ozzymac Posted 26 March , 2008 Share Posted 26 March , 2008 HI, I have a Millitary Cross that I am in the process of selling, I am just wondering if anyone knows how to tell if it is real or fake? I read through other posts on here but havent been able to find out any proper specs etc. It is unnamed, has no hallmarks, and is approx 3mm thick (not quite) Cheers PS Very Interesting forum too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkes Lamb Posted 27 March , 2008 Share Posted 27 March , 2008 Caveat Emptor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzymac Posted 27 March , 2008 Author Share Posted 27 March , 2008 Caveat Emptor! Only problem is that I am not the Buyer. I would like to know that it is real so I dont sell a fake. (even though I dont think it is) cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 27 March , 2008 Share Posted 27 March , 2008 Pop into local museum and ask to look at a real one and compare. The are pots of opinions about the width of the ends of arms etc but comparison with an original is always best. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Marshall Posted 27 March , 2008 Share Posted 27 March , 2008 Hi Ozzymac, Welcome to the forum. The quality of the crowns at the ends of the arms and the proportions of the suspension have made all the crosses I have seen stand or fall. Even a battered one will retain an air of quality about it that a copy just cant muster. Any chance of a photo for us to look at? Cheers, Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBettsMCDCM Posted 27 March , 2008 Share Posted 27 March , 2008 Most Copies especially contemporary "Jeweller's" copies are thinner & very slightly smaller,in that they would fit loosely into the Case,whereas a genuine example is "snug";as stated above a genuine Cross has a certain crispness in the striking,that copies dont have,especially on the crowns @ the end of the limbs & in the Cypher,a JPG would help to make a better judgement.the best being an actual physical inspection & comparison with a known "right" cross Genuine Crosses were not Hallmarked as they were struck @ the Royal Mint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzymac Posted 28 March , 2008 Author Share Posted 28 March , 2008 HI, Thanks for the replies. I tried to upload some pics but they refused to work. So here is some links to some pics of the MC. http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d155/ozz.../IMG_0389_t.jpg http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d155/ozz.../IMG_0394_t.jpg http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d155/ozz.../IMG_0393_t.jpg http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d155/ozz.../IMG_0392_t.jpg Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Marshall Posted 28 March , 2008 Share Posted 28 March , 2008 Hi Ozzymac, I'll stick my neck out and say that in my opinion it is a genuine MC and genuine suspension ring but missing the suspension bar. I'll say why I think its right too. As I said above the genuine thing has quality that isn't seen in a copy cross. This one has that quality as far as I'm concerned. I like the proportions of the ring in the top lug of the cross too. Often the ring which connects the cross to the suspension on a copy is a skinny one. Don't just take my word for it though. Hopefully others here will offer their opinion, but as always, try to compare your example against a known right one. Cheers, Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBettsMCDCM Posted 28 March , 2008 Share Posted 28 March , 2008 From the JPG of the actual cross it does appear to be AOK,the addition of a Case;can be @ times to convince the potential buyer an item is genuine when it is not,the reverse however does appear to have the normal finish of a right cross,& the crown tips seem to be AOK,& crisply struck,it will however require a replacement suspension bar which could prove costly to accquire /or have made Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelab Posted 29 March , 2008 Share Posted 29 March , 2008 Gosh, do gallantry medals never have the recipient's name or number on then? It seems extraordinary, when the more basic medals can be immediately identified back to their original recipient. Angela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Marshall Posted 29 March , 2008 Share Posted 29 March , 2008 Hi Angela, Since the 1993 re-organisation of the gallantry awards system, all gallantry awards are now named. During our Great War period, as now, the awards system was roughly divided into 4 levels. At the top comes the Victoria Cross - open to all ranks, it is always named. At level 2 was the Distinguished Service Order - open only to officers but awarded to each service. It is not named. For other ranks at level 2 there was the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal - open to ratings and petty offiers of the Royal Navy and the Marines and NCOs of the Royal Marines. For the Army and Royal Air Force there was the Distinguished Conduct Medal, again open to NCOs and men. Both these medals were awarded named. Level 3 is complex! Starting with the Royal Navy, for officers of junior rank and warrant officers there was the Distingushed Service Cross, issued unnamed. For ratings and petty officers there was the Distingushed Service Medal. The Army had the Military Cross for its junior officers and warrant officers. It was unnamed. The NCOs and men got the Military Medal which was named. When the Royal Air Force came into being their new awards were the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Air Force Cross for junior officers and warrant officers, these being unnamed. The NCOs and men received the Distinguished Flying Medal and Air Force Medal and these were named. Level 4 was the Mention in Despatches - open to all ranks and unnamed on the actual oakleaf cluster, but there was an accompanying cerificate bearing the recipients details. Does this help? Cheers, Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBettsMCDCM Posted 29 March , 2008 Share Posted 29 March , 2008 Gosh, do gallantry medals never have the recipient's name or number on then? It seems extraordinary... The MC of this period & other awards purely for Officers were presented/delivered Unamed,there was however a slip given with them suggesting they could be engraved with suitable details ~ @ the Officers expense of course... Link::See Post 13;Lt Hugh Singleton for example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzymac Posted 31 March , 2008 Author Share Posted 31 March , 2008 Hi, Thanks for the replies, it was much appreciated. And a great help. Cheers Ozzy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriel Leonard Posted 7 January , 2019 Share Posted 7 January , 2019 I cant explain something, nobody respond to my questions.. fake ( or replacement) military crosses are made from silver too ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 7 January , 2019 Share Posted 7 January , 2019 1 hour ago, Gabriel Leonard said: I cant explain something, nobody respond to my questions.. fake ( or replacement) military crosses are made from silver too ? The "real" ones and "official replacements" are only made from 925 silver. A fake, copy, or unofficial replacement can be made from anything, even silver. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriel Leonard Posted 7 January , 2019 Share Posted 7 January , 2019 1 minute ago, Medaler said: The "real" ones and "official replacements" are only made from 925 silver. A fake, copy, or unofficial replacement can be made from anything, even silver. Mike Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 7 January , 2019 Share Posted 7 January , 2019 On 26/03/2008 at 23:43, ozzymac said: HI, I have a Millitary Cross that I am in the process of selling, I am just wondering if anyone knows how to tell if it is real or fake? I read through other posts on here but havent been able to find out any proper specs etc. It is unnamed, has no hallmarks, and is approx 3mm thick (not quite) Cheers PS Very Interesting forum too. I recently heard about some fake MC's that were sold a few years ago. They were detected as fakes because of their weight. Although Silver the content was not the same as the original. If someone has the expected weight of a genuine medal it may help Ozzymac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 7 January , 2019 Share Posted 7 January , 2019 1 hour ago, Gunner Bailey said: I recently heard about some fake MC's that were sold a few years ago. They were detected as fakes because of their weight. Although Silver the content was not the same as the original. If someone has the expected weight of a genuine medal it may help Ozzymac. Some of the very dangerous WW1 ones have been genuine medals with engraved naming details recently added to their backs. To be frank, they are a minefield so far as I am concerned. I'm really surprised that it hasn't destroyed the market in them. Many of these dodgy ones turn up on Ebay and have sold for sums way beyond their worth. They have been mentioned regularly on the BMF, but I don't think they have been mentioned on this forum. It is only because I don't have much of an interest in medals to officers that I have managed to steer clear of them. Whilst owning an example would be nice, I don't think I will ever buy one now. Mike 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