Third Reich signatures.

[Ian Sayer]

I agree entirely!

IS

[saint11]

@hucks & John G.
I am so sorry & believe that I have to apologize. I don't want any "confrontation"
hucks' answers are not always satisfactory to everyone, but this is his very right & he is always serious
1. agree to your choice, but doesn't make you more credible.
2. we are ALL desperately looking for dealers we can trust! is trust now too confiding or more secretive?
in MY opinion the SOURCE of an autograph is one of the most reliable protection against any fakes
3a) thanks for your confirmation "it is fair to assume" means:
"it might not be possible to be 100% sure" = we just don't know
3b) Bittrolff did NOT mention it himself in his resumé, much to my surprise.
his rank was just mentioned by others somewhere else
3c) I guess that serious forgers before they fake signatures exactly do what you did & suggest for serious collectors:
- put in the time and legwork of looking at other examples (real and fake)
- building up a library of books and files to help them
- building up THEIR own experience and libarary.
- only have THEIR own experience to rely on.
3d) I just expressed my doubts about alleged "ink hand-signed by Adolf Hitler".
is THAT so hard to understand? read it again, please!
3e) "it has sold so someone was happy to pay the asking price" is a pretty POOR argument.
if only 1% of his autographs are real, this seems to be part of the 99% (YOUR words)
or HOW do you know better? experience??
5. YOU "stick to collecting Urkunde"? "All you need is a Urkunde and a pen"
because "Urkunde" are NEVER signed by a pencil! agree?
6. you are joking! have you ever seen "dents" of the signature on a pen-signed or faked one?
please answer seriously! at least THIS time....
7. THIS useless listing was provided by YOU! not me...I miss your apology
finally: YOU "come across as fairly confrontational" with your 'invitation' to others: "no-one steps forward to help you"
That will get you "nothing"...said Forum Staff John G.
last but not least: I don't want "confrontation", but I insist on fair exchange of serious arguments
therefore a new attempt to upload my request for help with this german handwriting in Sütterlin. what does it say?



I have been told long ago that this is perfect proof how devoted many germans where to their "Führer"

[hucks216]

1. To be honest with you, I'm not fussed about proving my credibility. I am basically just a collector who is happy to offer advice and opinions if and when asked and if I have the time to help. If I don't know something (and there is a lot I don't know) then I will happily admit to not knowing it and of course I will get things wrong but all I can do is offer the advice and opinion. It's someone elses decision as to whether they take it and I can't affect that bit. Others will sometimes agree while others will offer a different viewpoint - it's all legitimate and discussing the different viewpoints is a good way to learn both for newcomers and the more experierenced.

2. When it comes to revealing what dealers or contacts people use to acquire their items there is indeed a degree of secrecy. When it is getting harder and harder to find good sets and standout items you don't really want to invite competition in acquiring such things. Selfishness? Greed? Yes, very probably - and in fact undoubtedly - but it is the same in all walks of life. If a business has a chance to acquire a good contract from a relatively unknown source they will hardly advertise who that source is and get beaten to the deal. Such magazines as International Medal Collector or Armourer to name but two have loads of adverts from dealers so locating some is very easy.

3c. Yep, forgers do their homework just like collectors. Some do it very, very well aiming for the high end level collectors while others barely do any homework and aim at the newcomers and hope that the newcomers lack of knowledge will make them a few $$$. A piece of paper, a pen and make a quick SS related citation and hope that a newcomer sees the 'SS' and buys without thinking because he doesn't know any better or lets that initial 'wow' feeling to overrule his gut instinct. Everybody has done it - you probably won't find a single collector who hasn't bought a fake at some point in time but it is all part of the learning experience. And that is why Forums are great tools because not only do you have the opportunity to learn from your own mistakes but you get the chance to learn from the mistakes of others. As for fakes at every level of the collecting sphere just look at the episode regarding the Hitler Diaries.

5. Urkunde are signed in pen and pencil, usually coloured map pencils as alot of the times it was the closest thing to hand. I have examples of citations signed by von Thoma signed in ink and pencil - the pen signed one was while he was serving in a Staff capacity at OKH so was probably sat at his desk while signing (just an assumption), while the pencil signed one was as a Division Commander so was probably signed during a break from commanding operations from a tent somewhere. It just all comes down to what the signing officer preferred or what he had to hand at the time. And in some circumstances the commanding officer preferred to use a stamped version of his signature so didn't even need to bother about that side of the 'Admin trail'. He could just leave it in the hands of his adjutant or whoever he designated to deal with such things.
The difference between forging a signature on postcard and on a citation is that on a citation the faker has to get more things right - does the soldier's unit correspond with the signer's unit (even if the soldier's unit was seconded from another division), does the signers rank & position correspond with the date, is the unit designation correct for that time frame, is the stamp correct, is the signature correct, does the officer (or unit) even have the relative authority to issue such an award etc etc.
When it comes to photos and postcards that isn't my area of collecting but others can tell if a photo is from the period or if it was printed postwar.

6. I think something is getting lost in translation here - are you referring to the impression a pen makes when writing on paper? Can you show what you mean?

I have no doubt that many many Germans were devoted to their Führer, but with an original postcard sent from one person to another all a faker has to do is add a bogus AH signture to the front and the asking price goes from $10 to $900. See this example (you might have to register)... http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/photos-pa ... ph-143619/

And my 'Invitation' was just some friendly advice.
I, for one, am done here. Enjoy the hobby.

[saint11]

@hucks, this time I can agree to most of your posting, even if it sounds a bit 'fussed'
1. To be honest with you, I'm always concerned about my credibility.
I would not show off to own a real autograph but then don't even show it
I would not call anything a fake without having seen it before and without any real argument
all we do here is "discussing the different viewpoints" and there are again but just a few differences
2. when a deal is done, HOW can you "get beaten to the deal"?
you obviously simply deny the importance of a source to prove the authenticity of an autograph
I definitely would ask every dealer, WHERE he got the document from.
your example (6. warrelics) is a good example, because the sender of the postcard
most likely would have proudly mentioned it if he got it from the "Führer" himself.
I have never heard, that anyone forged Hitlers signature as long as he lived or did YOU?
perhaps that postcard was found on a flee-market long after the war for a few pennies
and then 'embellished' by an artistic counterfeiter. the addressee would know best if real or fake.
so again: one MUST know, where something comes from in a believable context
you can't compare it with "the Hitler Diaries", which were sold for over 9 million 'hard currency'
after they were deemed genuine by experts. see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Diaries
and here: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/crim ... index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/world ... .html?_r=0
http://www.unmuseum.org/hitlerdiaries.htm http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/arch ... er_diaries
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irv ... ng-01.html
http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/r ... itler.html
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packa ... 23,00.html
6. you wrote: "...the pencil signed one was as a Division Commander
so was probably signed during a break from commanding operations from a tent somewhere.
It just all comes down to what the signing officer preferred or what he had to hand at the time"
if you really believe, that german documents could be valid and legally signed by pencil,
you don't know german laws & habits
the german word is "dokumentenecht", indelible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_gall_ ... .281933.29
today its described by ISO-standards: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catal ... 00&ICS3=40&
the germans were always strict in those things,
he could have signed documents without his uniform and weapon,
stark naked in his 'tent', but NOT without registrar's ink,
however urgent (?) that signature may have been, it would have been invalid by law in germany!
that nothing "is getting lost in translation here"
Oxford Dict. explains 'dent' as "slight hollow as made by a blow or pressure"
THAT I meant with imprint/impress of his "mighty hand".
you did not answer, if you've ever seen a forged "hollow made by pressure"
I wildly guess, that >99% of forgeries are made with ink, where ink normally doesn't show clear 'dents'
btw: I am neither a collector nor is it my "hobby" to deal with the most dangerous men in history.
over 50 million dead victims of WWII which shaped the world until today seems to be reasonable enough,
'just some friendly advice'

[obsidion2]

Still waiting for any responses to the pictures I posted on page 27. Seems to be a lot of ranting and raving lately on this thread so maybe someone's expertise can assist me in the identification of some of the signers in those pics. Thanks in advance.

[Ian Sayer]

Here is a pencil signature of Rommel on an award document.

I have had another look at the signatures on your posts obsidion2. Personally I don't recognize any of those you are attempting to identify. I have also carefully checked those signatures which you have identified and unfortunately I have come to the conclusion (and this is only my personal opinion) that none of those signatures were signed by the individuals who they purport to be. I have compared them with the many original examples I have available and , in addition, I have taken into account some contemporary consistencies which are lacking with these examples. It is probably more than extremely unlikely that Dr Ley would sign his name on the leg of a nude woman but , in any event, the signature is markedly different to the many originals I have seen or have available. Apart from that Dr Ley simply did not write the initial 'R' in the way it appears on your photo. The wartime Eva / Johanna item does not, I believe, contain the genuine signatures of Eva Braun or Johanna Wolf. I think it is extremely unlikely that either of these individuals would have added a plus sign to denote that they were together. Johanna Wolf's signature during the war was not the same as her post war signature which is similar to the one that appears on your example. Eva Braun's genuine signature is consistently different to the one on your program. The same comments apply to the second 'Eva/Johanna example. I do not believe that either of them would have written 'und' to apparently denote their collective presence at this event. It is not impossible that that they would have written their names at such an angle but, in my opinion, extremely unlikely. Again, in my opinion, they would only have signed with their christian names only as a souvenir for someone who was very close to one or both of them. If that was the case I believe you would have seen some reference to the recipient which was the norm during the Third Reich period. I also think you would expect to see more signatures of well known personalities. Finally, although Sepp Dietrich had variant signatures I do not believe that this is one of them. All four of these examples exhibit a trait which Third Reich document experts may find familiar. When forging documents from the period there is a tendency not to include too many well known names because that increases the possibility of detection. However in order to make the item more plausible the forgers tend to add people who either don't exist or individuals whose signatures it would be very difficult to check. There is also a tendency to use the same pencil or pen for all the signatures. Although it is feasible that signatories might use the same writing implement ,in my opinion, it would have been extremely rare. I believe all four examples contain these traits.
To summarise it is my considered opinion that all four of these images contain signatures which have been forged by a third party. Making such an unwelcome comment can sometimes provoke anger in the person who currently owns them . As a result , quite often, people with the knowledge and experience necessary to detect forgeries simply let sleeping dogs lie. The reason is simple. Providing an opinion which is at variance with the person who owns the document(s) often just lead to a tirade of abuse and requests for more information etc., etc., That is often time consuming and in the end,doesn't always help. However forgeries affect all collectors and unless somebody occasionally stands up and says what they think there will be more and more forgeries. In the past forty years I have purchased forgeries myself on quite a few occasions. Sometimes you just don't notice it for a while but whenever you do it is very irritating and , unless you bought the forgery from a reputable company who will refund your money, usually you will end up out of pocket. Anyway that's it. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but sometimes you just have to do what you think is right. Other people may have a different opinion to mine and, if they do, so be it. What I have said is, after all, just an opinion!

[Ian Sayer]

Sorry. Forgot this!

[obsidion2]

I don't take offense to contradictory opinion's ,I welcome them. Other creditable collectors have looked at these to try and identify the unknowns and they had a difference of agreement to what you say. Some of your reasons to the lack of authenticity are simply assumptions and with that said there could likewise be assumptions made to validate as example the location of the signature and or the angle of which the signature were made. One could say that being the drunkard Ley was, why would he even bother to worry about the presence (location) to where he signed a postcard for someone,and that someone likely had but the one writing device while they obtained the sigs. The same writing implement could be explained as example on the birthday guest book page that there was but one type of writing implement in place for the guests to sign as they made there way into the birthday party. Being as all the stationary the signatures are on pass a black light test ,I tend to disagree. One could come up with many pro and con assumptions to explain the obvious as well as the irregularities found on multiple signed items. Thank you for your opinion Ian.

[Ian Sayer]

OK obsidion 2. I have noted what you say and look forward to hearing from anybody else who might like to venture an opinion on your four items. I am glad that you have recognized the fact that my comments simply represent my own opinion and, of course, are open to challenge.

[obsidion2]

Opinions on cut war sigs of Joachim Peiper, Theodor Tolsdorff, and a Kurt Meyer.

[hucks216]

I'm sorry but I believe they are all postwar fakes and well known, and usually there is a Wittmann & Dietrich one as well to name just two more. The Peiper one especially has been discussed before on other forums. They are/were made for the 'designer' clipping market (and all possibly from the same source) where you can buy one on a pencil sketch etc as sold from art gallery sites and suchlike. The two images I attach are fakes - see how similar, if not identical, the Peiper signature is to yours...

[obsidion2]

All these sigs are are on individual 3.5' x 5.5' pieces of war era no glow paper that correspond to what a HJ kid would have had signed. They are not literally cut form a sheet of multiple sigs as the 2 you show. Thanks for your opinion.

[hucks216]

While black-light testing is useful it is by no means fool proof. The paper could well be from the period, or even made from the same materials, but the signatures added post-war. Alternatively period paper might glow because in the past 68 years it has come into contact with modern chemicals which has transfered on to them.
Also, don't you think it is a little coincidental that the three you show just happen to be on the same type of paper as the three I show on the second image?

[valkyrie]

Quick solution to the problem is don't collect cut signatures unless the provenance can be absolutley proved - and this will be almost never. With all the good fakes on the market, even authentic cut sigantures are devalued. As a close second to this I would say be wary of signed photos. The more text your have the better on a document.

Colin

[Max Williams]

I totally agree with Ian and Hucks. In my opinion, you have unfortunately purchased a large number of fake signatures. Ian's points are well made and you should take notice of what he says. He is one of the best in the business.
I disagree with Colin's suggestion of not collecting clipped signatures. Sometimes these are the only examples available of certain autographs, or even within the price range of some collectors. However, he is correct about the difficulty in authenticating clipped examples and we are none of us infallible. The main thing to remember when considering clipped signatures is to know your source.
Max.