KM Kuban for review.

[C.Watson]

Hello gents. It has been ages since my last anything in the hobby and I am getting back into it with a jump and a new focus. So what I have here is a KM Kuban, bought ages ago on here and I am putting it up to maintain focus on LW and SA. Your additional opinions would be greatly appreciated.

[Antonio Scapini]

The shield is original, but back plate and cloth are postwar additions.

[kraut72]

unknown maker shield with rebuilding

[C.Watson]

Thats what I bellieve about the fabric as well. Any clues as to why? Or any clues as to suggest why you feel the back plate itself is a postwar addition?

My initial opinion on the cloth was that it may have been to old and was changed out and then never worried about again. But the backing plate difference is a weird one for me...

[kraut72]

cloth possible good......but backplate absolutely hand made/or field made not factory typ

[Ralph Arndt]

Agree.

[Antonio Scapini]

Back plate is far from the originals factory made, and the prongs position let me think they were bended more than one time not only because the back plate was lost. To say when is impossible, but IMO is a post war work.

[C.Watson]

Heres my take on it from in my hands. And please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

The black felt has traces of glue around the edges, as if to suggest the paper was pulled off. Trace paper on the back, suggestive of factory production... unless wartime repair, I see no reason a paper would have been replaced over top. So probably a late production, from an unknown maker, is 44/45. Depending on the maker could have left the backing rudimentary.

Prong edge seen on the front does suggest lifting. Probably by the owner some 7 years ago when i bought it. Or earlier. Maybe trying to find a maker? Or this is a fluke factory mishap, as the small, tight prongs would have surely pulled or torn the thin tin that is the shield on the front.

Quite possible over the years the entire back and felt has been replaced, although upon a feel the felt is quite old. The shield itself, being its bronze color could have been replaced post war for a scrap book/to sell. Maybe thats why the glue, and I am wrong about the paper idea. Overall the shield, for a fact, is period. The question lies on the felt and backing, which I believe period although most likely that of a repair.

Opinions on my judgement?

[C.Watson]

Here is a shot and shown some traces of the paper on felt and paper on back. PS; On further inspection, the bottom, or top in this case, is rounder than on the photos. I will try and take some good/clear shots. I havent looked at the area before until now after your points. The bottom of the shield where it looks like cuts....... is actually PULLS! As if someone intentially pryed it and bent that lower edge, almost like a roll.

What would be an explaition for this? i have never ever wanted to "take things apart" like I see many novices do, but to instigate a "pry" by whoever once owned this were the backs of these upon completion of the make "pressed" or glued onto the front, or are shields literally a 3 piece "floating" construction? (ie; nothing but the prongs and paper back holding everything solid).



The "roll" I speak of.

[kraut72]

the paper the reason of gluing that let him screen this make ugly platte....this not big mystery.Selling was easier so....