Gallipoli Star

[O.S.V.]

Hi, guys!

What your opinions?

Regards
Sergey

[Don D.]

I would not buy it.

[Tan Berk]

Agree with Don. A really bad copy, almost a freak.

[Brian L.]

missing the '1' of the '1333' date which is always a red flag (but not definitive proof of a fake).

What gives it away, though is the enamel is acrylic, not glass. It's easy to spot by the color and especially by the tiny, darker ripples at the edge where it meets the silver. This is a result of the noticeably more liquid acrylic 'gathering' at the edge when it dries and shrinks.

Glass enamel is fired and goes through a chemical reaction, as a result. Cold, acrylic enamel is essentially nothing more than paint.

[muzrub]

missing the '1' of the '1333' date which is always a red flag (but not definitive proof of a fake).

What gives it away, though is the enamel is acrylic, not glass. It's easy to spot by the color and especially by the tiny, darker ripples at the edge where it meets the silver. This is a result of the noticeably more liquid acrylic 'gathering' at the edge when it dries and shrinks.

Glass enamel is fired and goes through a chemical reaction, as a result. Cold, acrylic enamel is essentially nothing more than paint.

Thanks for the great hint for spotting fake enamel.

Cheers.

[Tan Berk]

I also try to stay away from one piece looking ones. They are not always fakes but still very tricky ones for me. When the crescent, date, gaze and the tugra are separate pieces it is easier to judge the craftsmanship, at least for me.

[O.S.V.]

Thanks, guys!