museumtom Posted 24 November , 2004 Share Posted 24 November , 2004 A couple of weeks ago I bought a 1914 star, with a distressed ribbon. The medal looks to have some age to it and the patina on the front of it is much the same as the back kinda grubbyish as an old medal should be if it was not worn much. The thing about this star is that it was not named and it does not look like it was ever named. I did not pay a fortune for it , £18. Its still on; http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...item=2277557108 I would appreciate your thoughts on this. Regards. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 24 November , 2004 Share Posted 24 November , 2004 They are about, Tom. I have an unnamed 14/15 star and a few previous posts have mentioned them. Whether they were actually issued as such (presumably accidentally) is open to question. Quite possibly a number were "acquired" by workers before being named! Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBettsMCDCM Posted 24 November , 2004 Share Posted 24 November , 2004 Sadly I feel yours is a "Replica"/Fake/Spurious,If you check the Vendors current sales he is selling 2 More Miraculously "Unamed " examples,The Arms of the Star appear to be too wide & the "Wear" is not consistent with Polishing,rather to "Distressing" to give he Appearance of Age. The Reverse doesn't have he Look of a Genuine Example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stiletto_33853 Posted 24 November , 2004 Share Posted 24 November , 2004 Hi Tom, Sorry, have to agree with Harry here, the reverse does not look very promising at all. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archer Posted 25 November , 2004 Share Posted 25 November , 2004 Whether or not the medal on ebay is a dud, you should be aware that there are now many 1914-15 Stars and WW1 Medals in circulation, original strikings, never officially issued, un-named. In addition some enterprising souls are naming up (at least) the 1914-15 Stars with spurious details. I have seen a 1914-15 Star named to a South African unit that was not raised until 1917 - an anachronism that would not mislead the expert but which is clear evidence of a scheme to mislead the unwary. William Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCLI Posted 25 November , 2004 Share Posted 25 November , 2004 The distressed ribbon looks like a modern version. Not the prettiest of sights either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted 25 November , 2004 Share Posted 25 November , 2004 Check out his feedback. there are scores of people happy with their unnamed 14/15 and 14 stars. He's either come across a massive hoard of unissued medals or .... he's a crook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max7474 Posted 25 November , 2004 Share Posted 25 November , 2004 I would be very wary of this dealer as he has been selling a lot of rare cap badges that are in suspiciously abundant numbers so he could well have a big box of artificially aged restrikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leigh Posted 25 November , 2004 Share Posted 25 November , 2004 Judging by a previous thread re stars on ebay, this is not genuin as the top peice of the crown is not prominent enough into the support ring. I am no expert though Edit found the link possible fake stars L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 25 November , 2004 Share Posted 25 November , 2004 Being devils advocate here - the medal is described as "1914 Mons Star in used good condition, appears to have never been named." Everything he says here is correct, misleading but correct. Caveat Emptor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted 26 November , 2004 Share Posted 26 November , 2004 It's not actually a '1914 Mons Star'. It's a piece of metal that's been machined to look like one. His description is therefore not correct. In the same way I can't photocopy a painting and say that it is a Constable. (We've been assuming it's a male dealer but it could equally be a female) Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 26 November , 2004 Share Posted 26 November , 2004 It's not actually a '1914 Mons Star'. It's a piece of metal that's been machined to look like one. His description is therefore not correct. But isn't a genuine Star just a piece of metal machined (or rather stamped) to "look like one"? Even as a copy, it is still a 1914 Star, just not listed as a copy. When I wear my reproduction Gor'blimey, I don't say I'm wearing a machined amount of khaki serge with a water proof interior - I say its a Gorblimey, but also point out its a reproduction. In the same way I can't photocopy a painting and say that it is a Constable. The photocopy would still be a Constable - just not an original one, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBettsMCDCM Posted 26 November , 2004 Share Posted 26 November , 2004 It's not actually a '1914 Mons Star'. It's a piece of metal that's been machined to look like one. His description is therefore not correct. But isn't a genuine Star just a piece of metal machined (or rather stamped) to "look like one"? Even as a copy, it is still a 1914 Star, just not listed as a copy. When I wear my reproduction Gor'blimey, I don't say I'm wearing a machined amount of khaki serge with a water proof interior - I say its a Gorblimey, but also point out its a reproduction. In the same way I can't photocopy a painting and say that it is a Constable. The photocopy would still be a Constable - just not an original one, etc. No No No.A Copy is Not & Never Can be a 1914 Star,it can only ever be a COPY of a 1914 Star A Genuine Medal is one Struck For & Issued By the Issuing Authority,Not a Piece of Copper Banged Out in a Garden Shed In Outer Middlesfieldborough or whereever.By some Chancer who wantts to rip unsuspecting Folk off,Just the Same as A painting By Tom Keating of a Picasso Or a Rembrandant,is a COPY of an Original It is Not & never can be An Original Picasso,Only an Original Tom Keating, the two phrases in your statement Qualify this:Its A Reproduction & Its Just Not an Original One, That being the very Nub of the argument,Just because it looks like a Pig Dont Make it a Pig! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 26 November , 2004 Share Posted 26 November , 2004 You've missed my point - the seller at no point guarrantees that the Star is genuine, he just makes it seem so in the description. To me, this is still a 1914 Star, but just a cheap modern reproduction of one, not an original issue. To press my point - without using any words like reproduction, copy, fake, etc, how would you describe the medal he had for sale - I would describe it as the seller has - "1914 Mons Star (as it is to me) in used good condition (as it appears to have been artificially aged), appears to have never been named (because it never has, 'cos it was made practically yesterday!)" I never said I agreed with the seller, but it still seems clear to me that, misleading as it is, his description is perfectly correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBettsMCDCM Posted 26 November , 2004 Share Posted 26 November , 2004 Where I ever to list such an Abomination,{God Forgive me should I ever contemplate it}I would simply describe it as: "Copy{Or Replica} 1914 Star~ uninscribed as manufactured" because no matter how you[or rather he/she] chooses to dress it up that it what it is & why would one NOT wish to describe it using the Word "Copy" or "Replica"; unless to deceive;how easy would that be, no misleading,no confusion,no argument,& no comeback ,it is what it says on the Tin!!,to describe a Fake intentionally or unintentionally implying that it is original,is,@ best not Cricket,@ worst Criminal,when by the simple addition of a couple of Words He/She could establish exactly what he was selling without fear of any retribution would be so easy,but would obviously deter some bidders. Caveat Emptor indeed. Having been collecting Medals now for over 45 Years,I feel that,no self respecting Medal Collector would want to amass a Collection of items that "looked like Medals",The very reason for Collecting them is to be the curator of something that has a Tangible link to the past,that represents the Actions & life of a Past Being,as I have said on many occassions before,if one wants to collect a load of Replicas one might just as well collect a series of Milk Bottle Tops,for they would have as much significance! Also Devilish Advocate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rflory Posted 26 November , 2004 Share Posted 26 November , 2004 Andrew Upton wrote: You've missed my point - the seller at no point guarrantees that the Star is genuine, he just makes it seem so in the description. To me, this is still a 1914 Star, but just a cheap modern reproduction of one, not an original issue. To press my point - without using any words like reproduction, copy, fake, etc, how would you describe the medal he had for sale - I would describe it as the seller has - "1914 Mons Star (as it is to me) in used good condition (as it appears to have been artificially aged), appears to have never been named (because it never has, 'cos it was made practically yesterday!)" I never said I agreed with the seller, but it still seems clear to me that, misleading as it is, his description is perfectly correct. Andrew: The problem with your description is that you assume it is a 1914 Star, just because it looks like a 1914 Star, but it is not. It is a reproduction of a 1914 Star, and is not correctly described unless the word reproduction is in the description. If you painted a copy of the Mona Lisa, you would not describe it as the Mona Lisa, you would describe it as a reproduction of the Mona Lisa. To do otherwise is to be unethical, dishonest and incorrect. A genuine 1914 Star is not simply a piece of metal; it is a piece of metal made by an authorized manufacturer and issued by a legitimate issuing agency. Regards. Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPotter Posted 26 November , 2004 Share Posted 26 November , 2004 Gents, While we are on semantics, I was of the opinion that a 1914 star only became a "Mons" star with the addition of the Aug-Nov bar and/or silver rose. "Mons" because of the link to the original BEF who qualified (in the most part) for this extra distinction. But I am prepared to be corrected........ Regards (and ducking for cover) Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPotter Posted 26 November , 2004 Share Posted 26 November , 2004 Oh, and yes I agree, it's a reproduction. Apart from anything else the reverse of the ring just looks 'wrong'. I realise there has been much published recently about flat backs etc. but even so alarm bells rang the moment I saw it. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rflory Posted 26 November , 2004 Share Posted 26 November , 2004 Steve wrote: While we are on semantics, I was of the opinion that a 1914 star only became a "Mons" star with the addition of the Aug-Nov bar and/or silver rose. "Mons" because of the link to the original BEF who qualified (in the most part) for this extra distinction. The term "Mons Star" is incorrectly used when referring to the 1914 Star, with or without bar. I would guess that less than have the men awarded the 1914 Star were ever anywhere near Mons. It is an unfortunate term that still persists even though just about every authority that I have read indicates the unofficial and erroneous nature of this attribution. Regards. Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
museumtom Posted 26 November , 2004 Author Share Posted 26 November , 2004 Would youy please post a link to the flat backs on the 1914 star repros. Many thanks. Tom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
museumtom Posted 26 November , 2004 Author Share Posted 26 November , 2004 Hi Guys. I am trying to move to medals and badges and so far, according the the guys I am not the best in the world at it......back to the meda............. I see he is selling another one, (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=13966&item=2286752668&rd=1) this means that I have a duffer. Its been a learning experience. My main interests are War dead databases, weapons and markings but these these insignia and badges are a minefield...............................well left alone!!! Many thanks to all the pals who pointed out the freaking obvious that I should have considered before I bought it. I hope to be of help to you all in the future. Many thanks. Tom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rflory Posted 27 November , 2004 Share Posted 27 November , 2004 Tom wrote: Would you please post a link to the flat backs on the 1914 star repros. Tom: To the best of my knowledge, the issue of flat-back suspension rings on 1914 and 1914-1915 Stars being indicative of reproductions, was first published by Medal News in the March 2003 issue, page 9 which stated in part: "1914 and 1914/15 Stars: these look very good however they "feel" wrong and have, by way of the most obvious giveaway, a perfectly flat back to the suspension ring rather than the slightly rounded version on the genuine medals." In the May-June 2003 issue of JOMSA: The Journal of the Orders and Medals Society of America, pages 23-28 is an article entitled: Naming and Suspension Rings on British 1914-1915 Stars - A Preliminary Report in which I showed that genuine 1914-1915 Stars have rounded suspension rings on their reverse through early 1923 and thereafter have flat-backed suspension rings. The article also identifies six different types of naming and the period over which each naming type was used. Regards. Dick Flory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPotter Posted 27 November , 2004 Share Posted 27 November , 2004 Dick, I was interested to read that the naming styles have been categorised and were reported in the OMSA Journal. The article in the OMRS Journal about fake 1914/1914-15 stars did not cover this element (as far as I remember anyway). All the 1914 stars in my collection are named in the same style, whereas the naming of 1914-15 stars can vary enormously even within the same Regiment. I wonder if anyone knows whether this naming element is due to be reproduced in the OMRS Journal? Regards Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rflory Posted 27 November , 2004 Share Posted 27 November , 2004 Steve: Because I am the editor of JOMSA I can say that currently there has been no request to reprint the 1914-15 Star article. The article is based on some 70-80 RA Officers 1914-1915 Stars and what I did was identify the different name styles and then tie them to the dates the stars were issued to the officer as indicated on his Medal Index Card. When I did this I found that the seven naming types fell out quite nicely into particular date ranges that did not overlap with the date ranges of the other naming types. Since articles in JOMSA are edited in a digital format it should be relatively easy to place a description and photo of each of the seven naming types on this list (except that it would take seven replies to do it). If anyone is interested I will see what I can work up. Because the study is based on RA officers it would be interesting to see if the same seven naming types and their date ranges hold up in other regiments. Regards. Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raster Scanning Posted 27 November , 2004 Share Posted 27 November , 2004 Here is a genuine 14 Star back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now