Ed_Haynes Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 (edited) We have individual threads for most of the awards but not, it seems, tor the two most common, the Honorary Medal of Compat and the Honorary Medal of Labor. Why not start them?This is prompted, in part, by Gerd's posting of a NIB variety over at http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=5914&st=72 and you may wish to glance there as well.What Jan and I show, subject to revision and correction, is:A 37.1/M 20 - Type 1.1 (screwback, number prefaced by ?No?); Low = 316/High = 1763; 1941-??A 37.1/M 20 - Type 1.2 (screwback); Low = 1795/High = 9263; 1951-60A 37.1/M 20 - Type 2.1 (pinback, silver, hand-engraved); Low = ??/High = 3151; 19??-??A 37.3/M 20 - Type 2.2 (pinback, silver, rotating-tool-engraved); Low = 10020/High = 16999; 1982-??A 37.3/M 20 - Type 2.3 (pinback, silver-plated bronze, enameled ribbon); Low = 18071/High = 23354; 1985-??A 37.4/M 20 - Type 2.4 (pinback, silver plated bronze, enameled ribbon, unnumbered) Edited March 31, 2006 by Ed_Haynes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolf Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Thanks Ed.I guess I'm only missing one, A 37.1/M 20 - Type 2.1 (pinback, silver, hand-engraved).I'll post pics later so we can confirm.Is it ok to post them here or should I post them on another thread? Not sure if there is one already open for these Medals, will have to check.Dolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Haynes Posted March 31, 2006 Author Share Posted March 31, 2006 I couldn'd find another thread, oddly enough, so post here please. I shall get my babies all in hand over the weekend and post what I can as well.I'm not sure this Type 2.1 makes logical sense, but I retain it here subject to clarification.Have fixed early-morning typing errors in the initial post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolf Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Here is what I'd call A 37.0 (Dr. Battushig doesn't have a pic of one of these with the N? before the S/N), or according to Jan's and Ed's Types & Variations this one should be a T1V1 (but not exactly a A 37.1, as that one doesn't have the N? before the S/N).Obverse:Dolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolf Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Same, reverse:Dolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolf Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 One A 37.1, or a T1V2.Obverse and Reverse:Dolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolf Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 One A 37.2; A T2V2? I guess.Obverse:Dolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolf Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Same, reverse:Dolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolf Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 One A 37.3, or a T2V3.Obverse and Reverse:Dolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolf Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 One I'd call A 37.5 as A 37.4 has a different reverse of mine. A T2V4.Obverse:Dolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolf Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Same, reverse:Dolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolf Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 So I guess I'm missing two (so far, as long as another sub-sub-sub-varaitions isn't observed ) in order to have a complete set of all Types and Variations, one real A 37.4, with that funny reverse, and one T2V1... Dolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Haynes Posted March 31, 2006 Author Share Posted March 31, 2006 I'm never certain how far to go down the road of sub-varieties and sub-sub-varieties. It can all get pretty arcane. And, until we know more from the archives on the actual manufacturing history and manufacturing sources, it will be hard to anchor what we see (or think we see) back into historical reality.It could get complex if/as we decide to chase lower order varieties for these two medals, but it could get far (far!) worse should we ever decide to confront the motherhood awards??What fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerd Becker Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Dolf, our medals come from the same batch, 24 numbers difference, obviously the same engraver: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolf Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Dolf, our medals come from the same batch, 24 numbers difference, obviously the same engraver:Gerd,Yes, I noticed earlier when you posted it that the S/Ns were close but then didn't double check.Right, probably the same hands worked on both Dolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerd Becker Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Dolf, i have noticed some differences though. Look for example at the areas, i have marked. Mine has less wear but there are bigger differences than what could have been caused by wear.Here is a comparison: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolf Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Dolf, i have noticed some differences though. Look for example at the areas, i have marked. Mine has less wear but there are bigger differences than what could have been caused by wear.Here is a comparison:Hi Gerd,Yes, I see! Funny!Btw, yours is the one on the right, mine on the left, right? Yours has less wear? I'd say the contrary It seems mine still has a larger percentage of the silver plate remaining, no?... Watch the horse and the soldier, on yours the silver plate is almost all gone it seems. And also those areas you marked.Hey, both are still very nice Medals Just my eyes opinion Dolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerd Becker Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 It seemed to me, that the Horse and Soldier on yours has a little more wear, whereas other areas on mine have more wear than yours. Allways difficult to say from pictures. Yes, yours is on the left and mine is on the right.No, Dolf, i disagree, yours is in so bad condition, you should throw it in the trash can... but in my trash can Gerd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolf Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 No, Dolf, i disagree, yours is in so bad condition, you should throw it in the trash can... but in my trash can GerdGerd,Ok, check your trash can tomorrow Btw, I forgot to post this other one I also have, but I forgot about it because it's not on the main Display but on a smaller Docs display.Another T1V1, with N? before the S/N.Obverse:Dolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolf Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Same, reverse:Dolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerd Becker Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Nice , these earlier ones seem to be much better in quality. Were the early ones soviet made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolf Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Nice , these earlier ones seem to be much better in quality. Were the early ones soviet made?Gerd,Not sure where they were made Anyway, on that Ed & Jan list of Types & Variations posted on this same thread it seems that from T1V1 to T2V2 they were made of silver.Those two we were comparing before (T2V3; as well as T2V4) seem to be made of brass and then silver plated.Dolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerd Becker Posted April 1, 2006 Share Posted April 1, 2006 Thanks, Dolf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vatjan Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 (edited) We have individual threads for most of the awards but not, it seems, tor the two most common, the Honorary Medal of Compat and the Honorary Medal of Labor. Why not start them?This is prompted, in part, by Gerd's posting of a NIB variety over at http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=5914&st=72 and you may wish to glance there as well.What Jan and I show, subject to revision and correction, is:A 37.1/M 20 - Type 1.1 (screwback, number prefaced by ?No?); Low = 316/High = 1763; 1941-??A 37.1/M 20 - Type 1.2 (screwback); Low = 1795/High = 9263; 1951-60A 37.1/M 20 - Type 2.1 (pinback, silver, hand-engraved); Low = ??/High = 3151; 19??-??A 37.3/M 20 - Type 2.2 (pinback, silver, rotating-tool-engraved); Low = 10020/High = 16999; 1982-??A 37.3/M 20 - Type 2.3 (pinback, silver-plated bronze, enameled ribbon); Low = 18071/High = 23354; 1985-??A 37.4/M 20 - Type 2.4 (pinback, silver plated bronze, enameled ribbon, unnumbered)This just goes to show, how hard early mistakes persist. In one of my earliest list, that I sent out to other collectors at that time, I mention there exists a "A 37.1/M 20 - Type 2.1 (pinback, silver, hand-engraved); Low = ??/High = 3151" (I have a pic of it somewhere), I have never seen a second one since, and I am convinced now, 3 years later, that it is a repaired T1.2. I have been repeating this again and again to all involved, please change this in your listings, this one does NOT officially exist So please forget about this one. I am sorry, it was I who started all this but I would love to put an end to this aswell NOW Edited April 2, 2006 by vatjan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Haynes Posted May 4, 2006 Author Share Posted May 4, 2006 (edited) A Type 2.3 [corrected]. Really, really ugly. Edited May 5, 2006 by Ed_Haynes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now