Fake "Capture of" Campaign Medals

[Kirchgoens]

I'm speaking heresy here as a neophyte, but I'm not sure this Budapest is bad.

[Nota Bene]

Kirchgoens,

Neither am I, and Matthijs is not making it easy for us.

Alexei

[Nota Bene]

Just to make a point - here's a fake from my collection, creatively photographed. What do you think?

Alexei

[matthijs]

Thnx guys,

Let's try again :(

[Kirchgoens]

Alexei - you are right, that's a tough one on that Moscow. Can you give us some pointers on that one? What are we actually looking at that tells us bad? Maybe a quick "block of instruction" as we would call it in the Army?

[matthijs]

Just to make a point - here's a fake from my collection, creatively photographed. What do you think?

Alexei

The only thing I can see is lack of detail and strange patina? Am I right?

[Nota Bene]

Kirchgoens,

It becomes a little easier when you have a good picture. Have a look at this one - poor detail is evident. This one is actually the worst in this new line of fakes.

BTW, this picture was takes with a 7 year old digital camera, that was cheap even back then :)

I will restore the "fake alert" page on my site as soon as I can.

Alexei

[Nota Bene]

I just grabbed a bunch from my collection. These are all fakes.

Alexei

[matthijs]

Thanks Alexei,

But can you tell me if mine is original? Or do you need a better picture;)

[Kirchgoens]

Alexei - I can clearly see the problems now in your second, clearer "Moscow" picture. It's got lots of evidence of casting in the surface.

I know many talk of lack of patina as evidence of a fake, but I never trust that as an indicator since veterans love to shine their medals. Just because it's old doesn't mean it will have an old patina. A fake chemical patina would be another issue entirely, and I need to learn more about spotting that. I've seen it in obvious examples, but not in a subtle one.