TOPIC:

Frank Kelley wrote: Hello Stephen,
The naming is rather odd don't you think?
What information do you have for this man?
Regards Frank

The engraving is odd however the impressed detail looks about right for some 4th NZMR. Ends New Zealand M. R. Appears only a small batch got the RR suffix.

Hello Stephen,
The one thing I am confident of is that particular medal was not issued from the mint like it is now, have you actually got his papers, if not, I would consult Archives New Zealand, National Office, Wellington.
As far as I am aware medals to the 4th Rough Riders were officially impressed as such, all mine are, moreover, I checked WO100/294 and WO100/232 and there is nothing to suggest a replacement was issued.
Kind regards Frank

Hi Frank,

Agree with you this looks suspect on a few levels and appreciate your considered advice. My most recent acquisition of a 4th RR reflects exactly what you are state. I do have a QSA 1452 which reflects the same style as shown on this QSA. "New Zealand M. R." I am with you to steer clear and with my 1076 W Harris NZ RR pick up I am content.

Is it possible the later 4th NZMR QSA'a changed impressed style part way through? Can you confirm you have 14xx have the RR suffix?

His records show a request for a replacement QSA was requested and the indications (discharge papers) indicate a second QSA was issued. Will post up a pic next week.

Cheers
Stephen

Hi Stephen,

There is nothing wrong with the naming on this medal, aside from the extra engraved embellishments. It is named in the correct style and form for this company of the 4th Contingent. Medals to 7 and 8 Companies used 'NEW ZEALAND M.R.', whereas medals to 9 and 10 Companies used 'NEW ZEALAND R.R.'. You say yourself that the medal to Olive (1452) is in the same style as this one, so do you think that one is a replacement too? I simply can't see why you and Frank beleive this to be suspect - the numismatic evidence suggests the opposite.

There is nothing on his file issueing a replacement, nor is there anything on the medal roll about a replacement. Where are you reading something about a replacement on discharge papers? Chronologically, the last piece of paper on his file is the NZDF's request for a stat. declaration and a postal order for a replacement. All coomunication stops thereafter.

I would suggest/guess he has lost it and tried to claim a replacement. Once faced with the cost and requirement for statutory declaration, perhaps he lost interest?

Frank: Can you explain why you believe this medal was not issued from the mint? How can you tell?

Bottom line - this medal is genuine, although I am listening if there is persuasive argument to say otherwise!

Cheers
Phil

Phil,

I am not convinced. The original medal has clearly being lost in a fire by the owner in 1907 and a request for a new one. Two certificates of discharge papers are issued for this man which is odd in its own right. Some of the clasps are copies and not attached. It casts to much uncertainty around this being an original medal.

I doubt it is the original medal.

I agree to disagree with you.

Cheers
Stephen

NZMR wrote:
Hi Stephen,

There is nothing wrong with the naming on this medal, aside from the extra engraved embellishments. It is named in the correct style and form for this company of the 4th Contingent. Medals to 7 and 8 Companies used 'NEW ZEALAND M.R.', whereas medals to 9 and 10 Companies used 'NEW ZEALAND R.R.'. You say yourself that the medal to Olive (1452) is in the same style as this one, so do you think that one is a replacement too? I simply can't see why you and Frank beleive this to be suspect - the numismatic evidence suggests the opposite.

There is nothing on his file issueing a replacement, nor is there anything on the medal roll about a replacement. Where are you reading something about a replacement on discharge papers? Chronologically, the last piece of paper on his file is the NZDF's request for a stat. declaration and a postal order for a replacement. All coomunication stops thereafter.

I would suggest/guess he has lost it and tried to claim a replacement. Once faced with the cost and requirement for statutory declaration, perhaps he lost interest?

Frank: Can you explain why you believe this medal was not issued from the mint? How can you tell?

Bottom line - this medal is genuine, although I am listening if there is persuasive argument to say otherwise!

Cheers
Phil

Hi Stephen,

Very good - it's your call, obviously.

I have recorded the naming styles of over 1000 NZMR QSA's - this is no different to any of the other No. 7 Company medals I have seen and/or owned.

Having two certs' of discharge on a NZMR service file is common. I have the medal to 1265 B Penney, also No. 7 Company - his file also has two discharge certificates. It's no cause for alarm, and certainly has nothing to do with medal replacements.

I'm really only arguing this point, as there is some specious reasoning going to discredit a genuine medal. There is one letter written in 1907 claiming the medal was lost - all the other physical evidence is to the contrary.

Cheers
Phil