10-21-2014, 09:09 PM (This post was last modified: 12-13-2014, 06:10 PM by Bill Garvy.)
Yes, and yes, the mint mark is indicative the example shown, 7528, is a reproduction, in my opinion. For comparison here is 7315 from the collection, also note the differences in the color and quality of the enamel work, albeit the enamel of the top ray has been replaced, as well as the shape of the star itself.
The base piece is original (originally with a late 1 mil / early 2 mil serial number I think), but the reverse has obviously been sanded down and fitted with a bogus serial number and mint mark.
CtahhR Wrote:Paper awards. Worst of all not even rice paper awards. Why anyone would produce them is well beyond me but someone here in England did some years ago.
I seemed to metal sheet, and also with a certain thickness.
thank you very much for your help. So you mean that the number was altered / has been changed ? I also posted the order of Nevskij belonging to this "group" - could you please also leave your feedback there ...?
thank you very much for your help. So you mean that the number was altered / has been changed ? I also posted the order of Nevskij belonging to this "group" - could you please also leave your feedback there ...?
With kind regards !!!
The serial number has been intentionally (and crudely) altered to deceive.
This was done to either assemble a grouping from unrelated items or add a piece to an otherwise legitimate, existing grouping to replace a missing item. Pls provide a link to your Nevsky posting.