Become our sponsor and display your banner here
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 93

a Mutterkreuz question

Article about: Collectors of the Mothers Cross, will surely have a few pointers that they look out for on the MC, when deciding whether to buy one, or when they decide to comment that a MC is either authen

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote by Pryo View Post
    load of bull
    A technicality, a house got bombed, wall fell down, Mummy underneath, badge broken..Battle Damaged! end of.
    I get the few pointers so far, and agree with them as well, Fine lines i.e: well constructed, good enamel .... and hopefully there will be a few more. Maybe there is even one or two that point to them/it/either-or being a good-un straight away, or visa versa...

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    P
    Many
     

  3. #22
    ?

    Default

    Quote by Feuerbach View Post
    Why would one want to buy a damaged bronze MC, without ribbon, while these are cheap to buy in good original condition?
    See post #14.

    Can we get this back on track and discuss the features that distinguish real from fake in these awards.

    Although we all wish to preserve history, we also need to study it. It is our hobby afterall. On occasion there is cause to explore deeper, discover and learn manufacturing techniques.
    There are many EK collectors with 'exploded' EKs in their collections to show how they were made. How else would we know some frames and cores are hollow for example?

    Now, back to Mutterkreuz education......

  4. #23

    Default

    Quote by Feuerbach View Post
    ....while these are cheap to buy in good original condition?
    Interesting observation, what exactly is "Good, original, condition"? what would be the things you look for, that told you, that a MC was in good, original, condition?
    Good condition, i can follow, but original condition?

  5. #24
    ?

    Default

    I guess the Deschler hoard pieces could be described as being in 'original condition'?
    I was certainly the first one to unwrap mine since they were packed up in the factory.

    For arguments sake of course......

  6. #25

    Default

    Quote by Metallwarenfabrik View Post
    Yes, the reason is that i took the roundels off, was to see how each one was affixed.
    This thread is ridiculous, IMO.
    First off, how can these be "battle damaged" if you've admitted to taking off the roundels yourself? That makes absolutely no sense to me, and if you were to sell them labeled as that, you'd be just as bad as the sellers who make up false vet providence. As for your theory of the above items being considered "battle damage" because "a house got bombed, wall fell down," as you stated, that, too, is completely incorrect. The definition; since you like to define words, is, battle - a sustained fight between large; organized armed forces. In order for it to be considered a battle, at least two groups must be willingly fighting, not a defenseless civilian; or old lady, who has no intent to fight back. So no, if it was damaged the way you say it could've been, which it wasn't because you did it yourself, it still isn't a battle damaged item.
    Second of all, I don't care how many of these awards were produced during the Third Reich, it is still apart of history. Because of that as well the fact you didn't earn these, in my opinion, you have no right to deface it, period. How would you feel in 80 years if someone took apart your awards you were so proud of just to see how it was made? A pointless matter, nonetheless, as there are many other ways to determine this awards authenticity. Although it seems I'm the only one, I do not support your decision to destroy these awards, no matter what the reasoning is, and I really hope this isn't something of the norm for you.

  7. #26

    Default

    I think some folk are missing the whole point of this thread which was the question as to how one determines the authenticity of the Mother's Crosses.
    If you knew Jo, you would understand his humour, that being said let's please get back to the original question because I, for one, would be most interested to hear the answers from the guys who specialize in this area of collecting. I personally find no fault with either of the two that started the thread and would like to know whether I am correct or not. The points mentioned by Adrian are things I look for in originals as well as the wording around the roundel, but if the roundel is missing, as with Jo's two, how would you be able to say either way?

    Tom
    Last edited by StuG III; 09-21-2013 at 11:51 PM. Reason: grammer

  8. #27

    Default

    Quote by youthcollector1 View Post
    This thread is ridiculous, IMO.
    First off, how can these be "battle damaged" if you've admitted to taking off the roundels yourself? That makes absolutely no sense to me, and if you were to sell them labeled as that, you'd be just as bad as the sellers who make up false vet providence. As for your theory of the above items being considered "battle damage" because "a house got bombed, wall fell down," as you stated, that, too, is completely incorrect. The definition; since you like to define words, is, battle - a sustained fight between large; organized armed forces. In order for it to be considered a battle, at least two groups must be willingly fighting, not a defenseless civilian; or old lady, who has no intent to fight back. So no, if it was damaged the way you say it could've been, which it wasn't because you did it yourself, it still isn't a battle damaged item.
    Second of all, I don't care how many of these awards were produced during the Third Reich, it is still apart of history. Because of that as well the fact you didn't earn these, in my opinion, you have no right to deface it, period. How would you feel in 80 years if someone took apart your awards you were so proud of just to see how it was made? A pointless matter, nonetheless, as there are many other ways to determine this awards authenticity. Although it seems I'm the only one, I do not support your decision to destroy these awards, no matter what the reasoning is, and I really hope this isn't something of the norm for you.
    YC, there are some people who are willing, nay need, to do such things to get to the bottom of the riddle. If Jo's damaging of these two crosses brings us all closer to understanding what it really is that we need to be looking for, then so be it. I would personally not be doing this to any of my awards any time soon, but kudos to Jo for going the extra mile.
    This is, of course, my personal opinion.

    Tom

  9. #28

    Default

    I understand what you are saying Stug. However, if anyone else would've came on here claiming to of defaced an award, for any reason, all hell would've broke out. I don't understand why this thread is even allowed to continue. I know I've seen others pulled for a lot less reasoning.
    I will say that I do respect what Jo has done for the hobby, but Nothing entitles Anyone to the right of destroy a award they didn't earn, nothing!! That's just my opinion.

  10. #29

    Default

    Battle damaged???
    Maybe mama took the lunchbox to the little boy in este front...

  11. #30

    Default

    And happily, on this forum, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

    Tom

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. My mothers cross collection

    In Collections display
    05-23-2013, 10:47 PM
  2. Question Mothers Cross Booklet ?

    In Photos - Papers - Propaganda of the Third Reich
    01-26-2013, 08:52 PM
  3. Mothers cross book?

    In Photos - Papers - Propaganda of the Third Reich
    09-18-2011, 12:59 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •