And what I had on mine: FAKE
-
Last edited by MH184; 03-11-2005, 06:53 AM. -
Hello,
in my opinion it is a fake
This mineComment
-
These fakes are good but when you have an original to compare with you can see why it's fake. Let's not give too much away as to why it's a fake but believe me, it is.
RichComment
-
Indeed, more than enough offs in key areas: Fake!Comment
-
134
I have an original 134 bought from a vet many years ago.
I matched my date to the book corss of iron by willamson, the 9 has a wider spot between the 2 and 5 oclock posistion in the loup. the one one the left at the bottom matches exactly to the book at the bottom just before the foot it has a small intrusion on the right side also the ones curve in at the center of both vertical shafts. Mine matched the date on page 198. also your 134 date looks wrong, the four on the top should curve in a bit, and no foot on the one. Just mho.Comment
-
I agree with the others: Not good.GeorgeComment
-
Originally posted by George Stimson
One of the key tip offs is the "134". If you do a search on this, I posted a number of examples of real "134" stamps and fakes. This does not correspond to a real "134" stamp. In general, the digits are thinner on the fake, while the authentic pieces have wider, "keep on truck'in'" style digits.Comment
-
Thank you all!
Dam# repros! I returned it yesterday without a hitch and picked up "The Iron Time" and this poster. (below)
A HUGE thank you to all who shared their knowledge!!! There is so much to learn. I can't express my appreciation enough.
Comment
-
Hmmmm?!
I don't have the ability to post pics at the moment??! Hmmm?!Comment
-
Comment