CCC 1.3.1 Observation...

[Thomas Durante]

Here is the obverse of a true 1.3.1., notice the differences.

Tom

[Nordmark]

Hi Tom,



thank you for your very informative posting, I really appreciate your efforts!

What makes me believe we are looking at an original finish are the following points, there are quite a few broken zink bubbles on the back, all of them show the pure dull zinc base metal and no finish, ergo the finish must have been applied long before the bubbles broke, plus there is a lot of verdigris above the finish of the needle, this is only found where the needle is close to the magnetic backplate. If this piece was indeed spray painted, the verdigris would have been covered with the bronze finish.

I will post some better pictures in daylight tomorrow. Here are just a few zoomed pictures.


Regards,


Daniel

[Nordmark]

And:

[Nordmark]

Hi Tom,


another question if you don´t mind, is the finish on the 1.3.1 acetone proof? Do you know this by chance? I just tested this one and it is not...


Thank you!




Daniel

[Patrick W]

That is the same clasp and there is no doubt IMO that the reverse has been spray painted with the pin open. Front is very nice still and hopefully that paint can be removed

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Daniel,

I just tested my 1.3.1 and it is definately acetone proof. Absolutely no finish came off from the reverse. Like I mentioned earlier, yours looks much thicker than the typical finish we see on the 1.3.1s and your test with the acetone just supports the notion that it is questionable. In my opinion, it is an original 1.1.1 that has tried to be converted to a 1.3.1.

It is quite possible that someone read the CCC book and decided to make their own 1.3.1. I mentioned in the book how rare these type of clasps are, so that may have been enough for someone to try their hand at it, but they incorrectly used a 1.1.1.

Regardless of this however, the mystery of the removed MM is still a valid point on all origianl 1.3.1s. There are definate marks on my 1.3.1 clasp and in the right light, I can definately see a few letters on mine that were removed.

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

That is the same clasp and there is no doubt IMO that the reverse has been spray painted with the pin open. Front is very nice still and hopefully that paint can be removed

Patrick, do not get hung up on the "pin open and spraypainted" aspect, because this is how origianl 1.3.1s were finished. I know this sounds weird, but origianl 1.3.1s were finished in the same way, but with a much more durable finish that was not removable by acetone. Here is mine, as well as another 1.3.1 to show that this was "typical".

A thought just occured to me. Its possible that the 1.3 AGMuK maker sold some of its clasps to a distributor that was not part of the aGMuK conglomorate. They ground off the maker mark and to make the clasp neat again, it required a new reverse finish to clean it up. That would explain why we see the finish on top of the backplate.

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

2

[Nordmark]

Hi Tom,



that absolutely makes sense. You know I demand the credit for these scratch marks in the second edition...


Thanks for the additional pictures.



Regards,


Daniel

[Thomas Durante]

You know I demand the credit for these scratch marks in the second edition...

Haha, no problem my friend. This hobby is always a group effort.

Tom