Soviet Comments & Opinions on a Badge of Honor

[Stogieman]

Not really my thing, but a scarcer example of this Order. I am curious as to opinions on the piece. Thanks much for your time and experience!

[Stogieman]

To me, the metal of the badge itself looked very strange, not at all the finish and appearance I would have expected on this piece. But again, not my area of experience at all.

[Stogieman]

The screw disc doesn't look quite right. But the rivets and number look proper?

[Stogieman]

Oh yeah... Notice the "KP" stamped along the left edge in the last photo??? I'm not at all familiar with that stamp. A maker's mark perhaps?

[Bryan]

I think it's a fake of the Type 2 Variation 1. or 2. I don't like the details on the back, the lack of patina and the engraved number. I'm no specialist because I have never seen a real one, but it's missing points for me.

By the way, McDaniel's book says that # 1017 should be in the Type 1 range, so it shpuld be definitely wrong.

Edited February 20, 2006 by Soviet

[Riley1965]

I, too, am concerned about the reverse. While I don't have a screwback just a Concave reverse suspension, some of the details on the reverse plus the serial number just don't fit. I hope that I am wrong.

Doc

[Stogieman]

I'm clueless.... but it just didn't "feel" right to me at all. Like I said... the metal itself just doesn't look right!

[Alfred]

In my oppinion a fake.

See the picture of a real typ 1 Badge of Honor. Known s/n range: 20 - 1.447

http://mondvor.narod.ru/OZnPoch.html

Totally nothing fits:

Missing rivets on the reverse

look at the figures, totally different faces

and so on ...

KP could be a master mark, to my standard of knowledge it is unknown what it is exactly.

Observed letters on Badge of Honors are: K, KP, O, C, TP, bK and I have one with a "5" on the top

of the screw.

regards

Andreas

[Riley1965]

I hate to say it But I have to agree with the others. I think that the PMD serial number range was the clincher. Then again, I could (and hopefully) wrong.

Regards,

Doc

[HuliganRS]

You are all correct.

This seems to be a conversion from a suspended flat back piece.

Rusty.

[Ed_Haynes]

I don't like it,. not one bit.

For comparison, my Type 2, var 4, #12577 (a poor scan, can do better if needed).

[Stogieman]

Now, I look at Ed's example and feel like I'm looking into real enamel and looking at real patina... not at all like the first one I posted that I said the metal looked strange....... perhaps I'm learning a little.

[Stogieman]

Oh yeah, forgot I even had a McDaniel's here to look at.

Duh!

[Bryan]

Now, I look at Ed's example and feel like I'm looking into real enamel and looking at real patina...

I don't want to contradict you, but the enamel is also real on the fake one, as it must come from a later variation.

[Stogieman]

I'm sorry, I should have used a better choice of words.

Ed's make's me feel like I'm looking into deep, early soviet enamel..... Do you know what I mean? To me, it has a noticeable "depth" and dimension feel/look to it. As opposed to the very "one-dimensional" view of the enamel in the first "example" I posted for comment...