Order of the Red Banner 5 awarding n°787 with COA

[Auke]

Japanx, I really don't see the relevance of all these pictures of letters and CoAs written by McDaniel... If all of this is to stress that McDaniel made a mistake, you've made your point. I'll repeat my question: Did somebody toy with this order (if so, to what extent?) or did McDaniel just misinterpret the serial number?

[Japanx]

Japanx, I really don't see the relevance of all these pictures of letters and CoAs written by McDaniel...

You asked the question

McDaniel just misinterpret the serial number?

I posted his letter about "highest number he ever seen".
It`s that simple.

If all of this is to stress that McDaniel made a mistake, you've made your point.

I don`t stress anything.
I simply tried to give you a full picture, but obviously you don`t appreciate it

[Japanx]

I'll repeat my question: Did somebody toy with this order (if so, to what extent?) or did McDaniel just misinterpret the serial number?

I'll repeat my question:

Since

The base piece is clearly not a fake...

Will it possible for you to explain why base piece is clearly not a fake?

[Auke]

Just say what you want to say. If you keep beating around the bush I'm out of this discussion.

[Japanx]

I'm out of this discussion.

First of all - you can do whatever you like

Second, I don`t see much "discussion" from your side except for this statement

The base piece is clearly not a fake...

Why you made this statement?
I asked you twice.
First time - no answer at all.
Second - strange ultimatum.

Well, I guess you have no clue how original base for 5th cartouche should look like.

[Japanx]

Original vs. Maximum known number

1.jpg

2.jpg

[Japanx]

3.jpg

4.jpg

[Japanx]

5.jpg

6.jpg

[Japanx]

Etc, etc, etc ...

33.jpg

34.jpg

[Japanx]

Minimal number of 5th cartouche in existence

[Japanx]

Maximum number of 5th cartouche in existence

[Japanx]

Buona fortuna!

[Airon]

Guys please,
maybe i haven't made myself clear so i repeat: i ask you to tone down the debate!
Raising the voice is really unnecessary, at least for the kind of discussion and the subject of the topic.

Generally speaking, we all know COAs are a minefield and we also know that who write them is human so it's prone to errors. This is not the first case we hear of a researcher called into question about an expertise, we could mention a few well known German surnames about questionable 3R COAs too and goodness know how many others.
But this is not the point.

I think the topic has great potential to be developed, given original and fakes examples alike, and for all of us to grasp some details about n°-th awardings, that i don't think you see very often (at least i have never seen a fifth one in my life).
We had in the past similar discussions, lasted pages, where people had very different views about the genuinity of an item but we have never felt the need to be impolite.

The forum is made to discuss, not for catfights (or at least this is what the staff want the forum to be - if there is a change this way we will let you know).
We already bothered Joker and the Dark Knight into the topic previously, don't force me to show you the pencil trick...

Thank you very much for your understanding
Airon

[Lapa]

Guys,

For those of you still having access to Soviet-Awards (I don't anymore), you may want to look for the few several posts I made several years ago about identifying genuine ORB 5th award, that is if the local head-joker has not blown them to oblivion yet.
And I think that it would probably be interesting to import these posts here; as their author, whoever can do it has my blessing

Marc

[Japanx]

... few several posts I made several years ago about identifying genuine ORB 5th award, that is if the local head-joker has not blown them to oblivion yet.

Let`s apply them to the piece in the first post

[Airon]

I try to find them...

[Japanx]

to tone down the debate!

Do you really think that what we have here so far can be labeled as "debate" or "discussion"?

Allow me to remind you that I simply posted certificate from "well-established expert".

Next thing you know Sebastian starts posting un'espressione di scontento such as

"firing on the ambulance"

"please show us an expert who never failed"

What these comments have to do with the 5th awarding in question is beyond me

Then Ferdinand came.

"The base piece is clearly not a fake" he said.

Ok.
Naturally I am interested why.
But instead of answering to my simple question "why?" he decided to infrom me that he didn`t

"see the relevance"

of materials I`ve posted so far

+

"If you keep beating around the bush I'm out of this discussion"

Strange attitude

Actually everything that can be shown about this piece is already in the thread.
You don`t need to have eyes at the back of your head to see all problems with 787 piece.

[Lapa]

I agree with JapanX, this piece 787 is not original at all.

[Airon]

Do you really think that what we have here so far can be labeled as "debate" or "discussion"?

Hi Nic,
I do not want to enter into language fomalisms. I understand your point but I will not take this bite!

You can be right or wrong on the order, this is not my businness at the moment.
As a member of the staff i cannot stay silent. There are rules on this forum and the staff is here to enforce them for you also. I think you deserve better for your and the other members time to read pages and pages of rants and quarrels, don't you?
This is our "job", it's not pleasing nor rewarding to do but at the end of the day we are able to learn or teach something if we can keep the fights outside the forum or, better, not fight at all.
I like you pointed out everybody else "mistakes" or "provocations" or "attitudes" (call them as you like it) and I can understand and I even agree on some of them but it would be nice and very much appreciated to do some self-criticism on your side too.

I feel sorry if those previous interventions sounded like to be for JapanX only, I underline that they were for all of you!
Since I am a lazy person don't you dare put me in the situation to write those boring post again! Capisci?!

Thaaaaannnks,
Airon

[Lapa]

Guys,

With a long delay, here is a repost of what I wrote a long time ago on "the other forum" about identification of genuine multiple-award ORBs.
The whole topic came up when I was contacted by someone (David) who wanted to sell the following group of 5 ORBs:
ORB1 132359
ORB2 4270
ORB3 1092
ORB4 927
ORB5 14

[Lapa]

and the booklet

[Lapa]

So the grand total of this exercise is: 1 real / 4 fakes (no prize for guessing which one is the real one )
Now, let's look at them one by one. Each time, I have outlined some specific areas on David's scans (left), and I have done the same on the scan of an original (right).

Let's start with the rarest one of the set. It was possibly the easiest one to figure out as it screamed out loud "Hey, look, I am a fake". All ORB5 were made using 1 set of dies, so whatever specificity we notice on an original will always be present on a genuine piece:
. The most obvious clue was on the back: all genuine ORB5 have a straight one-line mintmark.
. The shape of the counter-relief is wrong on David's piece; it is what is known as "Valik", whereas originals have a differently shaped relief.
. The shield on original ORB5 leans to the left when seen from the front (the lower right side is higher than the bottom end of the right pole next to it) - on the back it is the other way around. David's piece is exactly the opposite.
. The top of the flag pole and the edge to its right have a specific shape and are well defined on originals, whereas it is almost flat on this piece.
. SN engraving style is off.

[Lapa]

Let's now turn the piece over and have a closer look at it.

. The digit "5" is clearly different from an original, both in shape and in position in the shield.
. The Hammer and Sickle have a very specific shape, especially the sickle handle.
. Letters on the banner have a specific position relative to each other, that depends uniquely of the die that was used. On original ORB5, the letter "B" is aligned directly above the letter "O", and its left edge falls between the letters "П" and "P" above; this is the case on ALL ORB5.

I think that these few details should be enough to convince anybody.

PS: the genuine ORB5 shown is SN32 held at the Central Museum of the Armed Forces

[Lapa]

Next one down the rarity scale

Here again, we have many details clearly off:
. Shape of the counter-relief; on original ORB4 in this SN range, it is much more pronounced
. Mintmark is wrong
. SN engraving does not correspond to known Mint handwritings
. Shape of the torch is way to pointy and does not correspond to the characteristics of this SN range
. Shape of the connecting ring is also not consistent with what is observed
. On original ORB4, when seen from the reverse, the bottom edge of the shield is almost straight, and is slightly higher than the bottom tips of the poles. Note also the shape of the gap between the left edge of the shield and the left pole; It is specific to the 900's SN range.

[Lapa]

On to the obverse. On originals:

. The torch end is blunt
. Shield bottom is slightly higher than the tips of the poles and the central nipple does not protrude heavily
. Central wreath shows some defects, which specific to the die used to strike the ORB4 in this SN range
. The shape of the digit "4" is specific.