The World War, [New York, 1917] Spasski, I

Rosignoli, Guido, Ribbons of Orders, Decorations and Medals, [New York, 1977] Seton-Watson, R.W., Serbia--Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, [London, 1916] Sculfort, L., Decorations, Medailles, Monnaies et Cachets du Musee de L’Armee, [Paris, 1912] Simonds, Frank H., History of the World War, [New York, 1917] Spasski, I. G., Inostranije i Ruskije Ordena do 1917 goda, [Lenin- grad, 1963] Steward, W. Agustus, War Medals and Their History, [London, 1915] The Advisor, The Museum of Cetinje, Vol. I, 1968 The Times, "History of the War," Part 21- Serbian Number, Vol. 2, January 12 [n.d.] Trost, J. L., Die Ritter-und Verdienstorden, Ehrenzeichen und Me- daillen aller Souveranen Staaten, [Leipzig, Vienna, 1910] Twining, Lord, A History of the Crown Jewels of Europe [London, 1960] Twining, Lord, European Regalia, [London, 1967] Weber, Philip M., The Order of St. Sava, [Chicago, 1971] Werlich, Robert, Orders and Decorations of All Nations, 2nd Edition [Washington, 1974] de Windt, Harry, Through Savage Europe, [1907] THE END [On behalf of the members of the Orders & Medals Society of America, the Editor wishes to thank Mr. James W. Schaaf for sharing these sections from his book on the Serbian White Eagle Order with us= the readers of The Medal Collector.] SOME OBSERVATIONS ON MEDAL COLLECTING, COPIES, AND LAW BY: PAUL H, TILL In the January 1979 issue (Vol. 30, No. i) of The Medal Collector in the article "Fakes and Copies, No. 4, About Collecting Medals" (pages 11-13) S.G. Yasinitsky made some excellent comments on general legal goals of medal collectors regarding copies and fakes of medals. These comments by Mr. Yasinitsky stirred this writer to give some thought to this topic. The following observations and points represents this writer’s views on this topic alone and are not in- tended in any way to reflect on the Orders & Medals Society of Amer- ica or anyone else. These observations also are not a formal legal opinion. One of the first questions that could arise in relation to fakes is whether the Orders & Medals Society under its constitution and by-laws and under the laws of California (its state of incorpora- tion) legally could lobby for legislative action in Congress or else- where? If the answer to this question is yes, the next question would be whether or not the Society through its Board of Directors or mem- bership would want to undertake such an activity? If such activity were decided on the question would then be in what ways would it be carried out? And lastly, what specific goals (laws) would be sought? It is as to the possible specific goals that this article is about. For there to be a legal basis on which to pursue fraudulent items and forgers, under either criminal or civil law, the item forged must itself be legal. This means that the Federal laws prohibiting the sale of the medals and insignia of the United States and its 19 Allies, that are presently on the statute books, must be repealed. (The writer has been informed that the sale of the medals of our Allies is presently also prohibited by U.S. law.) This step must be taken not just for general equitable reasons, but because almost anyone who would make a complaint against a forger of medals etc. has at some point in time sold medals himself. He, as complainant, and his witnesses would be subject to impeachment (being discred- ited) in court, because they themselves had engaged in the illegal acts of the sale of medals. In making a proposal to repeal the laws against the sale of Amer- ican and Allied medals and insignia; it should be pointed out to Congress that medal collecting is a serious activity, that it has a direct connection to and promotion of American history, and that the medals themselves are items of culture and art. It should also be pointed out that collectors do not abuse or fraudulently wear medals. Lastly, as a matter of good tactics to avoid unnecessary opposition to the repeal of these laws, it would be best to encourage the maintenance of the laws against the unauthorized wearing of a- wards and insignia. The second legislative step would be to seek an amendment to the U.S. Hobby Protection Act to include medals and insignia within its coverage. This would provide some Federal protection to our hobby. The provisions of this law require that copies (restrikes, reproductions, etc.) of the items it presently covers (protects) be marked as such. In this writer’s opinion these two steps upon completion when added to existing state laws on fraud and forgery would suffi- ciently protect our hobby. However there are some collectors who are of the opinion that even stronger steps should be taken against those who reproduce a- wards. It is doubtful whether any further laws, beyond the Hobby Protection Act, could be effectively taken in relation to foreign awards. In relation to United States medals and insignia, a clari- fying amendment to existing counterfeiting laws could be sought. Such an amendment would redefine counterfeiting to include the man- ufacture of U.S. medals and insignia; except by the government itself and manufacturers authorized by government contract (and then only during the period of such contract). It is this writer’s view that seeking such an amendment would not be worth the effort for several reasons. It is difficult enough to get the government to enforce the vital laws now. And if such an amendment were passed, it would not directly be effective against the production of copies of American medals and insignia in foreign countries. The State Department is unlikely to institute the necessary action ~n foreign countries, because of the burden of more pressing matters. Thus this writer believes that amending the counterfeiting laws would be fu- tile and pointless. In relation to reproductions of medals and insignia (American, Allied and ’enemy’) produced outside the United States, the best step that could be taken would be to make certain that the U.S. Hob- by Protection Act covers the importers of reproductions, as well as the domestic sellers and producers. Thus, if a reproduction were brought in from a foreign country and it was not marked "Copy", "Reproduction", etc., collectors could take action against the im- porter. Thus the law would strongly encourage such importers to have the copies they have produced in foreign countries marked as such. 2O COMMENTS ON THE AVAILABILITY OF THE U,S, WWI VICTORY MEDAL BY: RICHARD J, LUNDSTR~M The illustrations below showaWWI Victory Medal issued to me in March 1977 for my grandfather, who served in a motor ambulance com- pany at Fort Devens, Ayer, Massachusetts for five days in October of 1917. He was a steel worker and had been drafted by mistake-an error which was not rectified until after he had been inducted in- to the army. His brief Federal service entitled him, though he did not know it, to the Victory Medal. Fifty-seven years after the dis- tribution of the Victory Medal, I found his discharge papers and applied to the army for his medal. The suspension loop and pin are identical to the original 1920 issue, and the ribbon is silk. This example matches exactly other U.S. WWI Victory Medals in my collection, and may therefore’be pre- sumed to be an original issue piece. This medal was stuffed rather carelessly into apasted over Army Commendation Medal box and shipped from the Philadelphia Quartermaster Depot with a Victory Button with 1975 contract marks. If the army still has original examples of this award in its in- ventory after almost sixty years, who knows what else is tucked a- way in odd corners? OBVERSE REVERSE 21 .

Load more