This is the only 1957 medal I have and I bought it because I thought it was a very good quality medal compared to some I have seen. What do you think?
-
-
maker mark close up -
Hi!! Well the cross itself looks to be a very nice and early S & L, but the MM (2) has been added later, and has nothing to do with this cross, or its maker!!
Shame about the mark, but otherwise a really good one, dating from around 1958 to 1960 i would think!!
-Nigel
sigpic 57ers...."The Devil Is In The Detail"Comment
-
I would agree with Nigel on the EK1 ... lovely patina. Shame some-one ruined a perfectly good piece with a fake makers mark
.
Goes to show how many idiots there still are in this "business"
.
Comment
-
Thanks to both of you for your comments. That does burn to know that someone messed with it by putting on a fake mark. I still like the piece but will be more carefull in the future!Comment
-
What could possibly be the motivation behind marking a perfectly good cross with the wrong number? Not that it would be any better had the person marked it with the correct one, as it would still be a tampered with piece.Originally posted by Matthieu View PostShame some-one ruined a perfectly good piece with a fake makers mark.Comment
-
It's done to "enhance value." Because many TR period pieces are MM'd and the vast majority of New Form pieces are not some feel it adds authenticity to have an MM on an item.
The mark on this particular cross must have been done a long time ago as the patina in the mark looks good. That or it's been aged somehow.Comment
-
Thanks Mike. You would think the guy would have done his homework though and gotten it right!Originally posted by mbizy View PostComment
-
4
They could have at least marked it with a 4, and probably could have gotten away with it.
It is a shame to mess with a perfectly 'good one'
Comment
Comment