08-21-2002, 03:04 PM
Hi Alexei
But your figures are not proportional. Your measurements would produce a short oval and not a long oval that is in avers No 1 and 5 that I have seen.
I measured the picture of the drawing in Avers No 1 as it shares the same proportions as the badge that I have. It’s measurements in Averc No 1 are 32mm x 50mm.
The badge I have measures 39mm x 60mm
The measurements you gave from kutzenko book were 26mm x 36mm.
I wanted to see proportionally what the width would be using kutzovs measurements to enlarge the badge size proportionally to 50mm in length, the length of the picture in Averc no 1 and see what its width size it would be in direct proportion.
Proportionally kutzovs size badge if it was enlarged to 50.4mm would be 36.4mm wide. Divided by 100 and multiplied by 14 gave me this figure.
I wanted to see proportionally what size Avers badge would be if it was enlarged proportionally to 60mm in length, the size of my badge.
I divided 32mm x 50mm by 100 and multiplied it by 12. It gave me the dimensions of 60mm in length and 38.4mm wide.
Proportionally the badge I have is 39mm x 60mm it is mathematically closer to the picture displayed in Averc No 1.
I also measured the badge in avers No 5 as it was 21 by 32 mm in size and applied the same principle and drew the same conclusions.
This would mean that either Kutzenko is correct or Avercs No 1 has a fake badge.
Have you physically seen a badge that measures 26mm x 36mm
I’m afraid you are cutting the cloth to fit what I can only say are disputed measurements from Kutzenko’s book.
I also can’t believe any one who has produced such a fine copy goes and messes it up by making it proportionally so much larger.
If you have got this medal from a known dodgy source or a large batch I have some shirts ready to eat.
Regards Chris
But your figures are not proportional. Your measurements would produce a short oval and not a long oval that is in avers No 1 and 5 that I have seen.
I measured the picture of the drawing in Avers No 1 as it shares the same proportions as the badge that I have. It’s measurements in Averc No 1 are 32mm x 50mm.
The badge I have measures 39mm x 60mm
The measurements you gave from kutzenko book were 26mm x 36mm.
I wanted to see proportionally what the width would be using kutzovs measurements to enlarge the badge size proportionally to 50mm in length, the length of the picture in Averc no 1 and see what its width size it would be in direct proportion.
Proportionally kutzovs size badge if it was enlarged to 50.4mm would be 36.4mm wide. Divided by 100 and multiplied by 14 gave me this figure.
I wanted to see proportionally what size Avers badge would be if it was enlarged proportionally to 60mm in length, the size of my badge.
I divided 32mm x 50mm by 100 and multiplied it by 12. It gave me the dimensions of 60mm in length and 38.4mm wide.
Proportionally the badge I have is 39mm x 60mm it is mathematically closer to the picture displayed in Averc No 1.
I also measured the badge in avers No 5 as it was 21 by 32 mm in size and applied the same principle and drew the same conclusions.
This would mean that either Kutzenko is correct or Avercs No 1 has a fake badge.
Have you physically seen a badge that measures 26mm x 36mm
I’m afraid you are cutting the cloth to fit what I can only say are disputed measurements from Kutzenko’s book.
I also can’t believe any one who has produced such a fine copy goes and messes it up by making it proportionally so much larger.
If you have got this medal from a known dodgy source or a large batch I have some shirts ready to eat.
Regards Chris
