Fake Gau Essen on estand

[Matthew]

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=808039

While technically correctly worded description- 'private purchase' - as in someone purchased it privately post war from Souval and 'not awarded type' - no one was awarded those post 1945, at least in the official capacity, little unethical IMO. Not a word of its post war pedigree in its description either.

There were no original private purchase Gau Ehrenzeichen from that district (or any other).
This is a third fake Gau Ehrenzeichen from this seller on estand after fake Gau OstPreussen here http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...&highlight=gau and Gau Danzig here: http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...&highlight=gau

cheers

Matt

[Patrick W]

Hi Matt

Thanks for the post and also the character assassination. I wasn't ever aware of your previous posts relating to any items that I had offered, nor am I aware to any link to Souval for such badges but I live and learn- please can you elaborate on this so we all may learn? May have been easier just to pm me with your concerns as you obviously have me marked as some kind of deviant fake Gau badge retailer.

To the badge in question, I have owned and sold a couple like this in the past years and they are a known and referenced version- being not the award type but they still exist and are rare.

Here is another from the same die

https://www.weitze.net/militaria/77/...5__239377.html

and here is a page from Forman's reference that again shows this strike of badge

[Patrick W]

ps. I will also say that there are Gau badges which I and others believe are pre 45 which are not award types. The Gau Danzig you referred to is one of them and also the East Prussia- they may have been given as tinnies or for some other reason- the fact is we don't know and probably never will.

[Matthew]

http://www.brocksguns.com/products/G...8COPY%29/2509/

Perhaps you would like to tell us where your story of 'private purchase' badges of this sort comes from?

[Matthew]

ps. I will also say that there are Gau badges which I and others believe are pre 45 which are not award types. The Gau Danzig you referred to is one of them and also the East Prussia- they may have been given as tinnies or for some other reason- the fact is we don't know and probably never will.

You can believe what you want. As long as you don't try and push that belief onto others without having any proof or even worse try and misrepresent them while taking someone's money. It cheapens the original pieces and confuses collectors.

For the record- there are no 'non-awarded' types of any Gau Ehrenzeichen. No private purchase badges of same.

[Patrick W]

Ok Matt, well I hear you, I would be grateful for any information you have that links this type of badge to Souval as that is something completely new to me. I'm not trying to rip anyone off, as far as I am aware this die strike of Essen is a private purchase piece- they are referenced amongst a number of well known collectors. Here from Ailsby showing 2 of this type

http://ailsby.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09...of-german.html

[Matthew]

Here are two- silver one marked L/58, gold one unmarked. Both Souvals. Both post war.

[Matthew]

as far as I am aware this die strike of Essen is a private purchase piece- they are referenced amongst a number of well known collectors.

Ailsby pictures both as originals (erroneously) on the blog you linked to but makes no claim to this type being private purchase piece. So where is this 'private purchase' story coming from specifically? And why answer with a link that provides no answer to my question?

[Stan]

Matthew states:

For the record- there are no 'non-awarded' types of any Gau Ehrenzeichen. No private purchase badges of same.


You have made this claim before and have never been able to back it up with evidence so it remains your opinion. IMO you should not put something "on record" unless you have the proof.

Stan

[Stan]

Here is a Gold version of the Gau Essen which I used to have in my collection until Matthew told me it was a Souval fake and I then returned it to the seller.

I have never been conviced that the badge was a fake and the hardware is certainly different to the Souval piece.

I think however that Matthew is correct in his observation that the Gold version in Forman's book is the Souval type as can be seen by the hardware.

Stan

[Matthew]

Matthew states:

For the record- there are no 'non-awarded' types of any Gau Ehrenzeichen. No private purchase badges of same.


You have made this claim before and have never been able to back it up with evidence so it remains your opinion. IMO you should not put something "on record" unless you have the proof.

Stan

You have it a little backwards, friend.
It is Patrick in this case who makes a claim without a proof.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Could you please tell the membership why there were no private purchases! I would like to see the original source for this, too.

[Jo Rivett]

You can believe what you want. As long as you don't try and push that belief onto others without having any proof or even worse try and misrepresent them

The above quote from Matthew sums up what i have been saying for a while, especially about this user, Matthew.
Not too long ago, Matthew posted the following thread on the WRF. ►LINK◄
E V E R Y T H I N G he posted in the first, and last post, is 100% factually incorrect. Worse, it is partially invented by Matthew as well. He has taken what he found in older troll-books - all of which is also 100% incorrect and has nothing to do with history - and elevated even that rubbish and proclaimed, as you`ll read, that it is actually an "honor award".

I cannot progress with my research, if i am continually required to teach 1 plus 1 to the same people, only to have them telling me again and again that the answer is three!
My participation, sharing of research and latest findings has come to an end on WAF, mainly because of Matthew, and two other troll-mates of his. I am aware that many others feel the same as well.

No, not calling for a "banning", a "warning" or even a quiet chat with him by a MOD. That would be useless, as he would be right back under a different name, they all do this.
I would just like the MODs and members who do contribute here to be aware, that it is this user in particular, Matthew, who you should monitor. His arrogance and his bullying, as well as what he actually posts and tries to force on you as Gospel, is never researched, never analyzed, and as the WRF linked thread proves, sometimes even completely invented by himself. This is not good for any forum.
For my salt, there is no cure, as i said, if you booted him and all his mates, he would be right back. You all know this from previous run-ins with malicious posters like he is.
Sorry, and best of luck to the genuinely interested.

[Matthew]

There were replacements Gau Badges that were exact same as the badges they replaced. Could someone commission a jeweler made Gau badge? Sure.
Would they be original? Yes. To the jeweler who made them. At best they would be period made illusions in similar shape, size and detail to the real thing.

The story of this type being a private purchase started somewhere. Patrick here tells us it wasn't him who made it up to make a sale so I am simply asking him to point a finger at where he got it from. So far with no luck.

cheers

Matt

[Dietrich Maerz]

There were replacements Gau Badges that were exact same as the badges they replaced. Could someone commission a jeweler made Gau badge? Sure.
Would they be original? Yes. To the jeweler who made them. At best they would be period made illusions in similar shape, size and detail to the real thing.

The story of this type being a private purchase started somewhere. Patrick here tells us it wasn't him who made it up to make a sale so I am simply asking him to point a finger at where he got it from. So far with no luck.

That is no answer to your caterical statement that there were no private purchases. This is what you wrote:

For the record- there are no 'non-awarded' types of any Gau Ehrenzeichen. No private purchase badges of same.

I want to see the contemporary source for this statement. If you don't have one, I assume you just wrote what came to your mind for whatever reason. However, that is not how this forum should work. The more so if it is in conjunction with an accusation to another member. This is the second time I realized that you just seem to throw out your opinion as a fact.

I see the "unfriendly behavior" standards do not apply equally to everyone here.

I don't see it like that and here is why: contrary to you, Jo shows his sources, explains his findings, and puts it out for discussion. Maybe not all is correct, but at least it is with a lot of back-up and evidence. I certainly think that this is a higher standard.