rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 9:26 am

An article on the Sunday Mail website regarding Lord Ashcroft and Chard's VC.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1263396/Lord-Aschroft-row-Zulu-actors-family-replica-VC-bought-turned-real-worth-500-000.html

Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 6:12 pm

Interesting stuff.

The unlikelihood of Lord Ashcroft buying a copy VC versus the many long standing theories as to what might have happened to the actual VC.

Glindinnings clearly felt that they should catalogue the medal the way they did though the campaign medal with clasp was accepted as authentic as were the two miniatures with the attribution of the latter being unquestioned.

Or could this just be yet more Ashcroft bashing.

And the vagaries of the metallurgy of bronze. This one will run and run...Until the lawyers start looking after their client's interests that is.

G

Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 1:54 am

I've pulled the deerstalker cap down tight to my ears and the calabash pipe is at hand on the desk-- The game is afoot! Perhaps someone doesn't see just a few of the irregularities in this story? Perhaps someone is a fool!

Firstly: Why would Stanley Baker, seemingly an otherwise rational man, bid 2700 on a "lot" and not notice that the VC was described as a "cast copy"? I'm no SB and my pockets certainly aren't as deep as his were, but I read the lot description carefully when I intend to bid even $15 at an auction. And I don't know about over there, but here in the Colonies, auctioneers typically reprise the description prior to opening the auction. Further, by legal definition it requires TWO bidders to make an "auction" (again, that's here in the States-- one bidder is no auction) so someone else (or someone's else) had to have been bidding as well. Who and why?

Secondly: Who decided it was a copy in the first place? After all, it was in a collection of Chard's "stuff" through his descendants. Parenthetically, I'd surely like to know what the rest of the lot consisted of as it would seem that anything short of his cigarette butts would be worth the 2700 that Baker spent.

Thirdly: Why would anyone bid 5000 (sorry, no easy symbol on Yank keyboards for "pounds sterling) for a VC that's accepted as being a cast copy. I can buy a good, "aged" cast copy of a VC on the Internet for about $50 or maybe $100 to get one "named" to JRM Chard. And again, who was/were the OTHER bidder/bidders? I just can't believe that the auction for the "copy" VC started at 5000 and there was only that one bid! Sounds to me as though a bidder or a number of bidders unknown suspected or knew something of which Baker's survivors (and Baker himself as well) hadn't the slightest suspicion.

Fourthly: What makes the family imagine that anyone would sympathize with their claimed loss? SB buys a fake for 2700 (and some other "stuff") and his survivors realize 5000 for just the fake. Remember dear readers that it's still thought a fake at this point and only worth "about 15 quid". Come on, even factoring in inflation and the slim possibility that the rest of the original lot was totally worthless, they still came out miles ahead!

Fifthly (this number progression is getting tedious!): Who eventually got it verified, why did they do it, and why didn't Baker do it? Was the technology just not there at the time? Was it too expensive for Baker(not likely since he was already out about 2685 at that point)!

Lastly: What's Ashcroft got to do with any of this? He pays fair money for an authentic medal which accrues in value and now somehow he's the villain of the piece? I call that wise investing.

My surmise at this point is that there are a whole lot of people not saying a whole lot of things. Time to fire up the Calabash!

Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:14 am

I had the privilege of actually handling the VC awarded the John Chard (held by Sir Stanley Baker) before the group was sold to Lord Ashcroft. The naming was identical to that for Gonville Bromhead (which the museum holds). Anyone wishing to produce an exact copy would have to have access to the style of naming. The story about a fake is one that will run and run, but not true.

Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:16 am

I've been fortunate to hear the recollections of two people in the room when Chard's medals were sold. With the media focus on the VC, it's important - essential - to remember that the VC and Chard's South Africa medal were sold as a pair.

The VC was clearly described - and sold - as a cast copy with a hammer price of �2,700. At that time (1972) the world record price for a campaign medal was �900.

So, today, what might the South Africa medal alone be worth? A medal to a Private of the 24th Foot would be �30-�35,000. For an Officer it would be double that at least. For an Officer who received the VC, the sky's the limit. I could see the medal on its own selling for anywhere between �100,000 and �250,000.

However, thanks to the custodianship of the noble Lord, they will not be split and will be on public display for all to enjoy.

As a further comparison, a WW1 Victory Medal to a Guardsman killed in action is on a dealer's site. Such a medal might normally be valued around �75. As he was awarded the VC, the price is �4,450.

Peter

Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:01 am

As I understand it the VC was examined by Hancocks, the Jewellers - and makers of the Victoria Cross, in 1971 prior to the Glendinnings auction. It was they who first stated it to be a copy.

There are various stories connected to Chard's VC, and how the 'original' may have become separated from its owner - in one instance possibly during his lifetime.
There is also some documented evidence which suggests a second VC named to Chard appeared in late 1978 some years after the 'copy' was sold to Sir Stanley Baker.

Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:05 pm

Adding to the build up I have met two people who saw at very close quarters the VC auctioned by Glendinnings and on the day of sale. Both thought the description of a cast copy appeared to be reasonable though neither were able to view the rear face of the medal and clasp. The 'same' medal was also on display at the IWM exhibition of VCs and GCs in (memory creaks) the 125th anniversary year of the inauguration of the VC. Again separate viewers recall a rough cast appearance on that occasion though the medal was only viewable in its glass case.

The world having rolled on the more recent experience of those viewing what became the 'Ashford' medal is much as Martin describes. Quite what might have happened in the interim is another story and raises the obvious question of whether the 'real' VC was deliberately withheld from sale in favour of letting Glindinnigs auction the campaign medal and miniatures. Caveat emptor indeed.

G

Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:40 pm

So am I understanding you correctly, Martin- The VC purchased at the at auction by Stanley Baker paired with JRM Chard's SA campaign medal has been accepted all along among the cognoscenti as being authentic?

I'm a little surprised, no "shocked" is the better word, that serious bidders weren't permitted to handle and study closely an offering of such value as this VC. It was displayed behind glass and no one could view the back?!

Hadn't cotton gloves and security personnel been invented yet (Saw asks sarcastically)? It's 125 years old, it's been handled before!

Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 2:01 pm

Serious bidders would indeed be allowed to handle things at an auction as long as the auction house had safeguards in place to avoid risk of theft. Simply by asking a porter. My informants did not ask to handle the medal group. In these big ticket auctions it usually pays not to give the game away to the representatives of potential other bidders possibly also lurking.

Suffice it to say that they were sufficiently put off by their impression of the appearance of the medal not to bid for it. Weirdly they thought of the authentic campaign medal as not being worthwhile in itself. Those were the days!

G