"The Karagyozi Cross": A fake or a poor quality original?
Quite some time ago, in 2008, while reading a thread about Greek medals on the Axis History Forum, I saw a 1940 War Cross being commented on as a fake, because of a particular feature: The 1940 date on the reverse was "tilted or twisted at an angle". The medal was then jokingly named "the Karagyozi Cross" and that is how I have kept it in my mind, while a large number of these, the majority of which shared a number of defects, has been offered on the collecting market since then. Relatively recently, such a specimen was added to my collection and I had the opportunity to examine its features more closely, also comparing it to others with the same features.
According to G. Stratoudakis, "Greek Medals" (2001), the supposed fake, shown here, is a Cross of the 121.21 variation (2nd Class of 121.01). First, we can exclude the possibility of it being cast, since the signs of a forged piece are clearly evident. Closer inspection will also show that the "tilted" date is not the only problematic feature regarding the quality of the award. Do these observations about the award's low-quality construction constitute the evidence for it to be condemned as a fake, though?
According to G. Stratoudakis, "Greek Medals" (2001), the supposed fake, shown here, is a Cross of the 121.21 variation (2nd Class of 121.01). First, we can exclude the possibility of it being cast, since the signs of a forged piece are clearly evident. Closer inspection will also show that the "tilted" date is not the only problematic feature regarding the quality of the award. Do these observations about the award's low-quality construction constitute the evidence for it to be condemned as a fake, though?
The first observations: A "step" on the left side of the upper arm, also observed on the lower side of the right one, probably the result of misaligned die halves, which have caused a clockwise die shift. In my opinion, this is the cause for the "tilted" date on the reverse. The result is also evident in the non-symmetrical lower arm and the excessive material seen on the left side of the central disk, as well as the left sword hilt.
Other imperfections, such as pit marks and possible filing traces can be seen on the surface of the arms.
View of the reverse, showing a number of defects. The "tilted" date, pit and possible filing marks, the non-symmetrical lower arm of the Cross, and a cavity at 2 o'clock, above the date.
Two more striking defects are the "lump" and the cracking seen on the upper arm, where the two halves of the crown are suspended from, through a thin metal sheet.
It is possible that these were caused by the insertion of the latter into the Cross, since its metal is visible through the crack and the length of the "lump" seems to coincide with the one of the sheet.
The materials and the finish of the medal do seem to be period and do not have the appearance of modern, possibly artificially aged, fakes. The low quality of the award may be undeniable, but in my opinion this cannot be considered as condemning evidence on its own. According to the article "An Overview of Forging Processes with Their Defects" by Mahendra G. Rathi and Nilesh A. Jakhade, the above observed imperfections can be the result of a series of factors, such as low metal temperature, poor quality material, malfunctioning, uncleaned machinery and untrained operating personnel, among others.
Given the fact that the production of the 1940 War Cross commenced late during that year and continued during the Occupation and the Liberation, the thought that the existence of the aforementioned factors would be typical during that timeframe, is not without a logical basis. The 121.01 variation was also one of the two -out of six variations in total- to have been produced in all three classes of the award, a fact that could be directly related to a need for immediately available Crosses of all classes during certain periods in comparison to others. Such periods could be the one between November 1940 - April 1941, the whole period of the Occupation, and the immediate post-war era, since the award criteria of each class had not been strictly determined until 1942 and many wartime nominations were only awarded post-war. One should not forget, though, that the Cross was also being awarded -and thus probably manufactured- throughout the 1940s and the early 1950s, for actions that took place not only during WW2, but the Civil and Korean Wars as well. (1)
For the time being, since documentation proving the exact timeframe of the 121.01 variation's manufacture is not known, the thought that it may be an early, wartime one, "suffering" from the conditions and limitations of war economy, is strictly confined within the limits of a hypothesis. Whichever the exact manufacturing period of the defective 121.01 Crosses is, though, there seems to be no solid evidence that can definitely condemn them as fakes. As a result, the "Karagyozi Cross" should be considered as an honest, original, though low-quality, defective example of the aforementioned variation, at least until proven otherwise.
Update, December 7, 2017: An interesting observation about the 121.01 variation is that it is the only one in the dimensions specified by the Emergency Law 2646/1940, regarding the institution of the award. The cross was to have both a length and width of 4 cm, and a diameter of 1,5 cm in the central circle. All other variations are either larger or smaller than this.
The 121.01 variation is also the one depicted on the award certificates, regardless of date.
Notes:
1. Following the categorization of the variations by G. Stratoudakis on "Greek Medals", some interesting observations can be made. Unfortunately, they cannot be proven until archival documentation about the manufacturers and their contracts emerges. As was already mentioned above, only two variations were manufactured in all three classes: 121.01, alongside with its sub-variation 121.01a, and 121.02. All other types (121.03, 121.04, 121.05, 121.06 -and its sub-variations 121.06a and 121.06b) had only examples of the 3rd Class produced, with the exception of 121.03. Reference to the other two classes of the specimen is made, but only as post-manufacture silver or gold-plated ones.
The 121.03 variation is rather interesting due to another fact, too. It bears the same features as the 1946 Gendarmerie War Cross, with the only difference being the respective date on the reverse. Could this also be the date of manufacture of this variation and the later silver and gold-plating an effort of covering a possible shortage in 2nd and 1st Class awards, needed during the Civil War?
Some observations could also be made about the 121.06, 121.06a and 121.06b types. Commonly attributed to Spink, they have been associated with the Exiled Government and the Greek Royal Army Middle East. One interesting point, though, is that this particular maker has produced some postwar awards, too, such as the post 1950, 2nd Type Medal for Outstanding Acts, with which they share the (rather akward for a Greek medal of the era) British, pre-1953-like crown. Further research about which design possibly influenced the other and whether their manufacturing dates coincide or not is certainly needed.
1. Following the categorization of the variations by G. Stratoudakis on "Greek Medals", some interesting observations can be made. Unfortunately, they cannot be proven until archival documentation about the manufacturers and their contracts emerges. As was already mentioned above, only two variations were manufactured in all three classes: 121.01, alongside with its sub-variation 121.01a, and 121.02. All other types (121.03, 121.04, 121.05, 121.06 -and its sub-variations 121.06a and 121.06b) had only examples of the 3rd Class produced, with the exception of 121.03. Reference to the other two classes of the specimen is made, but only as post-manufacture silver or gold-plated ones.
The 121.03 variation is rather interesting due to another fact, too. It bears the same features as the 1946 Gendarmerie War Cross, with the only difference being the respective date on the reverse. Could this also be the date of manufacture of this variation and the later silver and gold-plating an effort of covering a possible shortage in 2nd and 1st Class awards, needed during the Civil War?
Some observations could also be made about the 121.06, 121.06a and 121.06b types. Commonly attributed to Spink, they have been associated with the Exiled Government and the Greek Royal Army Middle East. One interesting point, though, is that this particular maker has produced some postwar awards, too, such as the post 1950, 2nd Type Medal for Outstanding Acts, with which they share the (rather akward for a Greek medal of the era) British, pre-1953-like crown. Further research about which design possibly influenced the other and whether their manufacturing dates coincide or not is certainly needed.