Fake Order And Medal Booklets

[Kirchgoens]

If you've got some spare $$ sitting around, spend $40 to get an award card on the dude. That will settle the issue fairly clearly and help educate everyone.

I've got a similar doc - lower awards - that I think may have a bogus CSM entry done just to make me happy. It came with a bunch of the man's other docs. My gut says fake, but I'll get it checked out since the other non-book docs are good.

...Brian

[Soviet]

Thanks Eryk for the input. :thumbsup

Brian, I won't research that group, because it's now being auction. The medals seem ok though, but the order doesn't look good to me.

[Kirchgoens]

Setting aside the odd ink issues, Ole Boy's got the long service progression roughly right except for the short gap between those last two entries for the ORS and ORB. That second ORS with the 2.7 mil s/n I would have thought to be LS, but I'd now have to say that the 2.9mil fits that bill. Maybe that's another fake indicator in that two ORS's fall in that generally, but not always, long service range.

I guess we'll never know.

[desantnik]

Originally Posted by Kirchgoens

I guess we'll never know.

No, I can say pretty authoritatively that the only time I've seen that style of print for a RB, it has been bad. Does anyone have any legitimate examples of such an entry? I'd be curious to see it.

[ANZAC]

Thoughts on this 1952 award document. Good or bad??:confused:

Brendan

[Lapa]

Brendan,

I am not overly keen of the shade difference in ink between the SN and the date.

Marc

[ANZAC]

I agree Marc. Sadly I have no early 1950s document for comparison.

Brendan

[Kirchgoens]

I disagree for this particular case. In fact, having two such close serial numbers (in my mind) make this even more likely to be good since catch-up awards would have come from the same batch of medals if given about the same time. Desantnik has already show us a doc and two consecutive medals in the past, and I have in the past bought almost consecutive BMs at the same time (no doc). If the serial numbers on these widely varied, I'd be a bit more suspicious, but these fall in the range of immediate post-war catch-up medals. I've posted my theory on that before given the blocks of different awards I've found from the same geographical area. I'll repost that BM data below in a couple minutes to show that the serial numbers alone probably make this more likely to be a real group (unless you guys think those medals are faked - but they look good to me!).

As for 1950's awards, I've got a couple late 40's and early/mid 50's examples (medals and orders) around the house that sometimes have similar differences. Some of mine came from the source with no dealer in between except the guy who rang the door bell of the house they came from.

Having been in the military myself (albeit a different one), I could easily see the following:

One guy is filling in dates with one pen, and another guy is stamping and filling in serial numbers with a different pen. If you've ever been around soldiers trying to get through a lot of docs at one time, this sort of thing happens, almost assembly-line like. I could also see them dating one day for a load of medals to be filled in the next day.

This is why I think the near numbers on the BM's make it more likely. All these BMs below I bought in Uzbekistan from guys out of Ferghana Valley (three or four different sellers over about 18 months). Note the two ending in 763 and 765: I bought them at the same time from the same guy, and I very much believe that when researched will have come from the same soldier's group.

3,605,916
3,605,946
3,605,961
3,605,973
3,606,471
3,606,481
3,606,571
3,606,670 ("tongue" version)
3,606,763
3,606,765
3,606,820
3,607,389

So, Brendan finding a group from the late 40's to mid 50's with two very, very close BM's makes me far more believing of the doc.

[Lapa]

Kirchgoens,

The issue is not with the combination of SN, but with the genuineness of the entries in the booklet.

Marc

[ANZAC]

Thanks Brian, interesting comments.:thumbsup

I have no doubt on the genuiness of the medals themselves. My concern is the 'freshness' of the entries in the book. Should or do, 1950s entries look like this:confused:

The difference in style between the date and serial number is likely as you describe and completely plausible. Sadly not being a document man, I am unsure on the entries. If it is genuine then the group is even more sweeter.

I'll post the inside front as well.

thanks

Brendan:)