New AGMuK CCC Addition to the Collection

[Thomas Durante]

Hi guys,

Just wanted to show a recent addition to my collection of an AGMuK variant that I had been missing. Its a nice 1.2.1, small font AGMuK with thick crimps to the backplate. This one apparently had some trouble with the obverse diestrike and its my opinion after studying it for a bit that it must be due to a dirty die (best seen on the central motif closeup). I am quite sure that these AGMuK clasps were die struck and so there is no way that air bubbles would have gotten trapped like this causing these small depressions. I also don't think it is zinkpest on a refinished clasp, but would love to hear some opinions and thoughts on what else could have created these depressions. The finish is not like any other AGMuK clasp I have, it is very light colored, almost like a pastel green/grey color rather than bronze. Despite this, I don't think it is refinished as the color on the reverse is typical of 1.2 CCCs and may just be that the obverse has faded due to storage conditions or enviornment. In addition, I can see clearly defined lines of finish inside the backplate crimps, which is a classic sign of the original finish (not refinished).

The dimensions are perfectly inline with the others I have on file and the strike is quite distinct, with the exception of the slight cratering on the obverse. I once discussed this feature with Frank a few years ago and he mentioned that he had seen some GABs exhibiting similar features and I believe he concluded that a dirty die was the culprit.

Thanks guys.

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

Central Motif

[Thomas Durante]

Reverse with pin closed

[Thomas Durante]

Reverse with pin opened. Note the large crimps of the 1.2.1 in relation to the much thinner crimps used on the 1.2.2 AGMuKs. Also note the smaller size of the backplate, quite a common feature on 1.2.1 CCCs.

Tom

[scott3000]

nice Tom

[Don D.]

Hi Tom, is it typical for the backing plate to be so small?

[Justin P]

Nice Clasp Tom

Glad you got it

In My humble opnion, Zink pest usually starts at the edge or around a feature on a award, so more likely to be a bubble of some kind

[Thomas Durante]

Hi guys,

Don, no, the backplates are typically a perfect fit to the cut out on the reverse on pretty much all CCCs. However, this particular type of AGMuK CCC (1.2.1s) is an exception to the rule. If you look at the CCC book, the 1.2.1 featured has a similarly small backplate, with very round edges. When I wrote the book, I noted that the smaller backplate was just undersized on that example, but since then I have seen a few other 1.2.1s with the same small backplate and now this one, all makes me think that this maker simply used smaller backplates on their CCCs.

Ofcourse, smaller sized backplates are indeed an aspect of reproductions, but you will find that they are smaller on all 4 sides, not just 1 side. The fakes have to have smaller backplates to fit inside the already-crimped areas on the reverse, unlike originals. So, in the case of the 1.2.1s, its my opinion that a smaller backplate was a common feature on these. 1.2.1s aren't very common, so I would venture to say that 50% of the ones I have come across have this smaller type backplate.

Additionally, the dimensions are spot on to other original 1.2.1s and to my knowledge the Hero hasn't ventured to produce the 1.2.1 yet.

Thanks guys.

Tom

[Don D.]

Thanks Tom. I don't doubt the originality of the badge, just wondering if the maker got a bad lot of backing plates for this batch and made due with it. You can see how the crimps are holding it in, which is lacking on the repros.