Detecting Fakes and Forgeries - The South Africa Medal for 1877-1879

Chris Cawthorne

This article is the second in a series of articles intended to bring more awareness to members of the Orders and

Medals Society of America on the growing number of

fakes and forgeries in the collecting field of British

campaign medals. The subject matter presented here will

focus on recent observations on a particular type of

British South Africa Medal forgery for the campaigns

fi’om September 25, 1877 through December 2, 1879.

Although this article is specifically oriented towards the

South Africa Medal for 1877 - 1879, it is important to

note that certain observations and characteristics of this

particular forgery can aid in the detection of other British

campaign medal forgeries in circulation.

ORIGINS OF THE SOUTH AFRICA MEDAL

The South Africa Medal for 1877-1879 was issued for a

number of different tribal campaigns in this region

between the years of 1877 to 1879. Three different

preliminary Royal Warrants were issued for the creation

of the South Africa Medal because the War Office was

continuously re-examining their position with regards

to services for which the medal would be awarded. This

was due in part to a certain amount of confusion in the

War Office on the different complexities in the region

with the different tribes and telTitories. Finally, General

Order 103, was published on August 1, 1880 and

basically stated the following:

"The Queen, in consideration of the arduous duties performed, &c., has been graciously

pleased to command that a medal be granted to

Her Majesty’s Imperial Forces, and to such of

Her Majesty’s Colonial Forces, European or

Native, as were regularly organized and

disciplined as combatants, &c., in the various

operations in South Africa during the years

1877-78 and 79."

"Her Majesty has also been pleased to approve

of a clasp being attached to the said medal, on

which will be indicated the year or yeats in

which the recipient of the medal were engaged."

"Those troops employed in Natal from the llth

January to the 1st September, 1879, but who

never crossed the border into Zululand, will be

granted a medal without clasp. ’’~

Although the Battle of Isandhlwana and the Defense of

Rorkes’s Drift against the Zulus always dominate the

collectirfg interests in this medal, there are a series of

small, but fascinating campaigns for one who delves

further into this period of South African history. This

history is too complex to be properly written up within

the scope of this article. However, there are medal books

available such as "British Battles and Medals" by E. C.

Joslin, A. R. Litherland and B. T. Simpkin, that do a

brief, but good historical summation with lists of the

many British and Colonial units present during the years

involved. The various campaigns can be broken down

by time period as follows:

September 26, 1877- June 28, 1878

Campaign opposing Chiefs Kreli, Sandile,

Macomo of the Galekas and Gaikas, the

Tambookies and other Kaffir tribes.

January 21, 1878 - January 28, 1878

Campaign opposing Chief Pokwane.

April 24, 1878-November 13, 1878

Campaign opposing the Griquas.

January 11, 1879- September 1, 1879

Campaign opposing Chief Cetewayo and the

Zulus.

November 11, 1879 - December 2, 1879

Campaign opposing Chief Sekukuni and the

Basutos.

March 25, 1879 - November 20, 1879

Campaign opposing Chief Moirosi in the

Drakensberg Mountains.

BUYER BEWARE- ANOTHER HYPOTHETICAL CASE

The first article in the author’s series on British campaign

medal fakes and forgeries, entitled "The Waterloo Medal

Detecting Fakes and For~,enes, introduced us to a

fictitious medal collector and his perilous journey in

trying to choose between two Waterloo Medals for his

collection. Perilous in that one Waterloo Medal was a

treasure to add to his collection and the other a dangerous

forgery style that has been plaguing many collectors. This

article on Waterloo Medals was published in the January

2 JOMSA

- February 2002 issue of JOMSA. Although not required prerequisite reading, it is of definite value if reviewed in context with this article.

Once again we find our fictitious medal collector cautiously venturing out to build his medal collection by attending another militaria show. His last purchase of a Waterloo Medal to the Scots Guards was a nice addition to his collection. His caution in this new search is due to narrowly avoiding a costly mistake because his friend handed him a copy of the article on fake Waterloo Medals and he just missed buying the forgery.

His new "acquisition target," a South African Medal for

the campaigns from 1877 to 1879, is the subject of this

article. His burning desire to buy this particular medal

has been fueled by reading "The Washing of the Spears"

by Donald R. Morris on the rise and fall of the Zulu

Nation (a fabulous book!). The purchase of a South

Africa Medal also fits fight in his collecting theme, as

he has been trying to pick up one nice example from

each of the campaign medals formally issued by the

British Government. What a treasure it would be to pick

up a South African medal to the 24th Foot, or perhaps

even a casualty from the Battle of Isandhlwana or a

defender of Rorke’s Drift!

five that I have seen totally forged copies of the South Africa Medal as well as a forged Crimea Medal. This South Africa Medal mentioned is the same type analyzed within this article. What I did not say in the Waterloo article is that the "forging style" of all three of these medals observed is similar and may be made by the same unscrupulous people.

There may also be a link between these copies of the Crimea, South Africa, and Waterloo Medals and Barry Weaver’s atticle on the fake Military General Service Medal ( 1793-1814). The Crimea medal, the South Africa Medal and the Military General Seryice Medal all share the same obverse of a young Queen Victoria (except for

the date 1848 under the bust for the MGSM). It is a reasonable assumption that if the forgers have made an investment in tooling up the dies for the Crimea Medal and the South Africa Medal, that the popularity of the Military General Service Medal would follow. I have not been able to confirm that the obverse on all three different campaign medal forgeries is the basically the same portrait (Barry was not able to record pictures of the forged MGSM). I would like to appeal to the readers to send me any information you can on suspect Military General Service Medals with die-struck planchets for future articles.

Our medal collector feels good about his decision to buy. a South Africa Medal, as his original sights were on a Military General Service Medal (MGSM) to complement his recent purchase of his Waterloo Medal. That changed after reading the March - April 2003 issue of JOMSA. that contained an article by Barry Weaver entitled "A Fake British 1793 - 1814 Military General Service Medal." In this article, Barry describes his experiences in purchasing a Military General Service Medal that was faked, from the striking of the planchet to the bars that were attached. The perpetrators even had the gall to put a doctored portrait with the medal to give it that aged, provenance feel. Well, our fictitious medal collector thought "why not steer clear of this situation and go for the South Africa Medal instead?"

Although he should feel reasonably comfortable with his decision to purchase a South Africa Medal, a state of optimistic caution should still be exercised with his search. He needs to be informed and experienced enough to recognize a good South Africa Medal from a renamed one, especially if it is to a desirable unit or a casualty. The same might be said about knowing how to recognize if the bar has been tampered with on the medal. Now, he has to be concerned with a new threat. In my article on Waterloo Medals, I mention in the fine print on page

The big day has arrived for our medal collector. Just as we all experience, the mad rush begins as the doors open to the militaria show. He quickly scrambles around the tables looking for a nice example of a South Africa Medal among the militaria dealers present. Time is of the essence, as he just knows that if he does not act fast, the "good stuff’’ will be gone. The adrenaline is pumping as he has surveyed the scene and there are two South Africa Medals at two different dealers’ tables that have caught his eye, and both are to the 24th Foot. In both cases, he does not know the militaria dealers, or their reputation. The prices are not cheap, but he is not deterred and after all, he is only going to buy one medal today with his hard-earned money. His first option is the South Africa Medal to Private J. Hayes, 2nd Battalion, 24th Foot that is in "GVF+" condition (Figure 1, left side). His second option isthe medal to Private J. Turner, 2nd Battalion, 24th Foot that is also in "GVF+" condition (Figure 1, right side).

Once again, just as he did with his Waterloo medal, he struggles with the decision of which one to buy. The difference this time is that his friends with more collecting expertise are not at this show and he is alone to make his decision. As stated, he has never done business with either dealer before and does not know their reputations.

Vol. 54, No. 5 3

Table 1: Measurement Audit of Planchets in Figure 1

Name/Unit Planchet Diameter Range Planchet Thickness Range Pte J. Haynes, 2/24th Foot 1.426" - 1.428" 0.148" - 0.158"

Pte J. Turner, 2/24th Foot 1.428" - 1.429" 0.133" - 0.139"

"Lady Luck" is going to be needed today for our medal

collector, as one of these medals is a total forgery

(planchet, suspension and bar) and the second would be

another valued addition to his collection. Which is the

fake and how can he avoid buying the dud? Once again,

you will have to read further to find the answers to these

questions.

SPOTTING THE FORGERY

that are outlined in the

sections below and challenge

yourself to pick up more

subtle differences in the die,

suspension and bar variations

than the specific examples

given. By doing so here and

’ with other examples over

time, you will train your eyes to detect very small

differences in comparing one medal against another. This

is necessary because just like our fictitious medal

collector, you will most likely find yourself judging

whether or not a medal is fake in total isolation from an

original. Once again I stress taking the time to study your

medals down to another level of detail than you may not

have previously attempted and you will not need to carry

an original for reference and will have the confidence to

make good choices.

As the case with the medal examples shown in the

Waterloo Medal article, many might find it difficult or

impossible to spot the South Africa Medal forgery in

Figure 1 at first glance. It is under direct visual and

dimensional examination that the forgery will start to

reveal its flaws. This visual inspection is best done with

a low power magnifying glass, making it your best and

most traditional line of defense. Study the differences

Medal Planchet Diameter and Thickness:

Figure 1: South Africa Medal to Pte. J. Hayes (left) and Pte. J. Turner, both of the 24th Foot (one is genuine and one is a forgery.)

The first line of defense with any named campaign medal

is to check the rim diameter to see if it has been shaved

and renamed. Since this forgery was struck from new

dies, it was also interesting to measure this forgery to

see if the diameters were within range of the original

medal

diameters.

W h i 1 e

measuring the

medals, the

planchet

thickness was

also checked.

The results of

this audit on

both medals in

Figure 1 are

included in

Table 1. It is

interesting, but

not surprising

that the

diameters of the

two medals are

basically the

same. After all, the forgers

know it is quite

common to

measure the

rim diameters

of any medal

4 JOMSA