With respect Jo it would be naive to read the above evidence and ignoring all the other factors that contribute to identifying real from fake take it on face value.
You are correct, neither myself and I dare say 99% of the members here will understand the forensics behind your claims which is why questions are being asked.
Are we to discard all previous knowledge of these pieces and take the above photos as absolute proof of authenticity?
To that end, you could say that unless we examine our collectables under a microscope, potentially we could have collections made up entirely of fake pieces, any originals acquired entirely by fluke.
Would you be accepting of someone turning up and announcing everything that was once thought is now irrelevant and to follow one person's theory based upon their word?
The photos above are meaningless to everyone except yourself because there is no proof or evidence to support your claims, only your word and the fact you are placing your findings above the intelligence of everyone else.
You are saying that you have a method of telling fake from real and you can tell fake from real yet we don't understand it but we should not have any opinions about it?
Without further explanation and the indulgence of answering questions about your theory, you cannot expect people to subscribe to it and follow your word unquestionably. That would be wrong and going back to the start, naive.
Looking for LDO marked EK2s and items relating to U-406.....
09-23-2013 10:32 PM
So, other that satisfying one's curiosity of how the pieces were affixed, the destruction of the medals is, basically, irrelevant? Something that can only be ascertained by destroying the piece in question? At the bottom line, the main forensic proof is the patina under magnification. Are we correct in that this, then, is the final conclusion of the research?
"Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."
Please forgive me if this statement is incorrect as I know little to nothing about forensics, but wouldn't a original item show a much lighter, if not none existent patina if it was still in its original packaging, never touched by human hands to transfer oils, and in a dark, climate controlled area for the last 70+ years? I mean, it wouldn't be subjected to the elements such as dust, light, oils, etc. which are the cause of patina, thus, wouldn't that dictate the amount of patina the item would possess? One would think that is actually a very important variable when determining the awards authenticity by using a microscope and basing it on patina alone.
We also know many example of the MC were found in such a well preserved state. While, of course, many others where found heavily used, or at least not covered by something to prevent the elements effecting it. The used examples would obviously show a much greater patina.
I will admit that it is quite possible I am wrong, but I just think there would be examples on the market, especially MC's, that are real, and will show little to no patina whatsoever, making it near impossible to judge it's authenticity on that alone.
Take this hoard of HJ buckles as an example. I would assume they would exhibit almost no patina under a microscope, even the paper Rzm tags, thus making it almost impossible to base it's authenticity on its patina. Now on the other hand, a well used, or at bare minimum uncovered example would, however, show a patina as it was subjected to the elements.
Another variable when considering the amount of patina on a item I'd think would be the type of material, too.
Again, I may be wrong as I've never tested this theory.
Adrian, what is our previous knowledge? Books full of mistakes, and copied and pasted information by those who in many cases, did not have the first idea about what they were writing about? (or who told us lies on purpose?) Dealers who have been brainwashing us with their "Guides to..." and selling us the stuff that we have somehow just come to believe is good? Was there ever a solid basis for factual debate on the items themselves - ever?
This is what many will have you believe i am trying to say. Although, i have never once said anything of the sort. I have never seen your collection, but yes, you do have fakes, we all do.
Forensics is not my word. I am simply showing everyone how we can take this mess of a hobby, this mess of opinion, out of the dark ages, and start getting our facts right. Because forensics, is not you or me, it is on your items. Once you slow down, and inform yourself about what you are trying to question, and form opinions on, it will become all to clear, that i, or my opinions, have nothing to do with forensics.
You know what to look for when you see two bullets compared to each other under magnification by a police forensic whatever he is called - on TV.. and when he explains to you that because both show the same marks, they were fired from the same gun. You accept that, a forensic analysis, because you have to, because common logic tells you you have no choice.
My claims Adrian, went from being words (long ago), and evolved into actual hands on research in the micro area, specifically applied to the study of enameled badges and what a forensic test is showing us. I dont need to back up a single thing, because the item will do that for me. Your items will do that for you without me. How could you even say that there "is no proof or evidence to support my claims.." You have not even read any of my years-long research into this subject, and judging from this post, clearly, do not understand it - yet!
You are either missing the point, or have joined the club of those who will fight hand and fist against this because they know what it means, and they know what the results will be. We are all logical thinking people here, and not a single one of us would doubt modern day forensic tests that are needed for courts of law, or from specialists in other complicated fields. We would not know how to interpret their findings in many cases, and that is what is happening here, so slow down, if you get a chance, read my book, read some of the articles i have done on this subject, then, we can talk if you like.
No Adrian, not me, i dont have anything except the urge for a cigarette right now It is not my method, i am simply taking a, "practice", if you will, the use of forensic Science to expose what the eye cannot see. A "practice" that is used globally on a daily basis, and one that delivers conclusive results when understood, and correctly implemented. It is all common logic Adrian. I am simply showing you how to line up the marks on a bullet - if you will - and how to interpret them.
Let me conclude with the following. Future posts of this nature, will not upset me in the least, or give me the urge to post a few "F" words. Although they may be directed towards me - Metallwarenfabrik - i cant take them personally, because "Jo" has nothing to do with this, it is common logic, forensic science, and after you have taken your time to understand it, it is irrefutable.
(Unless you are a flat earth society member, or just one of those humans who cant think logically, they are about i know.) Now as much as they wont upset me, i cant spend my time trying to debate with people about a topic that they are not even bothered to inform themselves of before they start with wild speculation and the rest. This started a while ago, and now that my book is out, will only increase. I am aware of a group pf people who are intent on doing everything they can, in order to shun the 21st century, advanced research, done in my book. Claim that forensic science is something that only Interpol needs to use, and we should rather just jump all over Jo and make him look silly, then he will have a fit and go away - and we can all go back to our Detlev Niemann books, and continue giving each other the thumbs up on a forum.
That will not happen i am afraid. I cant debate though, on a subject of this nature, with individuals who have not informed themselves, thoroughly, on the subject beforehand, and who actually have something of factual use to bring to a debate on it, should they need further clarification. I have said time and time again, that the use of forensic science, is a vast, and complicated subject that needs to be understood, before it can be correctly implemented. And that it cannot be just laid open on a forum thread for all to "instantly understand". But not much of what i am posting seems to be being read by anyone, does it - So in the greater interests (as always) of the community, i will not be commenting on any questions of this nature posed to me for a while. A good meal needs time to digest
"Much that once was, is lost. For none now live who remember it."
Just noticing something. Are you sure Mother's Cross in picture two is fake? Under the central disc, they seem to both have two vertical holes for securing the pieces together. Wouldn't that be suggesting that the people who faked the cross, had to take one apart such as you did, just to know about this feature? Also why would they include it if was something that would never been seen until the award was destroyed? Say they have the original machinery, how would one tell a difference in a Mother's Cross from 1945, and one from 1947? should they not have about the same patina? Or couldn't a later one, lets say 1960 just be exposed to elements for 50 years enough to give it a 70 year looking patina? (this goes back to Adrian's point of environment)
Well I guess that point of view is subjective. I suppose I can bin all my B&D Publishing books now because they are wrong and I have been blinded by the big glossy pictures.
I don't know if your theory is a solid basis for factual debate because from where I am right now all I can see is claims that your method of telling fake from real is somehow now the only way to tell fake from real yet you can't explain what 'fingerprints' we are supposed to accept as being pre 1945 and what is not because 'none of us will understand'.
You haven't actually said it, no but at the end of the day it's what you are hinting at by telling everyone that unless we use forensics to date our pieces and ignore everything that has gone before and blindly accept your as yet unexplained theory we have collections full of fakes.
Forensics is the word you have used often to describe your new theory of telling good from bad, it's the word you are using, not invented. I want to understand this way of detecting good from bad and have been asking you to explain it instead of telling me I won't understand it.
I watch CSI, I know the basics behind matching bullets fired from the same gun but I'm not sure I get what you're using this analogy. The bullets have striations, marks left from the rifling in the barrel and having the gun to test fire to replicate those same marks.
To used this analogy you will need to have the tooling used by each manufacturer, know the exact method used to put the inscription on the reverse, something to match back to the origins of the award otherwise you are just looking at surfaces and have no reference points to tell you how certain marks or features got there and therefore can't place any accurate dating process because there is nothing for you to compare to.
You are absolutely right, I have not read any of your years of research and I freely admit I do not understand it because you haven't yet explained it, despite the fact you can announce that all research done previously by everyone else is now debunked by your theory of 'forensic' analysis. If I don't need you to tell me how my items are real or fake and they will do it for me, at least tell me what I'm supposed to look for. I have not joined any club, I am open minded which is why I am asking these questions of you and requesting you explain your theory in better terms.
I might want to buy a Deutsche Kreuz in Gold tomorrow and am looking at one which appears to be original based upon comparison to known originals, matches the features that confirm it to be original, has provenance from the vet behind it etc etc. It's bulletproof in terms of what we currently know. However, are you going to let me go ahead and waste my money on this piece because I haven't subjected it to a forensic test? My weeks of research into this piece has all been in vain because all other terms of reference are now null and void?
If this is a sales pitch to get people to buy your new book I'm sorry I won't be participating. Your book is about party badges and I don't collect them.
Lip marks on a bullet are fine but unless you have the gun that fired it, you have nothing to nail it down to. You could have 500 bullets all from the same gun and they will all match but it means nothing unless you have the reference point - the gun.
I will assure you right now my questions are nothing personal. They are from an inquisitive mind and directed towards someone who has made some fantastic claim that everything that has gone before should now be rejected because one person says so and we should accept his word and further explanation is pointless because I won't understand it.
Becuase I am thinking logically I am asking these questions. I have many Mutterkreuz in my collection and have purchased them based upon my acquired knowledge about them, from discussion with fellow collectors and whose features match what I would expect from a period award.
Logically I should be more in favour of this previous knowledge than a single thread where someone is telling me my collection is now worthless because unless I do forensic analysis of them they potentially could all be fake.
I'm not in denial, if they are all fake, so be it but I can assure you I will not be taking a hammer to them off the back of this new claim because it hasn't been explained. If you can tell me what I am supposed to be looking at, and you mention earlier I don't need you, the items will tell me. Please tell me what I should do to authenticate them based on your theory.
You are not being jumped over. You are being asked to back up your claims. That is all. And yet now, you have made these claims you say in your final paragraph that you will not debate them because I as a collector or 'we' as a collecting community are not as informed as you. That's bordering on being slightly arrogant, as is claiming you have the bulletproof and infallible method of authenticating our collectables yet won't go into any more details because we don't understand them and because we don't understand we should blithely follow your word. I'm sorry but I cannot do that. I have no time to bring my forensic knowledge up to the required level you have decided I should to understand you and therefore I guess I will continue to collect fakes because you are not willing to expand or explain your claims.
Your greater interests of the community might be better served by posting further or else this thread is useless. What purpose does it serve?
In a nutshell - 'Hey guys, I've discovered the only way to tell if your items are good or fake. Look at some highly magnified pictures I've posted, this is all you need to know because you won't understand anything more in depth. All your collections could be fake, I'm not going to explain how or why, just take my word for it. See Ya!'
Again, nothing personal, just observations based upon the text of Metallwarenfabrik, not Jo!
Looking for LDO marked EK2s and items relating to U-406.....
I would think forensics would be a great additional tool to use for authenticating a item, but not the one and only.
I think Adrian explained it best when he said,
"You could have 500 bullets all from the same gun and they will all match but it means nothing unless you have the reference point - the gun."-Adrian.
That is a very valid point. How can you be positive the example is a fake based only on its characteristics under a microscope if you don't have the machine which produced it? You can't, because you are unable to verify your findings. This is why I would think using all available knowledge:tools would lead to a more accurate analysis than only using one.
On a side not, forenisics, which is actually referring to criminal matters, has been wrong in the past. In fact, a man where I live was released from prison due to a inaccurate forensic test. This is because humans administrate the test, and where there are human hands, there will be human error.
Last edited by youthcollector1; 09-24-2013 at 07:31 AM.