Hi All,
Please excuse the following rant, and I will take it down if it offends. Many of you will have seen a substantial number of New Zealand QSA's sold yesterday at DNW. A number of them were to the Second and Third Contingent. Most Second and Third Contingent NZMR QSAs were issued unnamed, so it's always interesting to see how these medals are explained. Here is a listing as given by DNW:
Queen’s South Africa 1899-1902, 6 clasps, Cape Colony, Orange Free State, Johannesburg, Diamond Hill, South Africa 1901, South Africa 1902 (H. Neill, 675 3rd Contg. N.Z.R.R.), officially engraved in large upright capitals, as issued from H.M.S. Ophir, a little polished, very fine £160-180
Footnote
The recipient received his Medal during the Royal Visit to New Zealand undertaken by the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall in H.M.S. Ophir in June 1901, in his case at Christchurch on the 24th; such awards were not inscribed with the recipient’s name and had to be returned to the authorities for appropriate engraving at a later date.
So here we have an auction house saying in the same breath that this medal was both issued unnamed in June 1901 (which is true), and also engraved..as issued from HMS Ophir. How can this medal be "as issued from HMS Ophir", when clearly it's not. They then claim medals were returned to be 'officially engraved'. Really? Where do they get that idea from? If that were true there would be a paper trail covering it's return and reissue. To my knowledge no such paper trail exists, and furthermore just about every single 2nd and 3rd NZMR engraved medal is done in a different style - which suggests either the NZ Defence Department had about 100 different engravers all randomly choosing styles, or the whole description is codswallop.
These medals were issued unnamed and at some stage they have been engraved by a local engraver at the behest of the recipient. End of story. Why DNW feels it needs to make up a story to explain the engraved medal is beyond me.
Cheers
Phil
Please excuse the following rant, and I will take it down if it offends. Many of you will have seen a substantial number of New Zealand QSA's sold yesterday at DNW. A number of them were to the Second and Third Contingent. Most Second and Third Contingent NZMR QSAs were issued unnamed, so it's always interesting to see how these medals are explained. Here is a listing as given by DNW:
Queen’s South Africa 1899-1902, 6 clasps, Cape Colony, Orange Free State, Johannesburg, Diamond Hill, South Africa 1901, South Africa 1902 (H. Neill, 675 3rd Contg. N.Z.R.R.), officially engraved in large upright capitals, as issued from H.M.S. Ophir, a little polished, very fine £160-180
Footnote
The recipient received his Medal during the Royal Visit to New Zealand undertaken by the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall in H.M.S. Ophir in June 1901, in his case at Christchurch on the 24th; such awards were not inscribed with the recipient’s name and had to be returned to the authorities for appropriate engraving at a later date.
So here we have an auction house saying in the same breath that this medal was both issued unnamed in June 1901 (which is true), and also engraved..as issued from HMS Ophir. How can this medal be "as issued from HMS Ophir", when clearly it's not. They then claim medals were returned to be 'officially engraved'. Really? Where do they get that idea from? If that were true there would be a paper trail covering it's return and reissue. To my knowledge no such paper trail exists, and furthermore just about every single 2nd and 3rd NZMR engraved medal is done in a different style - which suggests either the NZ Defence Department had about 100 different engravers all randomly choosing styles, or the whole description is codswallop.
These medals were issued unnamed and at some stage they have been engraved by a local engraver at the behest of the recipient. End of story. Why DNW feels it needs to make up a story to explain the engraved medal is beyond me.
Cheers
Phil