Opinions On Originality... - Wehrmacht-Awards.com Militaria Forums

Hundestaffel · 07-15-2012, 01:05 PM

I would very much appreciate what experienced photo collectors have to say about how they feel in regards to the originaility of this photo upon their initial viewing.

*** If you have reservations / doubts etc., then please don't just give a

but explain why you feel the way you do (same goes for a

). This is not a "poll" of any type, nor will I question / criticize anyones opinion(s). I will give more details associated with this photo over the next little while....

Thankx...

"Hundestaffel"

Hundestaffel · 07-15-2012, 01:05 PM

Reverse...

Michael73 · 07-15-2012, 01:18 PM

For me - good one
a bit unsharp, but original

lohengrin · 07-15-2012, 03:23 PM

Sorry Hund... I am not convinced, so I am thinking NOT good... However, I have been wrong before! The edging, together with the random number on the back and the overall quality...

I vote -

**Antonio Scapini** · 07-15-2012, 05:13 PM

Maybe I'm wrong, but from what I see I have to agree with lohengrin, it seems to be a typical "russian-made" post war copy from original negatives.

Helden · 07-15-2012, 08:14 PM

I don't like it at all. It looks like a 2nd or 3rd generation copy, there is a loss of clarity and definition. The fact that it's slightly off centre and the corners of the image are a little bevellled within the frame just add to the overall bad feeling on this one for me. Of course it's not conclusive but my vote is a No.

Mogdala · 07-16-2012, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antony.s

Maybe I'm wrong, but from what I see I have to agree with lohengrin, it seems to be a typical "russian-made" post war copy from original negatives.

I don´t think it is a typical russian-made post war copy. I think it has got a chance.

Andrew Harris · 07-16-2012, 02:56 AM

IMO: this is original photo.

Rostyslav.

Torpedomaat · 07-16-2012, 03:39 AM

I think that it is a cropped and enlarged copy from original image.
However, I see no evidence that it is postwar copy.

Regards,
Haruki

lohengrin · 07-16-2012, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torpedomaat

I think that it is a cropped and enlarged copy from original image.
However, I see no evidence that it is postwar copy.

Regards,
Haruki

As I said before, I may be wrong... but my GUT feeling is 50/60s copy at best. I do think that it is, as Haruki says, an image that was enlarged (after the war), which accounts for the poor quality...

Mark

PS: The subject is GREAT though... and I do not believe that this photo was made to fool collectors...

Hundestaffel · 07-16-2012, 07:34 AM

Thankx for all the replies so far everyone....

This photo was taken from a series of photos from the same SS Officer (not that that makes it an original, period copy), and once in a while you will see photos from that series on e-bay, etc.

Being an SS Hund collector, I personally love the visual of this photo - which is why I purchased it (at a relatively small cost) in the first place - but it has left me in a state of "Photographic Puppy Purgatory" (

) since I received it. It does not "glow", but when put under strong natural (not UV) light and seen under magnification the ink gives off a bizarre, very thick "metallic sparkle" (really no better way to say that) which I have never encountered before in period or post-war copies.

More opinions / comments are definitely welcome...

"Hundestaffel"

m-e-h-t · 07-16-2012, 07:49 AM

these "round corners" of the image confusing me. I dont think it is a repro, but a postwar copy made for memory.
Hard to judge

Torpedomaat · 07-16-2012, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lohengrin

but my GUT feeling is 50/60s copy at best.

I cannot say for sure whether it is wartime or postwar but I know how you feel.

HoydenR · 08-28-2012, 09:11 AM

A little late to post, but I thought I would comment on this because I learned something about photos this past spring.

I don't know enough about photos to be able to determine whether THIS ONE it is an original or not, but some things kind of stick out to me. I don't like that the photo isn't centered on the paper. That would put me off buying it, original or not.

Every time I see a photo with this type of edging on it, the first thing that pops into my brain is "deckle scissors". I have several pairs of paper crafting scissors with that edging on them.

Back in April/May, there was a Vintage Paper show in San Francisco, I wasn't able to go, but a friend went and purchased what she thought and was told were original photos from the mid 1940's of lighthouses.

I questioned the the age of the photos because I paper they were printed on felt wrong to my touch, the way the edges were cut seemed off and there was some "feathering" to the edges of the photos.

The paper was the glaring wrong thing to me. We compared the paper to the pictures that I had purchased from Hundenstaffel and the few that Paul had bought on Ebay for me for confirmation. Under a kids toy microscope it was plain as day that the paper was wrong and the ink was wrong.

It was noticeable to ME because of my knowledge of fabric due to historical reenacting and my habit of running my fingers over papers, fabric, leather etc.

Bottom line was someone with some paper from the late 1950's printed the photos from negatives with a high end color laser printer and cut the edges out with a pair of Provo Craft "deckle" edge scissors. (GOOD printers can scan slides and negatives, I have one that does both.)

Tiffany contacted the seller and go her money back. The seller played stupid, but I am not convinced.

The devil is in the details.