Most likely some kind of token issued in commemoration of the expansion of Nazi Germany in 1938; the dates on the reverse are close (but not exact) to the Anschluss of Austria and the Sudetenland's annexation from Czechoslovakia after the Munich Conference respectively. The orb is a strange addition since the NSDAP wasn't very friendly towards religion...
My German is very bad but it says something like 'The Foremost and Führer (Leader) of all [the] Germans' on the obverse around the bust of Adolf Hitler, and on the reverse it says 'The Great German Reich (Empire) is risen'.
I'm very skeptical of any "coin" with an image of Adolf Hitler on it. Here's my reasoning.....
1. He is on record as having refused to let his image appear on 3rd Reich currency. He was presented with a set of proof designs in the Wolfsschanzein 1942 but declined saying that he would not appear on coins until victory was achieved. He did consent earlier to his likeness being used on postage stamps and received a small fortune in royalties in return. This and the revenues from Mein Kampf were his main source of wealth so it seems to me implausible that he would allow it to be used on cheap "commemoratives". Until the glut of "retro pattern proofs" and other fantasy pieces of recent manufacture, there were some very high quality coins struck in gold and possibly silver with Hitler's image but these were minted in Argentina during the 1950s as mementos for expatriate Germans. It's my belief that these were produced from the same dies rejected by Hitler in 1942 but it's been impossible to prove.
2. I find the .835 stamp on the edge suspicious for several reasons. It's the standard fineness of the LMU countries, Germany used .900 except for the debased .625 2 Reichsmarks. Also it's really only been important to specify silver content since the price hike of the 1970s. If you mentioned "melt value" to a 1938 Berliner you would just get a blank stare. As far as I know it was only the unstable South American countries, Venezuela and Mexico who felt the need to display the silver content on their coins? I own genuine silver commemoratives from the 3rd Reich and late Weimar period but none have the silver content marked on them. For that matter, none of them have a portrait of Hitler either!
3. The portrait is extremely crude. In 1938 German manufacturing quality was at it's peak, producing first rate coins, stamps and medals. The demands of a wartime economy were still in the future, it's hard to think who would be lining up to buy something so ugly.
The coin is given some credibility by citing it's inclusion in an obscure reference book. However I'm not familiar with it and I collect such things! I confess that my library is not anywhere close to what I'd like it to be, but does anyone else have a copy? (I would really like one!) Many collectors were fooled by the Polish made Gestapo arrest warrant seals which were on offer from some pretty well respected dealers until the full story came out. I'm told they were included in some catalogs although I haven't seen it myself.
I'm not at all concerned about the religious theme. The hostility of the 3rd Reich to Christianity is an old canard that just refuses to die. Ironically it's usually repeated by the same people who claim there was a secret collaboration between the "Nazis" and the Vatican! Every German soldier went into battle with "Gott Mit Uns" engraved on his belt buckle and in his pocket a 5 Reichsmark coin with the Potsdam Church on the obverse. That dawg won't hunt.
On balance I'd say it's a post war souvenir but far superior to the Chinese junk sold on ebay with an outside chance of it being real. I'm happy to be proven wrong, as always.
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
Hanisch-Concée was an actual sculptor at the time and his name appears on other German medals of the time that seem to be well documented (e.g., the Goethe Medal for the Arts and Science). The Goethe Medal was made in 835 silver and had that number engraved on the edge. So that might be one point in this medal's favor. If it isn't a modern replica of an original medal. To me, the details seem crude and the toning looks like fake antiquing. Searching the engraver's name, I find other photos of the same medal, but with much crisper details that match the quality of European coins of the era, especially in the hair details. So my guess is that this is a modern replica of an actual medal.
@Phil Keen observations as always on the 'coin', and I find it plausible that it's most likely a token issued after the war (for and by whom is another question).
I have to address your point regarding religion and the Third Reich; you will notice I have used the terms 'NSDAP' and 'Religion' rather than 'Nazi [era] Germany', 'Third Reich' or 'Catholicism'. This is in line with the seemingly contradicting (personal) views of individual party members and leaders, and the stated NSDAP stance on religion: '... the paragraph proclaims the party's endorsement of 'positive Christianity', referring to a section of Point 24 of the 1920 25 Point Plan.
Despite the ambiguity of the quote, a consensus is that the NSDAP's ideological opposition to Christianity was based first on the many 'Jewish' contents of the Bible, and later on in the Third Reich era, based on the suspicion of the Catholic Church (among others) as a: (From Wikipedia): 'Their [NSDAP] ideology could not accept an autonomous establishment [the Catholic Church] , whose legitimacy did not spring from the government'.
Thus we can conclude based on both tenets outlined above that 'positive Christianity' refers to '... the objective was to remove explicitly Jewish content from the Bible'. This in concord with the NSDAP's concern over another autonomous entity playing a part in German lives is the catalyst for the political elimination of Catholic parties, and later the hostility towards Catholic institutions (schools, convents, etc) taken by the NSDAP after 1933. This is all in violation of the 'Reichskonkordat' signed in July 1933 between Germany and the Vatican, who repeatedly protested it's violation. Documents from the Nuremberg Trials reveal long term plans to 'de- Christianise' Germany after the war; whatever Fritz had on his belt buckle was quietly allowed to stay on, but would have to go at some point.
Enfin, I don't mean to cast shade but I feel that your presenting of half-opinion, half romanticised, rosy-cheeked 'history' without citations, sources or quotes is detrimental to everyone involved. That bold font sentence that directly refutes your claims that the 3rd Reich wasn't hostile to the Church and you sound more akin to some 'redpilled' Youtube scholar claiming 'Nazis were leftist liberals!11!!'.
With respect, don't be surprised if you can't spit on the steak and pass it off as gravy.
Yes, I've noticed that you don't fall into the "Nazi" shorthand trap and it's commendable. Your distasteful habit of dismissing viewpoints which don't mesh with your own in such a condescending manner.... not so much. Perhaps it's something you will grow out of. I'm quite sincere in saying I hope so.
Again, with all due respect, you are moving the goalposts and confusing facts with speculation. I believe you are also confused between the hostility towards the failed, nominally Christian, political parties of the Weimar period and actual religious suppression which, apart from one obvious example, simply didn't happen.
Your original point was that the coin / token couldn't be real because of it's religious association. As the Potsdam Church example amply demonstrates, that's a preposterous claim. I attempted to enlighten you politely, without any of the ugly snarkiness of your subsequent reply. The correct response would have been a simple "Thank you, I failed to realize this." You will do me the courtesy of noticing that I don't dismiss your coin collection as washers, don't jump all over your patchy numismatic knowledge or ridicule your pretentious habit of including a line or two of French in a post directed to an English speaker on an English forum. It would be nice if you would extend the same consideration towards my own shortcomings, real or imagined.
I don't cite sources because it's a coin forum post, not a scholarly treatise. I'm supposing that everyone here is aware of the Potsdam Church themed coins and that the "Gott Mit Uns" buckle legend is likewise common knowledge. A Wikipedia link seems to be adding nothing to the conversation except repeating what better minds have already said. I much prefer originality. If there's ever anything that's unclear you can always ask. I really don't bite.
If you would like to have a civilized and courteous discussion about coins, their history andmy interpretation of that history, then I will be happy to do so. If however you wish to continue turning every topic into some three ring circus intended to smash the patriarchy, punch da Nazis, or whatever crusade is popular this week then kindly leave me out of it.
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
Your own half-baked habit is assuming far too much of my 'circus/patriarchy/punching Nazi' intentions, which I don't believe I've ever referenced and can only assume is why you so frequently include references to 'those people whose beliefs I think are stupid, and I'm therefore a self-appointed expert on them' in your 'interpretation' of history. I've never said the coin couldn't be real based on the religious imagery, but only that I wondered about it's presence on the coin. Not jumping to conclusions, a commendable resolution for 2018.
I'm not asking you to cite sources, or for that matter provide valid conclusions based on actual historical evidence on a coin forum; I'm asking you to do it if you want your 'interpretation' of history to be taken seriously. Too often I've seen you post objectively false information based on 'but it jives with my worldview, therefore it's probably true'. Two examples include your historical expertise on Edvard Beneš and his supposed 'machinations' at Munich, and the above where you claim the "hostility of the 3rd Reich to Christianity is an old canard that just refuses to die". Even on Potsdam Garrison Church you seem to have this problem; the church appeared on coins of 1933-35 because of "... a ceremonial handshake between President Paul von Hindenburg and the new Chancellor Adolf Hitler on 21 March 1933 in Potsdam's Garnisonkirche (Garrison Church). This symbolised a coalition of the military (Reichswehr) and Nazism." I'd suppose this is common knowledge, but it appears you just went 'Church + coins = 3rd Reich was friendly to Christian values'. How very trustworthy.
Your very real shortcomings in this aspect wouldn't be an issue had you not so pompously come and expressed your (in my own opinion, warped) 'interpretations' of history without any disclaimer á la 'I might be wrong, I haven't actually researched the subject and am going off the top of my head, correct me if I am'. I don't shut down interpretations of history that differ from my own, but I find it ridiculous that you stiff the evidence I give that proves your own claims wrong as 'repeating what better minds have already said' whilst claiming you want a civil discussion of history. If you demand courtesy from me, then be the bigger man and admit your claim(s) was/were false, and stop blundering into making stupid claims without research.
There was a time when I rolled my eyes at your 'interpretations' and moved on; so I think you should stick to making those about the 'War of Northern Aggression', outside my area of expertise, as opposed to your armchair analysis of Nazism. I apologise if my attitude seems pretentious, but when dealing with 'alternate facts' 'historians' of your creed, it's hard not to seem/be that way.
Citeer: "pnightingale"
If you would like to have a civilized and courteous discussion about coins, their history andmy interpretation of that history, then I will be happy to do so. If however you wish to continue turning every topic into some three ring circus intended to smash the patriarchy, punch da Nazis, or whatever crusade is popular this week then kindly leave me out of it.
You just don't get it do you? Have you the smallest clue how many good and decent people are avoiding the Numista forum because of you?
I'm perfectly fine with the points raised in the first several paragraphs of your reply. I don't claim to be infallible and I'm always open to polite discussion. That's how it's supposed to be, we can learn far more from each other than by google searches for sources to reinforce a line of attack. However you chose to salt the fields with your distasteful final paragraph and in doing so killed any possibility of a fruitful exchange and maybe even the chance to revise opinions. What purpose did it serve? Did it give you a feeling of empowerment to make disparaging comments towards someone who has shown you nothing but patience and courtesy? I'm by far not the only one who you have done this to and I'm sure I won't be the last.
And here you stand trying to position yourself as the victim..... sigh.
I'll offer you an olive branch because I'm in a particularly contented mood right now. I will try very hard not to jump to conclusions about you and your motives if you will extend the same courtesy to myself and others. In return I expect that you will keep a civil tongue and stop trying to jam your worldview down everyone else's throat. Does this seem at all unreasonable?
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
Citeer: "CassTaylor"
Your very real shortcomings in this aspect wouldn't be an issue had you not so pompously come and expressed your (in my own opinion, warped) 'interpretations' of history without any disclaimer á la 'I might be wrong, I haven't actually researched the subject and am going off the top of my head, correct me if I am'.
Just for the record., this is the final line of my earlier response.
"I'm happy to be proven wrong, as always. "
I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it.
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
Citeer: "pnightingale"
If you would like to have a civilized and courteous discussion about coins, their history andmy interpretation of that history, then I will be happy to do so. If however you wish to continue turning every topic into some three ring circus intended to smash the patriarchy, punch da Nazis, or whatever crusade is popular this week then kindly leave me out of it.
You just don't get it do you? Have you the smallest clue how many good and decent people are avoiding the Numista forum because of you?
I'll offer you an olive branch because I'm in a particularly contented mood right now. I will try very hard not to jump to conclusions about you and your motives if you will extend the same courtesy to myself and others. In return I expect that you will keep a civil tongue and stop trying to jam your worldview down everyone else's throat. Does this seem at all unreasonable?
I hope that the first two lines weren't copyrighted, because they seem to work the other way so well I'm going to recycle them backwards:
Have you the smallest clue how many good and decent people are avoiding the Numista forum because of you? No, really, have you? If you want to make this an upfront confrontation of all our faults altogether, do you really think your constant tirades about how glorious Southern culture is constantly under attack from 'big gubunmint' or 'white knighting libruls' is endearing you to the rest of us? It's commendably gotten less common recently, but is still exasperating at best, and belongs to the Breitbarts of the internet rather than the mostly good and decent community here. And yet you, the purveyor of this poison, takes offence to when I call out your similar comments about a perversely idealised 'interpretation' of the Third Reich. You retreat now with a shocked face, saying you only wanted a civil discussion. On the grounds of self-victimising, this is akin to the pot calling the kettle a pot.
You just don't get it do you? I really don't give an iota about whether you assume me to be a Nazi-punching, anti patriarchy 'ringmaster'; to make it clear, my gripe with you is not about your opinions on either me or history. It's about your continued expression of factual ignorance as historical truth, without basis and without proof. You continue to give us excerpts from 'History according to Phil' clearly without any credible source of information, as exhibited by your knowledge about 'Beneš machinations' at Munich. If you will refrain from making your snarky, grade-school history remarks here, I'll stop giving you snarky, disparaging responses. Deal?
Honestly I've got more important things to do than to try to educate a nasty pubescent with daddy issues.
I reckon I'll keep trying to give an original, reasoned interpretation and you can pontificate with your canned Wikipedia responses. If it occupies your time and prevents you from your habitual bullying of others then I guess it's time well spent. Now, go and reformat some Wiki extracts with some bold text, add an irrelevant line of French and congratulate yourself on your smug superiority.
Eventually you will either go back to school or daddy is going to find out you've been using his computer to insult strangers on the internet and pull the plug. Either way, I'm confident that absent your malignant presence the forum will return to the happy and informative place it was before you decided to appoint yourself the sole arbiter of morality and worth.
In the absence of any attempts to moderate the forum and maintain any sense of decorum, I reckon we will just have to wait.
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
Just for the record., this is the final line of my earlier response.
"I'm happy to be proven wrong, as always. "
I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it.
Excellent choice as always, I see.
If you're going to retreat to the 'if all else fails, then call them a stupid kid, sit back and lol' defence line, that estimates for us the value of your 'reasoned interpretations'. You even came up with a new 'Daddy issues' line! From someone of your age; what delightful language for the matured adult you so pride yourself on being .
By the way, if you're going to continue giving your, certainly very original 'interpretations' of factual history, you might want to consider putting "I'm happy to be proven wrong, as always." as your signature. You're going to be very happy a lot, mon vieux.
Citeer: "Sjoelund"Unfortunately I made a post on this topic, and I get all that ..... from two supposedly grown-ups.
Can you just call it a day? Or go on with PM?
Ole
All that will be said, has been said from us both.
@rysiek, I humbly apologise on behalf of Phil and myself that this exchange had to happen on your thread.
