Fake KO

[gregM]

This one will fool some people. It's a one piece cross that came real
close to getting the details right. In the right light, with a bit of aging

http://www.ebay.com/itm/World-War-1-...item20e65c7eca

[gregM]

pictures

[gregM]

more

[streptile]

Are you sure it's a fake, and not just repainted/polished/stamped original? If it's really a one-piece, it's cast from an original...

[gregM]

Check out this picture.
First, there is no gap between the beading and the core. No where on the cross.
Even a repainted core would have some spot where there would be some
amount of separation to the the frame. But I did not even notice that at
first.

The first thing that looked off was the crown. It's very very close but it's not
right. Hard to explain but it's not right.

The main thing is the date. Look at the 4. See how nice and plain and
square and perfectly good it looks.

Now look at the 4 from an original KO with that style core. See how the
upper leg of the 4 is narrow at the bottom and wider at the top and how
it has a slight arch to it as it goes upward.

Also look at the 9. That a good look a the curl to the lower part of the 9.
Now compare it to that same original. The shape of the curl is wrong and
the end of the curl of the fake ends closer to the upper loop than on the
original.

It's a modern font that does not have the artistic flare that the original
had. IMO it's a very convincing fake.

[morel5000]

Thanks Greg for unveiling this fake!
Thisa is the spirit of the forum and why hopefully most fakes get exposed for the collectors.

Best regards,
Michel

[streptile]

Hi Greg,

Very interesting analysis indeed.

Wow, that's a convincing fake indeed from photos alone. I guess it's probably part of a new generation of superfakes that we can now look forward to. Wonder if they got the KO mark right? For sure the mark on the pin is wrong.

I'd guess in-hand it would be easier to detect, but who really buys in person anymore?

[pzrwest]

You notice there is no side view of the cross showing joint seam

[streptile]

I keep thinking about this cross. I guess I'm not 100% convinced it is a fake. It's one to hold in hand to judge I think.

Couldn't it be simply another core, different from the one in the comparison above?

[gregM]

Trevor.
I looked through all of the KOs in our datebase thread. All of the
examples that use this style crown seem to have the same date
style as the one I posted as the original.

I was realy hopeing someone might compare the ebay cross to
those in their own collections but from the lack of response to this
thread, I guess no one cares.

[Jesse]

Greg, your argument sways me. If I had a KO I would compare but sadly do not.

Jess

[Don D.]

And mine is in the database.

[colin davie]

There is an air bubble that seems to have popped between the 1 and the 9 in the date... sure looks like the paint was laid on really thick, is there a chance the thick paint is obscuring the details and the join between the frame and the core?
C

[streptile]

Here's one from the eStand that I think is good. How does it compare? For sure the core is separate from the frames, since it's in a slightly different position on this cross compared to the one under discussion here.

[morel5000]

Well this is getting interesting. With the ones in the database the thread starter and the one Trevor post clearly differs. I used to own one similar as in the database, cannot find the pics.

The two cores do try to mimic each other. However the two other KO-styles (and with that I mean cores only found on KO's) clearly differ.

So is it a fake? Is it another KO style? Do the frames match?

This is style 1:



Style 2 (with the thick hingeblock)



Side by sides