Bo44 Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 I did not want to lose this in the end of the other thread so I am posting it here. If an admin wants to move it, well, that is their job, but I wanted it where folks could find it very easily in the future if they wanted to. These are some from my collection I have taken side by side with originals and repro's. If I am mistaken on any of them, PLEASE, let me know and I will change the wording or picture. This is just my opinion and hopfully Scott will jump in and give us better info with the pics if he does not mind and has the time. I have taken these and saved them at a pretty high resolution so you can blow them up to see a finer detail if you want to. The background in the faces on a few of them are patternned and a repro will never be able to catch that exactness in my opinion from just a pour. Then again I have never made any so I am just guessing. Hope these help with the needed info. Bo Here we go..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feelnmarbleous Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Nice to see some Original stuff, pretty good for comparing also, thanks for sharing those Bo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mswitzer3 Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 show me the questions..the originals are marked? its hard to tell from the pictures..hansel has the originals and all else that exists would hafta be examined in hand..just for the record,NONE OF THE ORIGINALS WERE MARKED STERLING..some castings captured more detail than others,its the luck of the draw..most of the medals had "forced aging".the only one that looks real in all of your photos is the last vfw medal..the rest look like castings..the real one were stamped under pressure and would not leave any detail out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mswitzer3 Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Nice to see some Original stuff, pretty good for comparing also, thanks for sharing those Bo. these need to be seen in hand before making any assumptions or compairisons.the marble champ medal in the picture is missing the mouth,i did purchase this on ebay the first year that ebay existed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mswitzer3 Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 these need to be seen in hand before making any assumptions or compairisons.the marble champ medal in the picture is missing the mouth,i did purchase this on ebay the first year that ebay existed! also the were 2 medals one signed buzz cohen and one not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 ..just for the record,NONE OF THE ORIGINALS WERE MARKED STERLING.. [/quote Let me say right away that I don't know much about medals of any kind, but I've studied silver for many years, and the fact that none of the originals used for the molds (for producing the copies) were marked "sterling" doesn't necessarily mean that none of the original ones were (unless they were genuinely one-of-a-kind) . . . on silver the "sterling" mark is always hand-stamped (hand-hammered with a die) regardless of how the item was produced (molded, handworked, machine-stamped). Depending on how it was struck (the depth, it's completeness) and the wear (usually from polishing), an original may have all, some, or none of the word "sterling" on it. Were any of the repros cast in sterling? Were any of the repros also fitted with ribbons? Which one is missing the mouth? Thanks, Ann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mswitzer3 Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 "Which one is missing the mouth? " the Marble Champ medal in the picture,plenty were fitted with ribbons from other period "non valueable" medals..the castings were marked sterling..i need to REPEAT NONE OF THE ORIGINALS WERE marked STERLING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mswitzer3 Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 "Let me say right away that I don't know much about medals of any kind, but I've studied silver for many years, and the fact that none of the originals used for the molds (for producing the copies) were marked "sterling" doesn't necessarily mean that none of the original ones were (unless they were genuinely one-of-a-kind) . . . on silver the "sterling" mark is always hand-stamped (hand-hammered with a die) regardless of how the item was produced (molded, handworked, machine-stamped). Depending on how it was struck (the depth, it's completeness) and the wear (usually from polishing), an original may have all, some, or none of the word "sterling" on it. Were any of the repros cast in sterling? Were any of the repros also fitted with ribbons?" IM GONNA LET ANN FIELD ALL OF THE QUESTIONS,SINCE SHE TOTALLY MISSED EVERYTHING I SAID IN MY POST AND SEEMS TO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING..THANXS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryT35 Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Scott, Did you cast any medals in other metals such as copper or bronze? The few originals I haver seen were in copper or bronze. The known repro's I have seen were in silver only. Thanks Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mswitzer3 Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 they have been recast by a few others in different material even 14k gold "again i will say pay attention to the detail" can anyone say "centrifugal force"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryT35 Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Thanks Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1DanS Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 The only "original" I see is the VFW medal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mswitzer3 Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 The only "original" I see is the VFW medal. BINGO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 "Let me say right away that I don't know much about medals of any kind, but I've studied silver for many years, and the fact that none of the originals used for the molds (for producing the copies) were marked "sterling" doesn't necessarily mean that none of the original ones were (unless they were genuinely one-of-a-kind) . . . on silver the "sterling" mark is always hand-stamped (hand-hammered with a die) regardless of how the item was produced (molded, handworked, machine-stamped). Depending on how it was struck (the depth, it's completeness) and the wear (usually from polishing), an original may have all, some, or none of the word "sterling" on it. Were any of the repros cast in sterling? Were any of the repros also fitted with ribbons?" IM GONNA LET ANN FIELD ALL OF THE QUESTIONS,SINCE SHE TOTALLY MISSED EVERYTHING I SAID IN MY POST AND SEEMS TO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING..THANXS Whoops. I guess you totally missed everything I was saying, too. I was speaking of sterling silver in general, and just commenting that an original anything made of sterling (especially if it's small) may not have a readable or even noticable "sterling" stamped on it. It should, but it doesn't always. My questions about the metal used for the repros and the ribbons were just things I wanted to know. What about any of it made you so angry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo44 Posted October 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 I just went back and took out the "original" wording on all of the pictures except the VFW medal. I have tried and tried but that word keeps showing up. if it still shows original after midnight tonight, I will take all of the pictures down and start a whole new thread with new pictures. The idea here is to get as complete accurate information as we can compile.No NEGATIVE info needs to be added. GOD knows we already have plenty of misinformation. hahaha Please bear with me on the blue text showing original. It has been removed from each picture, however, it is still showing. NONE of them except the VFW should say original Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lstmmrbls Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 I would agree with Dan also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Marbles Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Welcome back Galen!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mswitzer3 Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Whoops. I guess you totally missed everything I was saying, too. I was speaking of sterling silver in general, and just commenting that an original anything made of sterling (especially if it's small) may not have a readable or even noticable "sterling" stamped on it. It should, but it doesn't always. My questions about the metal used for the repros and the ribbons were just things I wanted to know. What about any of it made you so angry? none of it made me angry,i reread my posts..i answered your questions prior to your posting this was one of your questions too?"Which one is missing the mouth?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lstmmrbls Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 too bad my first post made me look like a dummy(LOL) Bo and I posted at the same time but his came up first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoop Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 on silver the "sterling" mark is always hand-stamped (hand-hammered with a die) regardless of how the item was produced (molded, handworked, machine-stamped). Hey Ann... I'm pretty sure I have some items... I'm leaning toward military medals in particular... Where the word sterling is a part of the casting. I may be forced to eat those words, but I'm kinda really positive I've seen it a number of times... Hey Scott, thanks for being helpful here!! And, thanks to all who will allow him to be. It's a very healthy sign!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mswitzer3 Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Where the word sterling is a part of the casting. I may be forced to eat those words, but I'm kinda really positive I've seen it a number of times... ann had the hand stamping(sterling) correct..if you have period medals they probably werent castings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moremarbles4me Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Scott, how many different types/styles of medals did you make? How many total do you think you made and what did you sell them for originally? Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mswitzer3 Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 13 types,20 bux a pop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo44 Posted October 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Ok, now I have an issue... If there were 13 recast, I have 12 pictured here, PLUS. I have 4 others that are not pictured that are different. There were 20 recast, that does NOT mean there were ONLY 20 types of marble medals out there. duh!!! Never mind, not an issue. (Some of us old guys should just shut the F9*& up every now & Then hahaha) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mswitzer3 Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 only 13 types that i am directly responsible for. 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