Fake "Defense of" Campaign Medals

[chrisovski]

Many thanks for the opinions (both positive and negative) on my Stalingrad (#1431). Please may I have a verdict on this Kiev?

[CtahhR]

This one looks like a fake to me. The details on the female are rather strange and the "ET" in SOVETSKUJU" look to be tilted.

The Medals you are posting also seem to have a distinct lack of wear on the reverse and rims. Obviously the Kiev Medals will have 20 years less abuse but when worn the medals often struck against one another with the distinct contact marks.

[chrisovski]

Thank you CtahhR. The only defence I can offer is that the female's head appears to be very abraded, perhaps to remove a corrosion spot (?), and much of the detail has been lost. But yes, I have to agree that the ET is slightly mis-aligned.

[3aStalina]

Here you go. Again, why would you buy something and only then ask for more pictures?

the light spots that are visible on either side of this medal look like chemical reaction residue. has anyone seen this before on authentic medals, or can explain what it is? thank you

Many thanks for the opinions (both positive and negative) on my Stalingrad (#1431). Please may I have a verdict on this Kiev?

the "ET" slant mentioned could be just an illusion. here is mine for comparison,

[3aStalina]

any opinions on the Odessa Voenkomat i posted in #1426? thank you

http://soviet-awards.com/forum/soviet-mi...s-143.html

[chrisovski]

I'd appreciate an expert opinion on my Leningrad, please.

[CtahhR]

A very over polished but good example of the "long horizon".

[3aStalina]

any opinions on the Odessa Voenkomat i posted in #1426? thank you

http://soviet-awards.com/forum/soviet-mi...s-143.html

here it is in hand. what do you think? thank you

[desantnik]

Thanks for the additional pictures.

I personally don't like the looks of it. The one-piece construction is obviously not aspiring to a WWII-era piece - if it is such as offered in a set, then it's obviously fake.

It appears to be a later commissariat issue, but in my opinion the details appear "overdone." Go to the Mondvor site and you'll notice the original posted is less detailed and "softer" - everything from the letters to the minute background details (waves, sailors' equipment, light post). On the obverse I'll point your attention to the right-most soldier's right-most (top) pant leg - look at the lower "shadow" and notice how pronounced it is. Also compare the almost linear, "harsh" lettering of yours with the softer ones on the Mondvor site.

Additionally, the lack of wear compounded by the "detailing on steroids" bothers me. I realize this piece would not have the wear of a WWII piece, but there is absolutely no wear on this one except the reverse scratch up by the hammer and sickle.

Finally on the reverse I don't like the appearance where the suspension ring joins the base medal at 12 o'clock. Finally, compare the top right of the "K" and any of the final "U"'s with the mondvor site. Again, adding to the theme of overworking, the reverse sickle handle also appears overdone.

This may be the result of an overworked casting or some type of digital copying that a forger overly "cleaned" or added to the results.

Others are welcome to chime in, but I don't like it.

[CtahhR]

I'll have to jump in first (before the dinosaurs) and ask;

Is that a phaleristic arguement?

As a side note what are the measurements?