Opinions on KVK 1st Class w/swords

[JGoshenschmidt]

Picked up this past weekend - curious as to what you all think. I've looked at all the material here as far as fakes and it doesn't appear to be obvious to me, but I'm sure there's more keen eyes for this sort of thing here. This is the first Merit cross I've come across out and about, and I paid next to nothing for it. I was told it was a Veteran bring back, and that he has more - but is sentimental about some of it. If this rings good, we'll see what else comes up. There are no maker marks. There is also a bit more tarnish on the front and back than it shows in the pics.

Thoughts?






Many thanks,
Jeff

[juoneen]

How bout a front shot ?Sorry didn't mean to rush you...I know how the photo stuff goes sometimes...The pin reminds me of a postwar badge...lets see if anyone agrees/ disagrees?

[JGoshenschmidt]

Had some issues with images, but it's all up now.

[Robert P.]

I don't like the pin on this cross. It also reminds me of a postwar copy.

Robert

[reichenberg]

The pin and clasp set up looks a lot like the 1957 post war version, so I think it may well be an early post war copy.

[Robert P.]

The pin and clasp set up looks a lot like the 1957 post war version, so I think it may well be an early post war copy.

Agreed.

Robert

[Tom B]

I don't like it....sorry Tom

[Matthieu]

Possible a postwar creation by Souval or St&L ???

[JGoshenschmidt]

Thanks for all the replies fellas. Does anyone have any pics of a post war copy like this one I can look at?

I ask because I was under the impression that copies are not well made, and generally have sloppy construction. Now when one says "post war" is that different than saying a typical replica?

I'm just trying to get a handle on some of the terminology here, as most of my collection comes from family. I've only recently started actually buying pieces.

Thanks much!

[reichenberg]

Thanks for all the replies fellas. Does anyone have any pics of a post war copy like this one I can look at?

I ask because I was under the impression that copies are not well made, and generally have sloppy construction. Now when one says "post war" is that different than saying a typical replica?

I'm just trying to get a handle on some of the terminology here, as most of my collection comes from family. I've only recently started actually buying pieces.

Thanks much!

Hi. If you browse through the 1957 awards area of this forum you will find not only the post war replacements without the swastika which was then forbidden but also some post war awards identical to the originals made mostly by Souval or S&L which are not really classified as fakes or reproductions, at least not in the present understanding of those terms.

[JGoshenschmidt]

Thanks very much for the directions. So in looking at some of the posts in that forum, and I certainly haven't been through a lot of them, it seems to resemble the "S&L" most.

In the end, does this mean this piece would be more of a replacement medal before the ban on the Swastika was implemented? Would a Vet have brought something like this back at all?

I ask because there's another piece to the puzzle here that Ill be posting pics of in about an hour when I get to work. I found this bit to be dubious, but now hearing postwar replacement maybe I'm wrong.

[reichenberg]

Yes, it looks a lot like a postwar S&L to me too. I have sent a private message to Nigel N, moderator of the 1957 board with a link to this thread. He will be able to fill you in on all the details concerning post war awards much better than I can, and I daresay he will be interested in seeing your pics.

[JGoshenschmidt]

Yes, it looks a lot like a postwar S&L to me too. I have sent a private message to Nigel N, moderator of the 1957 board with a link to this thread. He will be able to fill you in on all the details concerning post war awards much better than I can, and I daresay he will be interested in seeing your pics.

Thank you so much. Like I said, I didn't give much for this at all, so I'd not have been destroyed if it were a repro - but this postwar replacement stuff is as interesting as wartime issues to me, for totally different reasons.

Now here's an interesting wrinkle.

What came with this medal was the document pictured below. I've worked my entire professional career of nearly 30 years as a digital and analog imaging professional, and some of my day job(s) have involved document dating and examination.

To look at this document under a 60X magnification, it's clearly not a modern-day printing job. There is no moire pattern indicative of 4/4 printing, and there is no dot pattern in halftone areas such as the stamp. But the signature, and all the rest (even potentially the stamp - not sure yet) seem to be printed. I have done basic small water tests on the letter ink and it is not water soluble indicating it is not inkjet or a low quality thin ink.

It does not appear to be early "ditto" or spirit duplicator process as the ink is black, and non-waxy.

It could be some sort of mimeograph, of higher print quality and non-soluble ink, as the process being invented in the 1880's would have advanced to a significant degree by the 1940's/1950's to produce this document. It could also be an offset duplication. It is certainly not a digital production.

The paper is weighing in at 80lb cover stock, which seems typical of period medal certification docs. Corner wear seems consistent with age.

Scent is a big thing with aged paper. Rooms of old paper will smell. Single sheets are more difficult to actually get an olfactory bead on, but this has the strong odor of old wood pulp paper. Most docs of the time were wood pulp, which by the way is what makes them turn yellow or sepia with age.

The odor though can't date anything, and could be a product of where the document was stored for a period of time. Paper is porous and takes on scent easily.

The main issue is the rendition of the KvK at the top, which is thicker in depiction based on comparable line art of known legitimate docs. Production line art back then, was done with pen and ink by hand. This seems to be hand done, but not to the fine detail expected. But, were it a copy using the mimeograph or offset, this would not be an unexpected loss of resolution.

This makes me think the paperwork is a hoax. But, after hearing the replacement medal answer, I wonder could it be that this is replacement documentation? I should point out that I am unaware of the actual aspect ratio and size of the legitimate period documents, but it seems the right general size.

Most false aging of a document involves coffee or tea, stained and applied to the document with a sponge. This document for all intent seems to have had something spilled on it at some point. A small split test on the back of the document reveals lighter color, which is consistent with sun effect aging. The yellowing is consistent, but that is not always indicative of age. So far I have not black light tested the document for optical brighteners, but being as optical brighteners were introduced in the late 1940's, the point may be moot and useless for determining anything.

That's what I know so far. I'm intrigued, but I still find it highly dubious and suspicious. It was portrayed to me as supplemental support for the medal. However, you guys may have seen this exact document reproduced before with the same name, in which case it's a hoax using old musty paper- which I've seen done. Old medium is often used to fake things, such as old photo stock and hand laid papers.

Any thoughts?

[Nigel N]

Hi!
As already said, it is a postwar copy, appears to have an open hingeblock? Can't be sure from the photo???
Is the hingeblock solid, or is there a hole, and you can see thru it? That would help to date the piece, solid hingeblock would be pre-1968.
Both S&L and Souval used pins and catches like the one on your KVK, that style of pin is found with Souval pieces more often than S&L, that combined with the finish make me think more likely Souval, but could be S&L also!
Even though to some collectors any postwar copy is just a fake and of no value, there are collectors who specialise in postwar pieces by these two makers, so it does have value for those collectors!!
-Nigel

[JGoshenschmidt]

Hi Nigel-
Thanks for the info. Hinge block is undoubtedly solid. From the side, there's nothing of even a hint of a collapsed hole, it's smooth and solid.

Jeff