll new evidence, but learn from eachother and eachothers approaches in research . We all know eachother in some form (even if it is only a nickname here on the WAF forum), but to accept that there is a method that can be an amazing help to ALL collectors is something that seems hard to accept? I hope it will one day.


Happy hunting for collectibles everyone, im again pretty busy the next days, but will follow this topic with interest. If anyone needs pictures or anything about my BO, just ask.

best regards,
Gaston

[GiuseppeC]

Ugh....another "Microscope, Good or Bad" debate. At the end of the day, it comes down to this:

The "I've been in the hobby for 50 years" crowd will continue to rely on their knowledge and experience. People tend to get set in their ways as they get older.

The "Microscopes Uber Alles" crowd will continue to tout the benefits of microscopy to this hobby, continue to misuse the terminology, and eventually end-up adding misinformation to a hobby already saturated with worthless reference material, because the authors didn't do their due diligence well enough, or had a hidden agenda.

@ The old school collectors: You tend to stick to the methods that have served you well over time; I get it. Just don't be surprised to someday learn that some of your pricier items are bad. Some of the better fakes were made post-war using original dies and equipment. Some of what is currently being called post-war, can be proved to be war-time production, based on natural die progression, but that's a subject for another post.

@ The Microscope camp: For Christ's sake, learn and use the right terminology. If you want to use a microscope, and use your findings to assign identifying titles to various flaws on individual medals, take the time to learn their causes and use the right terms. Don't you realize that you lose credibility, undermine your own cause and sound foolish when you're inventing your own terms, when a whole set of language already exists? I got news for you: microscopes in this hobby have their limitations. Anybody claiming otherwise is selling something, and I say that as someone who used to get paid to study coins under one. Yeah, I know, "micro-patina cannot be faked" - well, if a badge was made in 1947 using original dies...it's going to have 70 years to accumulate "micro-patina"; can you tell the difference between 70 years, and 75 years of "micro-patina"? I don't think so. A badge that has die flaws only tells you how it was made; it doesn't necessarily tell you 'when it was made', unless you're taking the time to do a boatload of comparative analysis across hundreds or thousands of other examples. Anything less is a waste of time.

@ Gary B:

Why do I get the uneasy feeling that we will someday be seeing awards on e-Stand, with titles like: "PO Badge, MS-64PL, PQ surfaces VAM-14.5"?

[GiuseppeC]

Maybe, just maybe, Jo is wrong.

I know this is like saying there is no santa clause or easter bunny,

@ Gary:

What type of law do you practice? If you've ever defended a serious criminal case such as murder, then you would know that microscopes have long been in the arsenal of forensic investigative tools. Toolmark experts, ballistics, handwriting analysis, are just a few specific areas that use it.

Jo is not wrong in his research, but for reasons outlined in my previous post, he is incorrectly creating the false idea that "once you buy a microscope, you will never be fooled by fakes again".

[Br. James]

Hi Gaston,

Thanks for your response, though I'm afraid that most of your last note was not addressed to me, since I have made no statement regarding your Blood Order artifact or about microscopic authentication here. Indeed, I have never owned a BO and, at the current prices, I never expect to! I do enjoy reading others' comments on the BO and I also enjoy the history behind the award, but personally, "I have no dog in this race." My issue or statement on this thread had to do with civility, with the use of proper language, and with treating all of our colleagues here as respected citizens.

I have studied and participated in this hobby for many years, and in my time things have greatly changed in numerous ways. Personal computers and the internet weren't even thought of back in the late 1950s when I first caught the "TR collecting bug!" Back then we learned of new material by reading the few scattered books published by Roger Bender and by word-of-mouth, by groups of friendships within this hobby, at militaria and gun shows, and by receiving catalogs in the mail from Ron Manion, Globe International and a few other dealers who described the articles they had for sale in words -- publishing catalogs was very expensive and complicated for the people in this hobby! Sometimes dealers would add hand-drawn copies of badges or daggers to their catalogs, and then someone thought of Xeroxing copies of photos and placing them in their catalogs. So in this conversation I can honestly say that perhaps microscopic authentication is the wave of the future, that this new area of research may be the beginning of yet another major change in the way our hobby functions. We live in changing and exciting times, if we should be open to those changes!

So no worries, mate! I have respected your contributions and your points of view for as long as I have 'known' you here, and I look forward to continuing to do that. And I'm glad to know that you feel the very same way. Cheers, my friend,

Br. James