18th HUSSARS QVC

[ncc]

so from the description of a fake in post no7 we can take it that the one shown in k&k 783 is also fake.

ncc - Be careful, your common sense observation will upset 2 illustrious Forum members ! You are spot on, of course. GD

[Viletone]

Originally Posted by ncc

so from the description of a fake in post no7 we can take it that the one shown in k&k 783 is also fake.

Unfortunately the illustrations in KK, certainly the later editions aren't much use for close detail. However I checked and early edition of Wilkinson and then a recently Bosleys postal auction catalogue and the latter featured an ex-Hugh King badge (still in factory finish) although it doesn't state it was the one featured in KK as they normally do when this is the case .Both seem to have features typical of the thread starter and the ebay item so maybe there were maker variations, certainly the base of the H is slightly raised.

I didn't wan't to get involved in a slanging match over the credibility of an ebay seller, I only asked for opinions on that item based on points Andy had highlighted.

"Illustrious".

[ncc]

i can,t ever remember seeing an original one with a cut out for the centre.
have a look at your favorite seller from nuneaton 220391062129 i think you can say this one is a fake.

[QOSY]

I have learnt a great deal since becoming a member of this forum, and this thread epitomises what it is all about. Unfortunately it does lead to me rushing off to check my own badges with heart in mouth!
I would appreciate members views on the following that have been in my possesion for some time, not purchased off known dealers and not costing a great deal ie under 10 pounds
The QVC badge on the left measures 39 X 40 the QVC on the right 36 X 38, the center appears to be silver.
I am pretty sure about the collar badge, but the KC allthough having gold braze may be a bit suspect.

[2747andy]

IMO,
your KC and Collar are good, the Left (as viewed) QVC with "cut out" below the "H" also looks good in the photo the Right QVC not so good, from the back the detail of the jewels on top of the arms is not uniform and the wear to the front is only on certain parts and not all over? Just my observations, they could both be OK but if I had to pick, I would go for the one on the left!

Andy

[QOSY]

Thanks Andy, do you have a view as to why the RH QVC is smaller, or would it be a feature of a copy?
Jim

[2747andy]

Jim,
it could be just the fact that it was a different maker! I really don't have an answer!

Andy

[ncc]

re badges in post 18 both vic. badges are fakes.but the kc from the pic looks ok.if it is you have done well very scarce badge.

[QOSY]

NCC,
Thanks for your comments, can you expand on your reasons as to why you think that the LH QVC is a fake? I must admit that I did feel that that one was good, while if anything I had my doubts on the KC.
Jim

[ncc]

it has the colour of a fake and no quality at all.have a look at the ebay number in the post above .same cut out bottom and top of 18 h
and that is descibed as a fake.

[Leonard D]

Thanks to all who have taken the time to contribute positively to this thread.
Cheers.

[denis pannett]

Sorry to say this is 100% fake for many reasons that become apparent when placed next to an original. Crown wrong shape, quality of strike, the 18 and H, loops and brazing and the gaps too large on outer ends of wreath at 10 & 2 oclock. Regards Denis

[Viletone]

Originally Posted by denis pannett

Sorry to say this is 100% fake for many reasons that become apparent when placed next to an original. Crown wrong shape, quality of strike, the 18 and H, loops and brazing and the gaps too large on outer ends of wreath at 10 & 2 oclock. Regards Denis

Quite a blunt first post for a new member Dennis. Could you post an original badge as comparison please?

[3748 Hussar]

Hi Dennis,Andy & Viletone.

I take it the pointer's you have mentioned for the Qvc 18th posts , are also good reference pointer's for the Kc Version.

I look forward to your view's on this one.

Iamtakingnoprisoners