I don't see any problems unless the item is unique or rare. If Jo dismantles and destroys a badge that results in new understanding of the item I think that is a good thing. If because of his work we discover fakes we thought were original, and we can all collect originals and know what ones to avoid, then I support it.
Best regards, Patrick
09-22-2013 07:03 PM
This does not stem from anything other than what you are trying to convince yourself of, because you have slowley started to realize that you are not talking to a teenager who is just saying something for the sake of it, and who can back up what he says, and does.. I stated this, jokingly, on post 11 of the first thread, post eleven, that is not the stem, the beginning. It also has nothing to do with the presented questions or discussion, at all!
..i`d think of something..... does that not sound like a joke? of course it does, and it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this thread, or the other one for that matter. Stop ruining what is becoming an interesting 2 threads with nonsense, Please!
i could still sell them if they were original... as curios, battle damaged, i`d think of something.
As far as cloth goes, is it not common to hear..."Have you subjected it to the burn test?"
All interesting points, for sure. Some may be more disturbing than others, but that is what it is. So now, for debate's sake, I'll re-ask the question-Where does research of this type meet it's Limits (and who imposes the limits, I might also add)? IF this research were being done on Ritter Kreuz's, would you all feel the same and support it as staunchly as you've professed here? IF a researcher were to destroy, say, 500 Ritters but would gain absolute and complete knowledge of them and their construction,materials and methods-Would it be okey? Would it have been Worth it? And, if you did not agree, and the reply to your question was "It's my property and I'll do what I want with it"-how would that settle with you? Where would You draw the line and say "It's okey but Not with this or that medal and above it"? War Merit's? EK2's? EK1's? Russian Front's? Spanish Crosses? German Crosses? Where would the point be that you would be compelled to say "Stop! Don't destroy that!"? Note that no opinion is being given here-but merely the Questions have been posed and the Answers should prove to be quite interesting!
"Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."
As far as cloth goes, is it not common to hear...."Have you subjected it to the burn test?" - Metallwarenfabrik
It is common to here as it is a artifact. Why must you continue to try and start a fight. It's like you feed off of it, attempting to trap people making a inaccurate statement, and then pounce on them with much joy, always with the last word in the matter. This forum isn't about embarrassing members and proving them wrong, atleast not to me. It's about teaching and learning, hopefully, in a friendly matter. I know exactly who you are, and who I was talking to, which is irrelevant, anyways. You're making this a battle between us, which it shouldn't be. As for the burn test, it is not always accurate, and is a tool I never use.
"i could still sell them if they were original... as curios, battle damaged, i`d think of something." - Metallwarenfabrik
I'd think of something....? battle damage? Well, that something is a lie as you did it yourself. How does that sound like a joke? I see no haha, no jk, no smiley face. To me, it just sounds like a comment.
Last edited by youthcollector1; 09-22-2013 at 08:58 PM.
I cant see where all this thread Hi-jacking is coming from? why would someone need to destroy 500 Knights Cross`s in order to know what one is real? That is not what my research is about at all. I have never stated that you need to destroy something in order to know if it is genuine. This is personal opinion and rabble, and it is detracting from the topic at hand.
It is a sad quote though, this one, because you say: IF this research were being done on Ritter Kreuz's
There is an American author, publisher and researcher who has being doing exactly this, specifically on the Knights Cross, for many years now. It is well known actually, not only has he written books about it, but article after article in German as well as English collectors magazines. The topic is Looking at specific attributes under extreme magnification, and the results that we can conclusively draw from them. Not taking a hammer to your cabinet!
Why would you need to destroy a Knights Cross? there is no opaque enamel hiding any manufacturing flaw, or dead give away, everything is laid bare, just pop it under the microscope and start taking pictures. And as i said, Dietrich has been doing this for many years now. Small enameled badges and awards are a totally different kettle of fish.
I not only want to know everything i can about who was making what between 1900-1945, i want to find out what the fakers were doing. Were certain forgeries only making good repros? or did they also delve into the fantasy market? Did they re-use older fake dies decades later... i need to know this, and i need to break the enamel off of (mostly fakes) badges in order to do this. Did Deschler and Steinhauer really make badges in 1980 using older dies? The only way i am going to find that out, is to break originals and what i think, are fakes, wide open and see if i can find die flaws, similarities in die construction, pattern construction, tooling used. It is, a necessity, for me, for the small badges i collect. It is not necessary that anyone break anything.
The accepted definition of an artifact is "An object produced or shaped by human craft."
This would include badges, medals, brassards, the wheel, the microcontroller, the paperclip, the Altair 8800, the iPad, the V2 rocket, the Derringer cycle etc, etc, etc.
As for roads, the US "Route 66" sometimes known as the Main Street of America or the Mother Road has some historical significance to many as does the "M1" Britains first motorway; some also consider the design of the font "Transport" as used on British roadsigns being of significant historical interest...I would agree with that view
I collect, therefore I am.
Nothing in science can explain how consciousness arose from matter.
Agreed, I should've said, to me it is different. And yes, technology both are artifacts, but one was a awarded artifact for a honor, while the other was used as a tool.
I have found this topic fascinating, and at times, for me personally a topic that goes against the grain ,I can't imagine a situation whereby someone , who has spent a great deal of money on a rare item, dismantle, deconstruct and generally ruin the piece just to see what its made of, however on the lesser and more abundant items that were mass made, I see no firm objections if its done by an experienced and capable historian , which in my opinion Jo has proven to be.We all learn by different methods, but in the main by research that has either been by personal experience or from authors who have gained that knowledge by their own research, so how do they learn, by studying an item to its enth degree, and therefore are able to pass that knowledge on in order to benefit others, most of us would never think of deconstructing a piece of third Reich militaria and daresay have not really the expertise to do so, at least not to the degree that Jo has attained, but I think that we have at at one time or other dabbled with an item to look more deeply at it make up, I have, mainly on helmets, I have dismantled original helmets , viewed how a liner is stitched, how the liner band is attached , replaced liners, restitched liners,etc, although this is'nt to the extreme of saying cutting through the steel ,it has added to my knowledge.Experimentation of anything is how we learn in general, if the type of research that Jo carries out can benefit future collectors or even us then who are we to form a negative opinion on his actions. We all have our own opinions as to how our pieces of history should be treated and that is our right, but without in depth reasearch where would any of us be?????
Destroying history is a shame in my eyes, no matter if it is a hindenburg cross or a ss visor.
Collect ROA, Cossack, Schuma and other WW2 Volunteer militaria.
"Be Humble and kind, for you may find that it was Odin you entertained"
Thanks Davejb. Lets continue then
And lets continue with the subject of "destroying" expensive items vs. cheap-o`s or even fakes.
The Tears before bedtime remark is getting old and boring, and in fact is incorrect. Tears 24-7 is more apt.
When you talk of expensive, you kind of automatically instill a feeling of authenticity into the item without attempting to look deeper. Whether we want to or not, this is the way it is.
"Expensive" because dealers and authors have been brainwashing you into believing that what they are offering you, or what they have shown in-print, is a rare & genuine item?
Like the Hitlerjugend Ehrenabzeichen with an oak leaf boarder maybe? That dealers like Weitze, Winkler etc etc, always offer for sale for a few thousand €uro a time? I believe that Winker only wants around €1000.- per piece for his, or thereabouts. Other dealers that are not that well known, offer the identical badges for much less, around 25-50 €uros.
Never mind that, and never mind that they fail a forensic test hands down on all counts, when you take it apart, to see how it was constructed, we find that the roundel was attached with - super glue
Do you see the conflict? What is expensive to people like Helmut Weitze and Kia Winkler, as well as those who buy these from them, is not expensive to me, all it is, is a poorly made fake badge, with a poorly made fake HJ diamond super glued in the middle. And if i had not invested in one of these, and "destroyed it", we would not have known that the parts were glue together So there you go. Potentially this post, my breaking a badge that dealers are telling us is rare and worth a lot, might save someone a few thousand €uro
Mein word zum Sonntag: You cant make a cake without breaking a few eggs. Well not the cake i am making anyway.