Thanks for your valuable opinion , but it seems to me that other than absence of mint mark , the obverse (especially) and reverse details are completely the same. I heard that not all original of these supposed to have mint marks..
I am wondering if Alexei could express his opinion ?
If you compare closely your badge and the picture I posted, you'll see obvious differences, especially in the sharpness (or lack thereof) of details, the surface, and of course the chemical patina.
Sebastien,
Early mintmarks are faked. They tend to be much less detailed than the original ones; since they are incused, they do not wear much and retain most of their details.
I just found the following samples of authentic badges w/out mint mark.
It seems to me that number '1' on badge with serial # 991 is written by the same hand as on badge in my first posting :).
Much better scans are needed. I also need to see the right side of the obverse. Preliminary, I don't like it - it looks rather crude, especially the H&S and the sword; the serial number and the "No" are different, and it looks like they were done with a different engraving tool; rivets, patina, etc., etc. ... in other words .... what Marc said.
Hello , sorry for delay. I got some additional image and also sample of original badge with similar # sign. I would appreciate any additional opinions.
I have nothing to add. If you compare the writing style on ## 150 and 140 and the width of the lines, especially at the turns, you will see that they are different.
