Fake Research?

[Eryk]

The cat's out of the bag regarding a fear I've had for years now. Never mentioned it in public on the off chance that suppressing an idea would keep it from spreading. Futile, as any historian knows. The fear?

“By the way, I have even seen fake research, in which the UK was altered to match the SN of awards available...”

The unfortunate Pobeda seems to be a victim of fraud, as well too many of us are familiar with. What leaped out at me rather than the awards, though, was the documentation. Put my thoughts together to one of the resident experts in this:

“I've seen archival lists with different handwriting, indicating that an award was added after it was originally filled out, but never have I seen the signature, date, etc at the bottom of the document not match the 'original' (ie, the first part of the list), award list handwriting. This looks as if the top portion was filled out, but not signed and dated (plus the other writing), then when the OG II was added the bottom was also filled out. This makes me suspect it's a fake - the bottom of the real document was cut off (digitally if not in real life), and a new bottom portion appended.

As well it's odd (to me), that the "7" in the date on the award list is the same (unique?) style as the "7" in the order book. Was the paperwork filled out all at the same time, by the same person, historically?

Lastly, shouldn't the date of benefits in the order book be mid 1943, the date of the first award being given?

I'm no expert! And I know it. But one of my great fears over the years, never mentioned, is that in this day and age someone will get the bright idea to go into the archives, get legitimate documentation, then using a combination of pen, printer, copier and digital photo technology create "research" that is actually fraudulent. With that they would forge awards, award books, etc, to match and be "proven authentic" by the archival "documentation." A nightmare! Is this group evidence of that? Or am I fearful over nothing?”

Not over nothing I guess... :-( Thoughts from others who value research?

[deValcourt]

That is an incredibly frightening possibility that I also have thought about for some time (and I'm sure others have feared it, too). It's a truly depressing notion that I think we should all be worried about to some degree, though at the same time, a little trust in the researcher is going to go a lot farther than the worry about altered documents - at least for me anyway. I expect that Alexei and other reputable researchers know and trust theit sources. That is going to have to do for now I'm afraid.:)

Phillip

[Eryk]

I don't think dealing with researchers directly, or even indirectly through middlemen as we English only speakers do now, is a problem. It's buying already "researched" awards that will be an issue. It's just another brick in the wall of fakery, one more thing that can be made uncertain. :mad:

[deValcourt]

Yes, I see what you mean. Just another reason to only buy from people you trust.;)

Phillip

[Pobeda45]

Just to clarify, gents: I originally bought the award book and the two orders. I obtained the research myself to see if the two really went together..and they did! So from a historic point of view, Daniil Belous really did win two Order of Glories. Too bad the only thing I bought of his that was real was the order book! So the euphoria didn't last too long. :thumbsdown

But yes, the order book and the service record card were often filled out at the same time / by the same hand. The interesting thing is that the Citation for the Glory-II was missing in TSAMO. I wonder if it's a coincidence or if there's more to it.

Regarding research in my particular case, note that the service record card originally said that the Glory-III and the CSM medal were "lost," with the number entered in later / in different ink. So it's likely that our veteran didn't have both of his Glories anymore and I shouldn't have expected to buy both...
Fascinating case and I truly appreciate the forum's help. Too bad I still have $800 in the balance for this scum.

George

[Eryk]

Just to clarify, gents:...

Thanks George for the clarification; I obviously was all wet on the research end of it.

[Lapa]

Guys,

As was mentioned before, first hand research should be OK, especially if dealing with known and established researchers. The problem arises in the "secondary market", when a researched group is further sold with its purporting documentation.

The example I referred to was a rather large group in which one ORB was missing; the reseller found a close-by number and aleterd a couple of digits on the UK to make the numbers match. Unbeknownst to him, this group had already been shown with its research on Russian forums; when it was offered for sale with the "missing" ORB present (as per the retouched UK), alarm bells went off and the cat was out of the bag.

So, in short, beware of second-hand researched awards/groups; in some cases, it may be worth ordering the UK (nope, I don't own shares in any research related venture ;)).

Marc