Engraved Numbered PURPLE HEART Question

[GAZOO]

3 hours ago, Dave said:

The photos aren't the best of the commission document, but it almost looks like a copy to me? I'm not a fan of it.

 

As stated earlier, the Purple Heart is definitely not correct. 

 

That said, I really like the Good Conduct medal. It looks just fine to me and the engraving is what I'd expect to see.

 

I have a hunch someone built a group around a named Good Conduct medal. 

I agree this is looking like a BUILT Group OH Well I have been schooled at a high level,

I suspect the Commission is FAKED as the Secratery of Defense sig IS NOT hand signed and printed with the rest
of the NON-Typed

document

[GAZOO]

7 hours ago, aerialbridge said:

 I seriously doubt the MoH Fowler, who was only an officer for months before he was commissioned, as he was a college graduate, was ever awarded an enlisted man's GCM.  Interesting that Fowler earned his MoH on May 23, 1944 during the breakout from Anzio, the day the sergeant whose PH I own and posted was KIA by a phosphorous shell in the breakout, no more than a few clicks away.  Since Fowler was KIA on June 5, 1944 at the end of the Anzio offensive,  his PH could be machine engraved and appear like the one I posted very likely, but possibly hand engraved like the other examples posted here. 

 

 

He actually GRADUATED Texas A & M Cadet but was not commissioned there as they changed the program that year 1943
and opened up the NEW ARMOR training at FORT KNOX KENTUCKY where he was commissioned.

I see reports he was DRAFTED but others like the document above says he ENLISTED.
I have read he enlisted because of the change at TEXAS A & M and was offered the
accelerated program at FORT KNOX ?

 

Oh one more thing He was deployed to NORTH AFRICA for some months prior to arriving at
Anzio, possible he was awarded a PH then ?

I am still 99% sure this is a fake group but just trying to put together the info as best I can
Thanks again
New fellow collector

Commissioned in MAY 1943
KIA June 1944
Doubt he would have a ENGRAVED GCM 13 months later
1 YEAR at the earliest he could of been awarded one

[GAZOO]

3 hours ago, Bruce Linz said:

I agree with Dave.  The Fowler Good Conduct medal is a beautiful example of a WWII engraved good conduct medal.  During World War II the Army issued good conduct medals for one year of service, hence many officers commissioned from the enlisted ranks were entitled to one.  Unfortunately, the building of a grouping around a single named medal, document, uniform, or other artifact is a pretty old dodge in this hobby.  Sad.

Just re-read this THANKS for taking the time to post your insight

  The official information I can find (document posted earlier)
He is listed as GRADE:CODE PVT# Private and then BRANCH Immaterial - WARRANT OFFICER, USA
With terms of ENLISTMENT at duration of War + 6 months

Just thinking Maybe he was DRAFTED into INFANTRY and then offered OFFICER TRAINING Armor at FORT KNOX ?
There is a time lapse of about 5 or 6 months before he shows up in NORTH AFRICA (Oct 1943) Commissioned in MAY 43
could he have been at ARMOR Training school during that time. He was a LIAISON Officer between the ARMOR and INFANTRY
at ANZIO and if he was Commissioned as INFANTRY (SUSPECT getting this info from FAKE COMMISSION) he would of
been perfectly qualified and have no problem leading the infantry during his MOH Actions

Just thinking out loud

[Allan H.]

It appears that Fowler was an Armored Officer and it is noted in the actual citation for his award.

 

 

Fowler's MOH Citation from Military Times Hall of Valor https://valor.militarytimes.com/hero/3042

 

CITATION:

The President of the United States of America, in the name of Congress, takes pride in presenting the Medal of Honor (Posthumously) to Second Lieutenant Thomas Weldon Fowler (ASN: 0-518446), United States Army, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at risk of life above and beyond the call of duty, on 23 May 1944, while serving with the 191st Tank Battalion, 1st Armored Division in action in the vicinity of Carano, Italy. In the midst of a full-scale armored-infantry attack, Second Lieutenant Fowler, while on foot, came upon two completely disorganized infantry platoons held up in their advance by an enemy minefield. Although a tank officer, he immediately reorganized the infantry. He then made a personal reconnaissance through the minefield, clearing a path as he went, by lifting the antipersonnel mines out of the ground with his hands. After he had gone through the 75-yard belt of deadly explosives, he returned to the infantry and led them through the minefield, a squad at a time. As they deployed, Second Lieutenant Fowler, despite small arms fire and the constant danger of antipersonnel mines, made a reconnaissance into enemy territory in search of a route to continue the advance. He then returned through the minefield and, on foot, he led the tanks through the mines into a position from which they could best support the infantry. Acting as scout 300 yards in front of the infantry, he led the two platoons forward until he had gained his objective, where he came upon several dug-in enemy infantrymen. Having taken them by surprise, Second Lieutenant Fowler dragged them out of their foxholes and sent them to the rear; twice, when they resisted, he threw hand grenades into their dugouts. Realizing that a dangerous gap existed between his company and the unit to his right, Second Lieutenant Fowler decided to continue his advance until the gap was filled. He reconnoitered to his front, brought the infantry into position where they dug in and, under heavy mortar and small arms fire, brought his tanks forward. A few minutes later, the enemy began an armored counterattack. Several Mark Vl tanks fired their cannons directly on Second Lieutenant Fowler's position. One of his tanks was set afire. With utter disregard for his own life, with shells bursting near him, he ran directly into the enemy tank fire to reach the burning vehicle. For a half-hour, under intense strafing from the advancing tanks, although all other elements had withdrawn, he remained in his forward position, attempting to save the lives of the wounded tank crew. Only when the enemy tanks had almost overrun him, did he withdraw a short distance where he personally rendered first aid to nine wounded infantrymen in the midst of the relentless incoming fire. Second Lieutenant Fowler's courage, his ability to estimate the situation and to recognize his full responsibility as an officer in the Army of the United States, exemplify the high traditions of the military service for which he later gave his life.

 

Allan

[GAZOO]

7 minutes ago, Allan H. said:

It appears that Fowler was an Armored Officer and it is noted in the actual citation for his award.

 

 

Fowler's MOH Citation from Military Times Hall of Valor https://valor.militarytimes.com/hero/3042

 

 

Allan

Yes he was BUT the FAKE Commission is INFANTRY ?
He was a LIAISON OFFICER between the ARMOR & INFANTRY
during this time. THINKING he may have had experience with both ?
I came to this conclusion when trying to JUSTIFY the Fake Commission Diploma
but it kinda makes sense

see previous post for better explanation

[GAZOO]

BTW Here is the list of the SEVEN MOH recipients for 23 MAY 1943
Only officer at the time of the action was Lt Fowler

 

[aerialbridge]

Per the CFRs for the Army Good Conduct medal, as you said, an enlisted man could receive a medal for less than the normal 3 years' service requirement, if he were killed in action, per subpart  (e)(5) below.   Question I have is whether an officer who had been enlisted but was KIA as an officer would be given an Army Good Conduct medal posthumously for enlisted service of less than a year.   My guess is yes, but it would be good to see any documented (or ironclad provenance group, given the 1973 fire)  Army WWII KIA officer medal group that included a good conduct where they were enlisted for less than 3 years, such as Fowler. 

 

§ 578.37 Army Good Conduct Medal. (a) Criteria. The Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM) was established by Executive Order 8809, June 28, 1941 and was amended by Executive Order 9323, 1943 and by Executive Order 10444, April 10, 1953. It is awarded for exemplary behavior, efficiency, and fidelity in active Federal military service. It is awarded on a selective basis to each soldier who distinguishes himself or herself from among his or her fellow soldiers by his exemplary conduct, efficiency, and fidelity throughout a specified period of continuous enlisted active Federal military service. There is no right or entitlement to the medal until the immediate commander has approved the award and the award has been announced in permanent orders. (b) Personnel eligible: (1) Active Component enlisted soldiers. (2) Active Guard Reserve (AGR) enlisted personnel serving on extended periods of active duty (other than for training) under 10 U.S.C. and 32 U.S.C. are eligible for award of the AGCM for qualifying service beginning on or after September 1, 1982, provided no period of the service has been duplicated by the same period of service for which the soldier has been awarded the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal (ARCAM). The AGCM qualification period may commence anytime during the 3 years immediately preceding the September 1, 1982 effective date provided no portion of service for the AGCM is included in a period of service for which the ARCAM was awarded. (3) Retroactively to eligible Army of the United States (AUS) enlisted personnel. (4) Other Army enlisted personnel as may be directed by the Secretary of the Army. (c) Awarding authority. Unit commanders are authorized to award the AGCM to enlisted personnel serving under their command jurisdiction who meet the established criteria. Send requests for award of the AGCM for former soldiers to NPRC (see § 578.8(e) for address). Requests for award of the AGCM for Army National Guard and Army Reserve members for periods of active duty based on qualifying prior active Federal military service (Regular Army and AUS) will be forwarded through normal command channels to the Commander, USA HRC-St. Louis, ATTN: ARPC-PSP-R, One Reserve Way, St. Louis, MO 63132-5200. Separation transfer points will review the records of enlisted personnel being separated to determine whether they qualify for the AGCM. Where possible, make a reasonable effort to contact the unit commander before awarding the medal to qualified members. (d) Basis for approval. The immediate unit commander's decision to award the AGCM will be based on his or her personal knowledge and of the individual's official records for periods of service under previous commanders during the period for which the award is to be made. The lack of official disqualifying comment by such previous commanders qualifies the use of such period toward the award by the current commander. (e) Qualifying periods of service. Any one of the following periods of continuous enlisted active Federal military service qualifies for award of the AGCM or of an AGCM Clasp (see paragraph (h) of this section in conjunction with the criteria in paragraph (f) of this section): (1) Each 3 years completed on or after August 27, 1940. (2) For first award only, 1 year served entirely during the period December 7, 1941 to March 2, 1946. (3) For first award only, upon termination of service on or after June 27, 1950, of less than 3 years but more than 1 year. (4) For first award only, upon termination of service, on or after June 27, 1950, of less than 1 year when final separation was by reason of physical disability incurred in the line of duty. (5) For first award only, for those individuals who died before completing 1 year of active Federal military service if the death occurred in the line of duty. (f) Character of service. Throughout a qualifying period, each enlisted soldier must meet all of the following criteria for an award: (1) The immediate commander evaluates the soldier's character as above reproach. (2) The record of service indicates that the soldier has— (i) Willingly complied with the demands of the military environment. (ii) Been loyal and obedient to their superiors. (iii) Faithfully supported the goals of their organization and the Army. (iv) Conducted themselves in such an exemplary manner as to distinguish them from their fellow soldiers. (3) While any record of non-judicial punishment could be in conflict with recognizing the soldier's service as exemplary, such record should not be viewed as automatically disqualifying. The commander analyzes the record, giving consideration to the nature of the infraction, the circumstances under which it occurred and when. Conviction by court-martial terminates a period of qualifying service; a new period begins following the completion of sentence imposed by court-martial. (4) In terms of job performance, the soldier's efficiency must be evaluated and must meet all requirements and expectations for that soldier's grade, Military Occupational Specialty (MOS), and experience. (5) Individuals whose retention is not warranted under standards prescribed in AR 604-10, or for whom a bar to reenlistment has been approved under the provisions of AR 601-280, chapter 6 (specifically for the reasons enumerated in paragraphs 6-4a, b, and d), are not eligible for award of the AGCM. (g) Additional implementing instructions. (1) Qualifying periods of service (paragraph (e) of this section) must be continuous enlisted active Federal military service. When an interval in excess of 24 hours occurs between enlistments, that portion of service before to the interruption is not creditable toward an award. (2) Release from enlisted status for entry into service as a cadet or midshipman at any U.S. service academy, or discharge from enlisted status for immediate entry on active duty in an officer status is considered termination of service for awarding the AGCM. A minimum of 12 months enlisted service is required and must have been completed for first award of the AGCM; otherwise, the full 3 years of qualifying enlisted service is required. (3) A qualified person scheduled for separation from active Federal military service should receive the award at his or her last duty station. Such award is authorized up to 30 days before the soldier's departure en route to a separation processing installation in CONUS or overseas. Orders announcing such advance awards will indicate the closing date for the award prefixed with date of separation, on or about, as the response to the “Dates or period of service” lead line. Example: From October 31, 1977 to date of separation on or about October 30, 1980. For soldiers who are granted terminal leave prior to retirement or End Tour of Service (ETS), orders awarding second and subsequent awards of the AGCM may be issued up to 90 days before retirement or ETS date. (4) An award made for any authorized period of less than 3 years must be for the total period of obligated active Federal military service. This applies to first award only, all other awards of the AGCM require 3 full years qualifying service. (5) Discharge under provisions of AR 635-200 for immediate (re)enlistment is not termination of service. (h) Disqualification for the Army Good Conduct Medal. (1) Conviction by courts-martial terminates a period of qualifying service; a new period begins the following day after completion of the sentence imposed by the court-martial. (2) Individual whose retention is not warranted under standards prescribed in AR 604-10, or for whom a bar to reenlistment has been approved under the provisions of AR 601-280, chapter 6 (specifically for the reasons enumerated in, paragraphs 6-4a, b, and d, AR 601-280), are not eligible for award of the AGCM. (3) In instances of disqualification as determined by the unit commander, the commander will prepare a statement of the rationale for his or her decision. This statement will include the period of disqualification and will be referred to the individual according to AR 600-37. The unit commander will consider the affected individual's statement. If the commander's decision remains the same, the commander will forward his or her statement, the individual's statement, and his or her consideration for filing in the individual's military record. (4) Disqualification for an award of the AGCM can occur at any time during a qualifying period (for example, when manner of performance or efficiency declines). The custodian of the soldier's record will establish the new “beginning date” for the soldier's eligibility for award of the AGCM, annotate the date on the soldier's DA Form 2-1, and submit an automated transaction. These procedures do not apply if the soldier is disqualified under the provisions of paragraph (h)(2) of this section. (i) Subsequent awards and clasps. A clasp is authorized for wear on the AGCM to denote a second or subsequent award. Clasps authorized for second and subsequent award are: (1) Award: 2d; Clasp: Bronze, 2 loops; (2) Award: 3d; Clasp: Bronze, 3 loops; (3) Award: 4th; Clasp: Bronze, 4 loops; (4) Award: 5th; Clasp: Bronze, 5 loops; (5) Award: 6th; Clasp: Silver, 1 loop; (6) Award: 7th; Clasp: Silver, 2 loops; (7) Award: 8th; Clasp: Silver, 3 loops; (8) Award: 9th; Clasp: Silver, 4 loops; (9) Award: 10th; Clasp: Silver, 5 loops; (10) Award: 11th; Clasp: Gold, 1 loop; (11) Award: 12th; Clasp: Gold, 2 loops; (12) Award: 13th; Clasp: Gold, 3 loops; (13) Award: 14th; Clasp: Gold, 4 loops; and (14) Award: 15th; Clasp: Gold, 5 loops. (j) Army Good Conduct Medal certificate policy. (1) The DA Form 4950 (Good Conduct Medal Certificate) may be presented to enlisted soldiers only on the following occasions: (i) Concurrent with the first award of the AGCM earned on or after January 1, 1981. (ii) Concurrent with retirement on or after January 1, 1981. (2) When presented at retirement, the DA Form 4950 will reflect the last approved award of the AGCM earned by the soldier before retirement. The number of the last earned will be centered immediately beneath the line “THE GOOD CONDUCT MEDAL;” for example, “Sixth Award.” The period shown on the certificate will be the period cited in the last award earned by the soldier. The words “UPON HIS OR HER RETIREMENT” may be typed below the soldier's name. (3) The DA Form 4950 will not be presented for second or subsequent awards of the AGCM except as provided in paragraph (j)(2) of this section. (4) DA Form 4950 is available from the U.S. Army Publications Distribution Center, St. Louis, MO. (k) Retroactive award. (1) Retroactive award to enlisted personnel, and to officer personnel who qualified in an enlisted status, is authorized provided evidence is available to establish qualification. Where necessary, to correct conflicting or duplicate awards, previous general or permanent orders may be revoked and new orders published, citing this paragraph as authority. (2) Requests for retroactive awards to enlisted persons which cannot be processed due to lack of information will be forwarded to Commander, U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center, Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN 46249-5301, by the commander having command jurisdiction. Upon receipt of eligibility information from U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (USAEREC), the commander can take action to confirm retroactive award of the AGCM by publication of orders, or by informing the soldier of findings of ineligibility. (l) Description. The medal is Bronze, 11/4 inches in diameter, with an eagle, wings spread, standing on a closed book and sword, encircled by the words “EFFICIENCY HONOR FIDELITY”. On the reverse is a five-pointed star and a scroll between the words “FOR GOOD” and “CONDUCT”, surrounded by a wreath formed by a laurel branch on the left and an oak branch on the right. Clasps are placed on the ribbon to represent subsequent awards. The ribbon is 13/8 inches ribbon consisting of the following stripes: 1/16 inch Soldier Red 67157; 1/16 inch White 67101; 1/16 inch Soldier Red; 1/16 inch White; 1/16 inch Soldier Red; 1/16 inch White; center 5/8 inch Soldier Red; 1/16 inch White; 1/16 inch Soldier Red; 1/16 inch White; 1/16 inch Soldier

[aerialbridge]

The Rosloof group that came "out of the wood" along with his father's Sampson group,  interestingly did not have an Army Good Conduct, but did have an American Defense with Foreign Service clasp, neither of which he would have earned, having enlisted after Pearl Harbor.

 

[GAZOO]

35 minutes ago, aerialbridge said:

Per the CFRs for the Army Good Conduct medal, as you said, an enlisted man could receive a medal for less than the normal 3 years' service requirement, if he were killed in action, per subpart  (e)(5) below.   Question I have is whether an officer who had been enlisted but was KIA as an officer would be given an Army Good Conduct medal posthumously for enlisted service of less than a year.   My guess is yes, but it would be good to see any documented (or ironclad provenance group, given the 1973 fire)  Army WWII KIA officer medal group that included a good conduct where they were enlisted for less than 3 years, such as Fowler. 

 

 

 Thanks for taking the time to research and post that info, very much appreciated

Yes this whole group is VERY SUSPECT with multiple issues leading to the conclusion this is NOT
the MOH Fowler but one of the others, I will have to take the time and see if I can research the
other FOWLERs looking for war survivors with PH and GCM maybe if I can shorten the list I
may be able to find some info on the PH Number ?

Anyway all and all I have learned a great deal about this HERO and KIA Engraving not to mention
the May 23 1944 Date being a "DAY OF HEROES"

[GAZOO]

32 minutes ago, aerialbridge said:

The Rosloof group that came "out of the wood" along with his father's Sampson group,  interestingly did not have an Army Good Conduct, but did have an American Defense with Foreign Service clasp, neither of which he would have earned, having enlisted after Pearl Harbor.

 

 

  Interesting point on the American Defense

Side note:
Interesting fact when I was stationed in Hawaii mid 70s I remember
a time when some officers would question why some were not wearing
the NATIONAL DEFENSE ribbon

Termination of Eligibility for the National Defense Service Medal, dated June 30, 1974

[GAZOO]

THE RESULTS ARE IN
FAKE GROUPING

 

As we all Suspected this is a MADE UP GROUPING. Chances are a GC Medal along with maybe with PH ?  was picked up by a collector
and after realizing the FOWLER MOH Connection ADDED THIS Fake COMMISSION DIPLOMA to support there Story. This is the only
way a FAKE Commission would of ended up with what looks like a Vintage Engraved WWII GCM by the same Name

Since this Final conclusion was based on the COMMISSION DIPLOMA i thought I would offer a list of
what looks like SECURITY FEATURES they used at the time.

1) Embossed SEAL into Diploma
2) "US AMERICAN EAGLE" Water-marked in the Heavy (parchment ?) Paper
3) Hand Signed Diploma
4) Clear Print in the ETCHING GRAPHIC at the top

 

I Just received a REAL, Although a few years earlier (1937) COMMISSION DIPLOMA and after some comparison I have concluded the
FOWLER Commission is a POOR Fake.

Please see included comparison photo's

1) the REAL Commission (Leek) has a VERY NOTICEABLE Embossed Seal into the paper. The FOWLER FAKE Does NOT
2) the REAL Commission (Leek) also has a US EAGLE WaterMark in the paper. The FOWLER FAKE Does NOT
3) the REAL Commission (Leek) has CLEAR PRINT in the top  oval EAGLE Graphic, Fowler Fake is very blurred together
and has effectivly erased the clear FEATHER artwork design in the real one.
4) the Real Commission has a REAL SIGNATURE, the FOWLER was printed with the rest of the print (same color and look)
also under magnification I can not discern any INK OVERLAP were the signature overlaps other lines or letters

All four SECURITY FEATURES mentioned above are present on the LEEK and NOT on the FOWLER

Showing WATERMARK (adjusted contrast to bring it out)




EMBOSSED seal into paper


Comparison of Signatures, The Real Leek Diploma has a real
signature as you can tell by the dark and light spots. Under magnification
you can see were the lines overlap (darker areas as they cross).
The FOWLER Fake is the same color as the rest of the print and I
can not see any overlap under magnification.



Here is a close up of the PRINTED EAGLE Graphic at the top
NOTE How clear the feathers are in this one



Here is the FOWLER FAKE Notice how dark and blurred the print is, effectively Erasing the FEATHER Detail 

 

[GAZOO]

Follow-up on the Green (verdigris) that is effecting the PH. Started with a Q-tip and distilled water rubbing in circular motion,
Then Used TOOTHPICK to try and remove the thicker remaining parts, And Finally used APPLE CIDER VINEGAR (only type I had on hand)
dipped in the Vinegar again just did light swill action and let sit for 20 or 30 seconds and removed with dry clean Q-tip and repeated this
about 10 times.

Was not sure what the next day result would look like so stopped at this point and will attempt more cleaning with the Vinegar and then seal with
Renaissance Wax - Micro-Crystalline Wax Polish

 

Here is the photo of My first attempt at removal

Also I will be adding some close up photos of the ENGRAVING on this PH Showing the End Swirll/Dwell marks that the engraving tool
leaves when stopping at the end of the lines in the letters, This is a MACHINE engraved PH, I also measured the two double letters in
the name (the O and W) they measure the exact same width and height using Calipers.

Cleaning in progress

 

[KASTAUFFER]

This is the best reference available for engraving styles :

 

https://www.amazon.com/Sacrifice-Remembered-Posthumous-Awards-Purple/dp/0979284910

[GAZOO]

OK just for Reference purposes here is the best close-up of the  ENGRAVED name, I tried to show the
Dwell marks at the ends of the letter lines were the flat tip tool DWELLS at the end of the lines befor
reversing direction of movement to finish the letter.

 

Anyway here is the photo, Now that I look at it again maybe those marks are from a CLEAN-UP Tool
(smaller diameter tool) to CLEAN-UP the rounded edges of the letters, NOTICE the Round period after the W
is evenly round and thats what the edges of the lines would look like at the ends if not SQUARED UP a bit ?
You would have to very precise to hit those spots again after the first passes, you can see it was messed up
at the right side of the top T. THIS also explains why the O seems shorter than the rest of the print, the other letters
got taller after the EDGE Clean up

 

[GAZOO]

Interesting I can see the same type of edge squaring done in the MERIT mold lettering, Leaves a triangle shape as the tool it starts at the top
moves at a 45 deg angle to the left bottom and then straight over to the other side creating a straight bottom edge and then moves away at
another 45 deg angle LEAVING what looks line a triangle at each clean up

[GAZOO]

I should probably state I am NOT TRYING to Prove this was from the MOH FOWLER only that it could
still be from the time period, Maybe since these DARKENED Engraving type machine were first introduced
the operator was still in the learning curve process ? Just thinking out loud again ?

 

I have not eliminated these two medals were found together and then the Commission was added to give
it more value. Will probably never know for sure

 

Once I receive the book mentioned above I will probably have a different opinion 😉

[GAZOO]

OK I used my Measuring Loop and took some photos with my cell phone through the lense
Anyway

  I can see the Second CLEAN-UP TOOL (corner triangle pattern) was not set correctly for the Z length, this
resulted in a DEEPER cut and longer sides of the triangle due to the incorrect depth, Also looks like the Table
may have been bumped and the clean-tool ran to the right a bit

Also used the measuring lens to find the LENGTH of the top part of the W and found Both Ws are the exact same
also the pattern of the TRIANGLES being a bit off to the right and at a slight angle in the bottom of the Ws are also
exactly off the same way. Last the Os have a slight wider area on the right edge this is due to the way the tool is cutting
(climb/conventional milling) and will cut a bit heavier in one direction than the other, this just shows it was machine run
as both tools are off just a bit in the Z Depth, X and Y were off with the second tool

 

EDIT OH forgot to mention it looks like the operator used a tool to hand clean up the center lower V area of the M
and at the bottom left of the L and the E next to it

[GAZOO]

OK Looks like my next approach to this is learning about Early Engraving and who was doing it
at the time

     "This first big engraving job continued throughout the war years as new tags were made for children starting school and lost tags were replaced. Hermes Engravers also went on to do other types of engraving, but for the next several years most of these were under government contracts. For example, they engraved Purple Hearts for the Quartermaster Corps in Philadelphia on the New Hermes machines. In addition, other large engraving jobs came their way which required extreme accuracy. “For this, New Hermes purchased about 15 Gorton machines,” explained George Berlant. “These larger machines were used for engraving 36” x 36” acrylic plotting boards for radar. We also had to set up special fixtures for indexing and rotating these boards on the machines.”

 

"New Hermes could only manufacture their pantograph engraving machines with a priority for the Armed Forces and approval from the Pentagon. This was the only marketing direction New Hermes could take at the time, but it proved to be enough to keep them going. Eventually every U.S. battleship and destroyer was equipped with a New Hermes machine on board to engrave new instruction panels as needed and for shipboard signage."

 

 

Is there a Data Base or book with close up shoots of the engraving tool marks for
these medals, I accept the look is important but other factors are present here and taking
very close looks at the actual process and result under magnification can give a better
understanding of what MAY BE FAKED

[Dave]

I think you'll find a lot of your questions answered in my book. :)

 

With the close up look at your engraving, what I'm seeing is  that they were cut with a flat tip rotating graver. This is similar to the small and large machine engraving that was done during the war. However, the font used by this engraver was not one used by the PQMD at the time. Likewise, in your example, someone went in with a narrow graver and cleaned out the bottom swirls of most of the letters, save for the "R" and a few other spots (or perhaps it's just the way the photo is). They then took a square graver and made the cuts at the ends of the letters to form serifs. The reason for that was because when the letters were cut, the ends were round and the engraver wanted to make this more "custom".

 

So what we're seeing in this example is a mix of machine engraving, followed up by hand engraving. Either way, this was not done by the government, but was done by someone else. 

 

Hope that helps!

[GAZOO]

Thanks The book arrives tomorrow :) Being a Machinist I want to look at other close up views of the
engravings, and see If multiple tools were used in other examples and pin down the time frame the DARKENED
text style began. This way I wont have to rally on look alone.

I wonder Why anyone took the TROUBLE to try and Fake this Darkened style instead of going with the easier
Script style confuses me, Also using a numbered although rough example to do that to is odd as well

The Darkend Text style seems to be a later development and a learning curve would be understandable
so the detail of the type of engraving used with those machines comes into play

I like to cover all the basis before coming to conclusions so I have to turn over all the rocks so to speak.

 

[GAZOO]

16 minutes ago, Dave said:

I think you'll find a lot of your questions answered in my book. :)

 

With the close up look at your engraving, what I'm seeing is  that they were cut with a flat tip rotating graver. This is similar to the small and large machine engraving that was done during the war. However, the font used by this engraver was not one used by the PQMD at the time. Likewise, in your example, someone went in with a narrow graver and cleaned out the bottom swirls of most of the letters, save for the "R" and a few other spots (or perhaps it's just the way the photo is). They then took a square graver and made the cuts at the ends of the letters to form serifs. The reason for that was because when the letters were cut, the ends were round and the engraver wanted to make this more "custom".

 

So what we're seeing in this example is a mix of machine engraving, followed up by hand engraving. Either way, this was not done by the government, but was done by someone else. 

 

Hope that helps!

 Actually the GROVER was used in only 2 or 3 spots, I expect for Final clean-up de bur process
the serifs are not intentional, its the second tool was offset to the top and right OR the table got
bumped. the ends of the letters are only suppose to have been squared and the triangle machine
pattern (divot in the center of triangle shows it was a rotating tool that created that pattern).
Its the angle and off position of the triangles that cause it look like serif

[aerialbridge]

Here's an angle for you.  Your Army GCM which everyone agrees is authentic with official engraving was issued to one of the dozen or so Thomas W. Fowlers in the Army in WW2

Your Army PH that everyone agrees is privately engraved, was issued legitimately unengraved to the same Thomas W. Fowler who owned the GCM for Wounded in Action.  Fowler had it engraved himself as some GI's did with their officially issued, unnamed PHs for WIA.

 

Hence, both medals are legitimate, but doubtful you'll ever know which of the dozen or so Thomas W. Fowlers these were issued to.

 

I doubt whoever sold these two medals as a group along with an ostensible officer's commission to Thomas W. Fowler the MoH recipient, just happened coincidentally to have Fowler's actual commission.  So Occam's razor would suggest someone acquired these 2 legitimate medals and then discovered there was an MoH recipient by that name and "added" the officer's commission.  Hope you didn't pay a price of what one might expect to pay if they had been the medals of the MoH recipient. 

[Dave]

15 minutes ago, GAZOO said:

Thanks The book arrives tomorrow :) Being a Machinist I want to look at other close up views of the
engravings, and see If multiple tools were used in other examples and pin down the time frame the DARKENED
text style began. This way I wont have to rally on look alone.

I wonder Why anyone took the TROUBLE to try and Fake this Darkened style instead of going with the easier
Script style confuses me, Also using a numbered although rough example to do that to is odd as well

The Darkend Text style seems to be a later development and a learning curve would be understandable
so the detail of the type of engraving used with those machines comes into play

I like to cover all the basis before coming to conclusions so I have to turn over all the rocks so to speak.

 

 

 

The darkened style like this existed through the entirety of these being issued. There are some that were issued without being darkened, but those were the exception rather than the rule. New Hermes (among others) made (actually still make) chemicals for darkening, depending on the material, and this is openly available to the public.

 

Personally, I think this group was "enhanced" by someone adding the fake promotion document. Taking a closer look at the engraving on the Purple Heart, I think it was probably done long ago. Chances are, what you have are a legitimate Purple Heart and Good Conduct awarded to one of the Thomas W. Fowlers who enlisted during the war. 

[GAZOO]

4 minutes ago, aerialbridge said:

Here's an angle for you.  Your Army GCM which everyone agrees is authentic with official engraving was issued to one of the dozen or so Thomas W. Fowlers in the Army in WW2

Your Army PH that everyone agrees is privately engraved, was issued legitimately unengraved to the same Thomas W. Fowler who owned the GCM for Wounded in Action.  Fowler had it engraved himself as some GI's did with their officially issued, unnamed PHs for WIA.

 

Hence, both medals are legitimate, but doubtful you'll ever know which of the dozen or so Thomas W. Fowlers these were issued to.

 

I doubt whoever sold these two medals as a group along with an ostensible officer's commission to Thomas W. Fowler the MoH recipient, just happened coincidentally to have Fowler's actual commission.  So Occam's razor would suggest someone acquired these 2 legitimate medals and then discovered there was an MoH recipient by that name and "added" the officer's commission.  Hope you didn't pay a price of what one might expect to pay if they had been the medals of the MoH recipient. 

 

  Yes I agree with all of what you say 👍 I am positive these are not the MOH Fowler awards
I am leaning towards the fact the PH is period but done by someone other than government

OH BTW the price was substantial multiple Ks but I am learning from it

something else I just noticed on this PH
It actually looks to me like the Operator noticed the SECOND Tool was to low after noticing the T had lowered drops at the ends of the top line
 they then moved the table the table TO MUCH in compensation causing all the rest of the triangle
patterns to be to High and to the right

[Dave]

27 minutes ago, GAZOO said:

OH BTW the price was substantial multiple Ks but I am learning from it

 

 

And you can't send it back to the seller? Seems to me that would be my first step at this point.