CCC 1.3.1 Observation...

[Nordmark]

Hi guys,



I was on badge patrol this day and found this one. I flipped out Tom´s book and looked this one up. OK, I thought must be the 1.3.1, but with a closer inspection, it definitely is not.

Crimping doesn´t match at all, the dome like criping to the hook is not present and the hinge area doesn´t fit.

If you look closely at the badge, you´ll find remnants of a makers mark that was removed, looks like some sort of hand finishing.

And now to the point, if you compare this piece to the badge shown in Tom´s book on page 69(1.3.1), you will also find file marks under the gilding of the back. There must have been a maker present, which was removed by hand before the finish was applied.

Now I would like to hear some thoughts concerning this theory (and the badge).


Regards,



Daniel

[Nordmark]

....

[Nordmark]

.....

[Nordmark]

.......

[Nordmark]

........

[Nordmark]

..........

[Nordmark]

.........

[Nordmark]

..............

[andron505]

covering to reverse not long ago...
interesting specimen

[Flemming]

Looks like it has been spray painted ?

/Flemming

[AndyC]

Well this one is for sure refinish, even the backplate is "spray painted"

Andy

[Nordmark]

Sigh...


This is the 1.3.1 in Tom´s book and collection.

[Nordmark]

Look, I´m not like Dr. Kimble trying to find the one armed man, maybe I´m totally wrong here and a douche attempted to create his very own 1.3.1, but here is the picture from the book and I do recognize file marks. Maybe this is a misprint in my book, but...


Paging Dr. Durante...paging Dr. Durante...

[andron505]

Look, I´m not like Dr. Kimble trying to find the one armed man, maybe I´m totally wrong here and a douche attempted to create his very own 1.3.1, but here is the picture from the book and I do recognize file marks. Maybe this is a misprint in my book, but...


[FONT="Times New Roman"]Paging Dr. Durante...paging Dr. Durante...

How itself can explain these "fresh" influxes paints ?

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Daniel,

Very interesting clasp for sure.

Firstly though, the reverse crimps should have told that this is really a converted 1.1.1 clasp rather than a true 1.3.1. The crimping of the catch is also more akin to 1.1.1s rather than the 1.3s. The 1.3s are very raised and dome-like, whereas yours (and the 1.1s) are more recessed.

Compare the obverse of your clasp to a 1.1.1 and then to a 1.3.1. Like all AGMuK clasps, the obverses are similar, but there are differences. The rightmost set of oakleaves is where you can find several differences if you look close enough.

The finish on the reverse of yours is very thick, much more so than what is found on true 1.3s in my opinion. And based on the obverse design and crimps, my opinion would be that this is really a 1.1.1 clasp that has been convereted to a 1.3.1 for some reason.

But, the scraping of the maker mark is indeed a true mystery here. I had noticed the scrape marks on original 1.3s, but never really thought that it could be where someone removed the maker mark. Now with this clasp, I look closely at mine and sure enough, I think I can see a tiny trace of a few letters! That is indeed odd and more so because the 1.3s do NOT match the clasp you show!

Looking at your clasp, I don't see a reason to fault it based on the obverse details, only the finish is fishy on the reverse. However, it is similar in color to the 1.3s just much thicker. Either someone converted it to LOOK like a 1.3 recently, or the 1.1.1s and 1.3s are related somehow more than we can explain right now.

We have always known that all AGMuK makers were related, but as I mention in the book on page 296, they are the last greatest challenge in the CCC realm to find out who they were and how they worked together.

Here is closeup of a 1.1.1 (same as yours Daniel)

Tom