10-18-2011, 01:08 AM (This post was last modified: 10-18-2011, 01:08 PM by EricFG.)
I like it, although I'm not a paper expert. It's got the wear and the right-looking ink.
The wear, and the two-hole punch is a distraction, though.
One tip, learned the hard way, is that that ink will fade, even out of direct sunlight so be careful if you display/mount.
Oh, and Welcome!
"patina imparts character" - PJS
A wise man said: 'you should not pay a premium for what you want beyond your comfort level, and always ensure there is a mutually agreeable return policy.'
First, it would be nice to be able to look at these documents "the right way up".
The Leningrad document is :thumbsup
The Odessa one has some problems, the most obvious one being the 15-ribbon coat of arms. It is clear that the entries are not genuine, since this document was produced after 1956 (and the fact that there is a stamp on it does not change anything to this fact [hint]). The signature is also commonly found on fake documents and documents with faked entries.
Based on your picture, it is not possible to tell for sure if the document itself is original or a simple copy. Please make enlargements of the coat of arms at the top, of the stamp and of the signature.
The base document appears to be genuine and unissued. The entries were made recently.
Another nice, scarce document irremediable damaged by fakers :mad:
What is the collective wisdom and best thinking of my collector colleagues regarding these two Defense of the Caucasus documents issued to the same man some months apart? Please note the serial numbers of the documents themselves. I suspect these may be forgeries or counterfeits, and artificially aged. . .
