rocketscientist

I do not understand the criteria used by GMIC uploader in resizing the images. For better assessment of the details I am cutting the picture in smaller pieces, hoping it works.

The medal does not seem a full fake, but certainly has been somehow "renovated". The red spot above the turret is laquer, I think the the one in the letters has been added in the "makeup" process the medal underwent before being sold... to me.

Thank you Nick. But do you think the medal is also congruent with the serial number? If I compare with the typology Mondvor associates to this serial number, I find a significant difference on the skirt above the left track, that is also different from version T1.3. Another information: my medal is 2.36mm thick at the edge (2.76max along a diameter).

Possibly an original Bravery medal with repro suspension.

Bravery Medal to the bravery of fakers. Possibly even the medal is fake silver.

Yes, you are perfectly right, Nick! The obverse clearly shows evidence of casting.

Second fake Sevastopol, with strange ring. They say it is a cast copy.

http://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_10_2013/post-5691-0-32666400-1381084615.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_10_2013/post-5691-0-66250000-1381084639.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_10_2013/post-5691-0-75515600-1381084647.jpg

A superb Budapest Medal with a lot of details (left) compared side by side with an ordinary one.

Please have a look to this fake Partisan 2nd class!

Enjoy!

Thank you, Nick. I think that the example closest to my medal is the one with "pimpled" handle.

Very interesting series of Polars, I was impressed.

cheers

sergio

P.S. I am going to post more fakes from my "specialized" collection. No more Polars, unfortunately...

Since we are talking of fake Polars since a while, here is a couple of "true fake" for discussion.

They are, in my opinion, two examples of the same batch, with different treatments to simulate aging.

The first one has a strong patina, the second one has none.

No story, they are just fakes: there are a lot of wrong details both on the obverse and reverse. But, again, just look at the serifs on the "K"!

http://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_10_2013/post-5691-0-20586900-1380666024.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_10_2013/post-5691-0-74719200-1380666041.jpg

http://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_10_2013/post-5691-0-29187600-1380666252.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_10_2013/post-5691-0-59223700-1380666278.jpg

My understanding is that T1 is soldered ring, T1.1 without pimple and T1.2 with pimple on the sickle's handle.

I think we are just not using the same convention Nick, I assume there are more than one.

Nick, you flooded me with al this polars! The first one is very interesting (post 122 onwards): a lot of commonalities with mine, including the puzzling curling of the K upper arm.

Also the "D" looks the same. I have to understand that these features are mainly in "pimple sickle" (T1.2) variations of this medal.

Unfortunately (?) it still has most of the gilding on both sides, therefore it's hard to scan since there are too many reflections. But I think I could see the differences from the samples you posted.

When I was told that my medal had some detail of a T2, I thought to the type you posted in #126, with the flat ring struck with the medal. I was not considering the Voenkomat.

What type/subtype would be a "grind off ring" medal?

Thank you

Sergio

P.S. For everybody's education (and amusement), next time I will post a couple of "true fake" Polars from my personal collection...

I'm still thinking to this not-fake Defense of the Polar Region discussed in the previous posts.

I was trying to identify the difference between this one and other Polar T1, and I could find some. On the reverse, for instance, I noticed differences in the "K" and in the "D" as shown in the next picture (the medal under discussion is on the right).

I have also noticed, after so many years, that this Polar has a peculiar characteristic in the handle of the sickle: a sort of half-sphere where the handle joins the blade. So, this medal is in fact a T1.2 which must be not very common considering that all my other Polars (7 off - assumed original) do not have this "pimple".

However, the serif of the K and D (and maybe something else) give me the impression of being strange. There are also some small differences on the obverse, apparently.

Maybe these characteristics are typical of the variation, I think it would be very interesting to know. Does anyone have more examples of T1.2 Polar Medals for a comparison?

http://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_09_2013/post-5691-0-97148900-1380481379.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_09_2013/post-5691-0-49440900-1380481422.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_09_2013/post-5691-0-88284400-1380481461.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_09_2013/post-5691-0-13713900-1380481507.jpg

Thank you Gentlemen, it is a great emotion for me to take this medal out of the fake box after 5 years!

Frankly, Nick, I share your opinion. Nevertheless the comment I received was that the medal has typical characteristics of a T2, which is not compatible with a soldered ring. Therefore, it must be a fake.

Sounds logic.

ciao

Sergio

Definitely super images! Thank you!

Maybe this side-by-side with a sure original I made some time ago might help in finding differences...

The general opinion is the suspension ring is wrong. I agree it is very unusual but I have seen other medals with the same characteristics and I would say this detail depends very much on the workmanship, rather than whatever faking process. Then some experts asked me 1200dpi scan of both avers and reverse and their conclusion was that this was "one of the most accurate copies ever seen" but with no further information.

Since the opinion was coming from reputable experts, I took this statement for granted and I classified the medal as a fake.

As an amateur collector, as I am, I haven't reached a sufficient level of experience to understand on my own what's wrong with this medal. That's why I propose it time to time, hoping to learn something useful.

This fake Polar Defense is less trivial to spot.

The suspension ring is oddly soldered, beside that I could not find other clear evidence it is a copy. Nevertheless, most collectors say so.

I have recently got this one, made of wool. I think it is very recent, but I cannot see any markings or writing to help identification. I hope you'll like it.

http://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_09_2013/post-5691-0-76239800-1380382511.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_09_2013/post-5691-0-86660800-1380382550.jpg

http://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_09_2013/post-5691-0-67921300-1380382576.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_09_2013/post-5691-0-46116800-1380382601.jpg

An obvious fake of mine (I have many, indeed) for discussion. Stated to be "cast copy" by some viewers.

Please note: uncommon ring; lack of sharpness in all details; insufficient clearance in the "Y" on the reverse... and many more

Your interpretation is 100% correct!

I am very happy to hear that! Thank you, Nick.

Right!

I realized that I took the worst example for supporting my question on the "K"... That Partisan medal does not have a single letter which might be confused with the original!

Personally, I would like that all fakes were like that one: oh what an easy life for a dumb collector as I am!

My interpretation of mondvor's sentence translated to english translated to italian is that some of the medals in the range 60k - 106k had a yellow metal suspension. Others (the majority, I understand), within the same range, had the usual white metal suspension. Am I correct?