TOPIC:

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

Hi Phil,
You certainly have combined a few topics into your post.
When it comes to Medal Collecting I am a subscriber to caveat emptor.
Firstly I believe it was a well run auction and I am pleased with lots that I was fortunate enough to secure including the category you refer too. My only gripe is I could not afford all 54 lots!!
Lot 123 sold for 320 GBP which seems fair?
Most collectors of NZMR medals would be aware of the engraving by the local jeweler for 2nd & 3rd NZMR contingents as they were issued unnamed when the men left South Africa. The overall intent of the content was correct and it probably an honest mistake on behalf of the writer that he stated they were returned for "official" engraving however what I have seen are all in large capitals from each side of the rim. So substantially correct. Also a number of clasps where also issued later on and were never attached or crudely attached. My Great Grandfathers QSA is such an example.
As for the medals being received from the Duke on the HMS Ophir is probably a correct statement. I understand it was to "review and presentation of medals to the officers and men". It was therefore a 1901 publicity stunt which I am sure if I was a returned NZMR serviceman of the time and was invited to have my medal presented to me by the Duke on the HMS Ophir, I would have said "Sweet as Bro" and simply enjoyed the day.
My belief is all serious bidders would have done there homework and would have made there decisions with a good understanding and knowledge of the QSA medal.
If you are that upset by the DNW footnote, I suggest you take it up with them directly and raise your concerns there. You probably have a cooling off period under UK consumer law should you not wish to go ahead with the purchase. Maybe I was the under bidder and will be the beneficiary of your action?
As for myself, I am happily looking forward to the arrival of my NZMR QSA's purchased from this latest DNW auction. No complaints from me.
Cheers
Stephen

Hi Stephen,
Yes Caveat Emptor as usual. I guess my point is just that if you didn't really know much about these medals, and a reputable auction is saying they're officially engraved then there is the chance this becomes accepted knowledge, even though it is not true.

Anyway, no arguments from me about the medals on sale, and the prices look to be a bargain buy - so well done! If you let me know which one(s) you bought, I'd be very happy to help you with any photos that I can. Mostly newspaper ones, but I know I always like to obtain a photo for the chaps in my collection, so the offer is there if you like. Having said that, I gave the vendor a bunch of photos for his collection some years ago, so they may turn up with the lots.

Cheers
Phil

Hi Stephen, Phil & others



The QSA to Kennington is another example of the "NZ Naming"






Kennington's QSA was issued to him "unengraved" at Wellington on 19 June 1901 and it was presented by HRH the Duke of Cornwall & York
I am sure the following extracts from WO100/232 will clarify the matter









Regards
Henk

Phil, Stephen,

I learnt a lot from the this thread as I was unaware of the background to how these medals were named. If I had purchased one of these 'officially' named medals and it looked like Henk's example, I would have returned it as a jeweler's naming, unaware of the explanation.

I agree that the catalogue description is not helpful. Perhaps they could have said they medals were named in the usual style for this contingent?

With thanks again
David

This is not the first time though that un-named medals have been issued and it was up to the owner to have it named if they wish.....

A good example it the North West Canada Medal 1885 they were basically issued un-named and in a lot of cases the regiment paid for the naming so therefor you will see one regiment with the same style and another one with their own......

Some medals were also officially named, i.e. N.W.M.P., The Steamer Northcote and Royal Canadian Artillery..... I have 4 in my collection 2 to the same regiment so engraving is the same, the other two are different again.....

Just a note with my 2 cents worth.....

Mike