baibai Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimZ Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Apart from the title vis a vis the medal ...... the discussion is....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baibai Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 Haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley1965 Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Is that a yet to be discovered serial number type?!! Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimZ Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Looking at the suspension ring and the handwriting I'd say its wrong. The fact that an early number could end up on a 5 sided suspension could be nothing other than the regrettable (not necessarily though!!) 1943 decree converting rectangular 4 sided suspensions to 5 sided suspensions. However, I do not like the medal itself.Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baibai Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 It is type 1 variation 1 circa 1938~1939. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usairforce Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Hi Jim You mean this number is fake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 To my mind a fake, look at the ring of the medal and the engraving style looks horroble.regardsAndreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 It looks like that the reverse was heavily polished, so they could engrave a new mint mark. Look at the patina on the obverse and on the reverse. They are not constant on both sides. There is more patina on the obverse. The engraving is also very crude! Not like in my books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 (edited) I look a second time at the medal and, it could be a original one. Comapare the P in the word CCCPwith a P in the later versions of the medals and with the earlier one. The P looks okay for a hand engraved medal.Maybe the ring broke off and was replaced later.regardsAndreas Edited February 8, 2007 by Alfred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerd Becker Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Good eye, Andreas. I agree, the P looks like on a variation 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimZ Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Hi Jim You mean this number is fake?I would have tended to say so. Or at least until Andreas comparison. I would still probably steer away from based on the suspension ring and handwriting. But then again, if you did not pay a fortune for it it may have been a gamble worth taking after all Having said that, serial number handwriting styles can vary and the only way to be certain if that is correct is to try and find similar numbered medals and compare engravings. As for the 5 sided supsension, as I said its the least worry!Usually the problems with bravery and combat service/military merit medals is that the later postwar variations were not serial numbered and are yet ALMOST identical at first glance....well almost not quite! What one comes across most is later un-numbered medals having an engraved serial number onto them.... or alternatively having old serial number polished out and an earlier one engraved in its place.Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimZ Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 I look a second time at the medal and, it could be a original one. Comapare the P in the word CCCPwith a P in the later versions of the medals and with the earlier one. The P looks okay for a hand engraved medal.Maybe the ring broke off and was replaced later.regardsAndreasHey AndreasThe 5xx is rather close to the 683 although could be closer. What is your comment on the handwriting style?Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley1965 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 The ring was definately replaced. You can see the solder and where the original ring broke off. Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Haynes Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 It looks to me like it has either undergone serious and drastic repairs . . . or that something else has happened. Personally, I'd give this one a wide berth, awaiting one that seemed either better preserved and/or more legitimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 serial number Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimZ Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Cheers andreas.Jim 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