Stogieman Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stogieman Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stogieman Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 The screw disc doesn't look quite right. But the rivets and number look proper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stogieman Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley1965 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stogieman Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 In my oppinion a fake.See the picture of a real typ 1 Badge of Honor. Known s/n range: 20 - 1.447http://mondvor.narod.ru/OZnPoch.htmlTotally nothing fits:Missing rivets on the reverselook 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 topof the screw.regardsAndreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley1965 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuliganRS Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 You are all correct.This seems to be a conversion from a suspended flat back piece.Rusty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Haynes Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I don't like it,. not one bit. For comparison, my Type 2, var 4, #12577 (a poor scan, can do better if needed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stogieman Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stogieman Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 Oh yeah, forgot I even had a McDaniel's here to look at.Duh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stogieman Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 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... 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