Fake SS-Award Sold on E-Stand

[J C Gray]

Just noticed that this really awful fake of an SS 8 Year Service Award has been sold as original on the e-stand: http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=737871

[bytown]

OK I'll bite!

What determines that this is a fake?

These medals are not one of my strong suits.

If it's not wise to post out in the open please send me a pm as to why it is a fake.

Wayne

[judorichard]

Fake? Really?

I also am wondering what makes you think it is a fake? I thought it looked good.

Richard.

[bytown]

Just in case pictures disappear.

[Bernie Brule]

Looks good to me.

[wehl]

looks to be original

[gibello]

Greetings, I am the buyer, I would like to tell me if this is an original piece or a reproduction, since I bought this thinking it was good.

I think these discussions would have to take place before the piece is sold, not sold after the seller seems a serious person, which is why I have not doubted it.

thanks

[Stu W]

I used to think I was sufficiently up on these to tell the fakes. Maybe not. What can you tell us? I thought it looked good.

Regards,
Stu

[keifer kahn]

Im with Mr Gray. Reproduction for me.

Stand out is the RH ( as we look at it) lower leaf as it exits the wreath binder.

That leaf should have a tail and not be butted squarely against the wreath binder.

Wreath binder is too defined, as well.

Thats a couple of points to start with.

Dimensions would be good to know as well.

[Stu W]

Im with Mr Gray. Reproduction for me.

Stand out is the RH ( as we look at it) lower leaf as it exits the wreath binder.

That leaf should have a tail and not be butted squarely against the wreath binder.

Wreath binder is too defined, as well.

Thats a couple of points to start with.

Dimensions would be good to know as well.

Thank you for that info.

Regards,
Stu

[gibello]

Thanks for the replies, after reading your comments and questions presented by this medal I will ask the seller the cancellation of the sale and refund.

Thank you very much

[Stan]

The medal has good definition, a little too good perhaps as Kiefer has said.

What struck me right away was the background which is also too well defined.

Stan

[C. Roelens]

How about somebody post an original and point out the differences.

Chuck

[Antonio Scapini]

This type of medal was discussed several times.

Results are what follows:

1) this type can be good but we never found solid proofs to support its originality;

2) this type was surely used as base for some fakes.

So this medal is a border-line piece, different from the two accepted patterns (I and II), and we can't compare this type with the others, as you cannot compare two medals made from 2 different makers.

I agree this medal is a beautiful die struck piece, with high definition and details and correct eyelet, but at the same time no one can prove it is 100% original, as no one can prove it is not.

[C. Roelens]

This type of medal was discussed several times.

Results are what follows:

1) this type can be good but we never found solid proofs to support its originality;

2) this type was surely used as base for some fakes.

So this medal is a border-line piece, different from the two accepted patterns (I and II), and we can't compare this type with the others, as you cannot compare two medals made from 2 different makers.

I agree this medal is a beautiful die struck piece, with high definition and details and correct eyelet, but at the same time no one can prove it is 100% original, as no one can prove it is not.

If that's the case how does John declare it to be such an awful fake? Perhaps John can explain?

Chuck