wehrmacht awards


Go Back   Wehrmacht-Awards.com Militaria Forums > Wehrmacht Era Militaria > Photos and Paper Items Forum

Photos and Paper Items Forum Awards Document and any photo related to the era.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Hans Joachim Marseille Signed Photo
Old 04-22-2011, 11:08 PM   #1
Craig Gottlieb
Expelled
 
Craig Gottlieb's Avatar
 
Craig Gottlieb is offline
Join Date: May 2001
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 3,570
Default Hans Joachim Marseille Signed Photo

I have had this photo for some time, since purchasing it from a very reputable source. I've never had a bad comment about it until tonight via email, but wished to post it here on the forum for any comments. The emailer gave no specifics, only "shaming" me for not listenting to him. From my perspective, the photo in person exhibits the natural characteristics of a genuine signature (that you can't really see until you inspect it in person): fountain pen ridges on the sides of the lettering, natural flow of ink, etc. I do value forum opinion, however, and wanted to post it here.



http://www.craiggottlieb.com/engine/...rman+Militaria
 

This post
Old 04-23-2011, 01:13 AM   #2
Jeremy
Member
 
Jeremy is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 766
Default This post

Erhm, there was no 'shaming'. I saw he was selling this item and sent a series of authentic signatures when I suggested he was selling a fake. It was on hold to a customer, who may be burning their money. He was unable to use the authentic items tI sent to see that many of the features common to them were clearly different to what I consider to be a fake he is selling. I even offered to go into detail on why I thought (not 100% stated) it was a fake (no reply).

I don't believe he deliberately is selling it as a fake, and suggested that if he was not knowledgeable enough to confirm it as genuine he should post it here, just as I did after I saw he had done so. He has done that, though it was churlish to mention I 'shamed' him into it. So, please let us know your thoughts guys.

Thanks

J
 

closeup
Old 04-23-2011, 01:25 AM   #3
Jeremy
Member
 
Jeremy is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 766
Default closeup

oh, and here's a closeup of the sig
J
Attached Images
File Type: jpg marseille closeup.jpg (52.5 KB, 2427 views)
 

Old 04-23-2011, 06:50 AM   #4
max history
Member
 
max history is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
Erhm, there was no 'shaming'. I saw he was selling this item and sent a series of authentic signatures when I suggested he was selling a fake. It was on hold to a customer, who may be burning their money. He was unable to use the authentic items tI sent to see that many of the features common to them were clearly different to what I consider to be a fake he is selling. I even offered to go into detail on why I thought (not 100% stated) it was a fake (no reply).

I don't believe he deliberately is selling it as a fake, and suggested that if he was not knowledgeable enough to confirm it as genuine he should post it here, just as I did after I saw he had done so. He has done that, though it was churlish to mention I 'shamed' him into it. So, please let us know your thoughts guys.

Thanks

J
Jeremy,
You are obviously having serious doubts concerning the authenticity of this signed postcard portrait. I note from the above posts that you sent Craig some examples of what you consider to be authentic signatures. Can I suggest that this thread might benefit from your views if you expand on your opinion and provide a full explanation of your concerns and the reasons for them? In addition, it would be helpful if you posted images of the signatures you consider to be authentic and which you used as comparisons.
I should add that Craig's example is as near as damn it to an authentic Marseille autograph as I have seen. So, if it is fake, it's a bloody good one. My only concern is that it is an exact copy of the example in the Hamilton book and therefore physical examination would be preferable before determining authenticity. Unfortunately, I do not have a Marseille signature in my collection to compare. (I do not collect Luftwaffe signatures.)
Regards,
Max.

Last edited by max history; 04-23-2011 at 06:59 AM.
 

Old 04-23-2011, 09:37 AM   #5
WalterB
Lifetime Member
 
WalterB's Avatar
 
WalterB is online now
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: . . . . .
Posts: 6,764
Default

I am not a graphologist, but the following document that I have in my collection comes from what I consider to be a very solid source. Perhaps a good comparison can be made of his signature. The document is Marseille's engagement report where he claims his 48th air victory. The report states, loosely, as follows:

"Engagement Report of Shootdown

After my first firing of the Curtiss, I attacked a second English fighter, likewise a Curtiss, flying from the direction of the Gambut airfield. The Curtiss had spotted me and forced me to immediately turn into a downward left turn. I circled along and fired at the Curtis in a left turn from a distance of approximately 50 meters, shots hitting the engine and cockpit. I pulled up over the Curtiss and went above it since I was being attacked by two other English fighters. I did observe that the Curtiss created a large dust formation upon impact.

Impact location: On February 15, 1942 at 13:03 hours. 5 km southeast of Gambut airfield."

As a side note, some research online on Marseille's 47th and 48th air victories revealed the following:


"Kittyhawk Is from No. 3 Squadron RAAF, near Gambut airfield. The Kittyhawks were bounced by two Bf 109s during takeoff. Marseille's first victory was Kittyhawk I AK594; Pilot Officer P. J. "Tommy" Briggs, bailed out at an altitude of 100 m and was injured. The second victory was Kittyhawk I AK605: Flight Sergeant F. B. (Frank) Reid was killed when it crashed."
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Marseille4.jpg (101.0 KB, 2379 views)
__________________
When you go home
Tell them for us and say
For your tomorrow
We gave our today

--Inscription in the 5th Marine Division cemetery,
Iwo Jima 1945

Last edited by WalterB; 04-23-2011 at 09:43 AM.
 

Old 04-23-2011, 11:02 AM   #6
Craig Gottlieb
Expelled
 
Craig Gottlieb's Avatar
 
Craig Gottlieb is offline
Join Date: May 2001
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 3,570
Default

My reasons for having confidence in the signature are ample. In PERSON and under magnification, the signature exhibits natural ink flow, and the split fountain-pen nib that results from pressure characteristic of card-stock signatures signed in fountain pen, is present.

Furthermore, "Forger's shake" is also absent (erratic, unconnected lines that reveal anxiety and nerves present when a forger is risking damage to a valuable photo by adding a signature). Marseilles wouldn't care that he was signing a photo of himself - they were valued at a few pfennigs at the time.

These elements are three very significant signs of the signature being executed by the personality, and not a forger. I have had significant and substantial experience in my 11 years as a full-time dealer, and twice that long as a full-time collector, and can spot fake signatures.

Finally, although the physical evidence is sufficient, the price I paid was almost nothing, thereby removing the profit motif. Again, please feel free to ignore this statement, as it's not the "main attraction" but merely added color.
 

My case
Old 04-23-2011, 12:48 PM   #7
Jeremy
Member
 
Jeremy is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 766
Default My case

Thanks WalterB for posting the example. If we look at the examples I am posting they are certainly similar to WalterB's example. See below. I can only post two photos in this reply but will add more.

Max, your comment does very little to add weight to the argument that this is a genuine signature. You suggest I post some signatures that support my argument but you offer nothing. Please post examples that show what your opinion is based on and use them to support your view, too.

Firstly, I disagree that the signature illustrates 'natural' flow - based on the close up, it looks like a measured attempt at copying. Note on the signatures on postcards presented the variability of the ink consistency and shade. Also, I have pointed with red arrows to areas of the signature that I believe illustrate a fakers controlled attempt at signing. The thickness of the ink in these parts also seems unnaturally thick and do not run properly in my view, perhaps due to the steady attempt to do the signature.

Secondly, see the unnatural and rapid transition between the thick and thin ink flow not evident in the comparison examples presented. I have used blue arrows to point to these.

Thirdly, with green arrows I point to the major differences to the comparison examples. Note the 'W' shape of the letter M in the comparisons and look at the one in Craig's example. Also, the lack of the 'L' shaped letter I (second green arrow from left illustrates this absence). Then, on what I believe are good examples of signatures, note the shape for the two letter L's. They are upright, symmetrical, and the ink flow even.

These are merely my justifications and I am no graphologist either, but even a layman can see that this signature is clearly inconsistent in comparison to the other signatures which present a degree of consistency. Of course my argument is based on the fact that I consider the examples I have shown to be genuine - there is no guarantee that this is so, but I would suggest that a collector would be foolhardy to part with a lot of money for Craig's postcard. There is clearly sufficient doubt in my mind to warrant this discussion here.

Now, either the examples presented, as well as by WalterB, are dubious, or 1 (!!) presented by Craig is genuine. There are sufficient differences I have pointed out that raise enough concern for any collector that Craig's Marseille is very problematic. Perhaps if Marseille had signed it with his non-writing hand he would have produced this... then it is genuine I guess, and like the one's Max has seen.

I am happy to be shown I am wrong, so I look forward to an informed response from someone with expertise which shows my judgements to be flawed and why so (but I still wouldn't buy it).

J
Attached Images
File Type: jpg marseille closeup marked.jpg (51.8 KB, 2319 views)
File Type: jpg My own postcard.jpg (91.4 KB, 2323 views)
 

Old 05-15-2011, 10:37 AM   #8
Steven6095
New Member
 
Steven6095 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 24
Default

As a long time collector (18+ years or so), I am not an expert on Marseille's signature and I am not going to comment one way or the other toward the authenticity of it.

I will say though, if you look at the one that is in question, to me if looks like it was NOT signed on a flat surface.

Looks like it was signed while "he" was holding it in his hand
Combat reports, etc were likely signed on a flat hard table. This looks like someone handed it to him perhaps.
 

Signing
Old 05-16-2011, 12:51 AM   #9
Jeremy
Member
 
Jeremy is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 766
Default Signing

Steven6095, as you are a collector of many years, irrespective of not being an expert on Marseille sigs (who is?), I still think your views based on your experience are valuable to this discussion, so can you also comment further on these clippings which have appeared on the market.

Thanks for the thoughts about the nature of the signing.
 

Old 05-16-2011, 09:56 AM   #10
Steven6095
New Member
 
Steven6095 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 24
Default

I have purchased items from the gentleman in question before and I have been pleased. I don't have any doubt he is being honest with people.

Do I believe a dealer can get ahold of a bad item every now and then -of course! How many museums, etc have discovered fake items in their collections over the years (not just German aviation, but in general).

It happens. In my opinion one bad item does not ruin a dealer for me - then again the item may not be bad! I am not saying he has / is selling fakes. I don't think he is, but EVERYONE has sold a bad signature in their life.

Just saw a secretarial signed Walt Disney go for a pretty amount from a well known dealer on eBay. Honest mistake I can assure you. It happens.

----
Regardless, as far as everyone comparing signatures, I am a bit perplexed by some of the comparisons. For example, Jeremy pointed out the thickness of the letters at various places. That is a legit concern, but if you look at it again, to me it was a different type of pen. Not just that, but if someone is going to forge a signture it is going to look right!

Sometimes those signatures that are not PERFECT have the best chance at being legit.

You also have to look at the signature in a time context.
For example: Over the course of the war, Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer had nearly a dozen different signatures all verifiable from combat reports, etc.
Signatures change. Try to date that signed card - by card publication date, etc and see if there are any reports around that time to compare signatures too.

You also have to think about how a signature was signed.
Take an index card and sign your name. Then take another index card and hold it in your hand and sign it. There will be a different.
More than likely - the signature will be signed slower and the areas that you normally press harder will be darker due to pen pressure against your hand vs a hard surface.

As for the clipping issue - I don't like that term - to me these are signed cards.
It is well documented that kiddos sent them to the pilots to be signed. It was a massive PR stunt and everyone on this forum knows that.
With that said - they are out there.
Granted very few people had the notion to start buying them up after the war...but they did exist and are out there.

As for paper aging, etc. I am also a framer focusing in conservation, etc. Papers from long ago are actually more stable a lot of times than modern papers. Less bleaching, less processing, etc. Same thing goes for ink.
I will spare everyone the technical details, but especially if the paper / signature has not seen light, a 1940 document could be in very nice shape.

---
Is your photo authentic - I am not sure. I would not write it off on simply letter formation, etc. Too much not standard with it and not the normal flaws you may see in a forged signature.

--

A master forger can make anything appear authentic. It happens folks and its out there. Autographs have to be approached with a lot of caution.

The decision in my mind does not come down to it if is authentic or not, but in your mind is it consistant enough with a known good signature, does the dealer have a good reputation and what does your gut tell you. I have returned autographs in the past simply because I can't say they are 100% forged, but I would rather have one I can be more sure about if it was authentic or not.

Know the singatures inside and out and you make the decision if it is good or not. Don't depend on anyone's word or anyone's CofA.

---

Also, several of these signatures have the same date on them.
What happened that day during the war? Was it a slow day or did he see combat all day? Check the weather that day! Were the fighters grounded due to sand storms, etc. I don't know the answer to what happened that day, but if it was a slow day - why coundn't he have sit down and answered his "fan" mail ?? Better question why would a forger sign the same date over and over again? Copying a known good perhaps, but just something to think about.
 

Marseille
Old 05-16-2011, 11:15 AM   #11
Jeremy
Member
 
Jeremy is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 766
Default Marseille

Thanks for the character reference for the dealer. There's plenty of people who don't want to face the possibility that they blew their hard cash on fakes (especially designer clippings). I can state the opposite, of course. Nothing gained I'm afraid. Not so interested in that side of things anyway. The interest is primarily in showing the BS out there, so some people wake up to the BS stuff.

You need to see (again?) the Hartmann thread and the BS clippings (feel free to disagree and provide an argument against the ideas I posted on that thread with examples) and then consider the Marseille clippings - from the same source, and Rudel.

Quote:
Jeremy pointed out the thickness of the letters at various places. That is a legit concern, but if you look at it again, to me it was a different type of pen.
Yes, obviously a different pen, that is not the issue. Look at the nature of the signatures which are stated as good (I and others believe) in the Wubbe book and hamilton one, and consider the others believed to be BS - there are two types of signature which can be discriminated.

I'd be interested to see 12 different examples of Schnaufer signatures. That would make a good thread.

Quote:
It is well documented that kiddos sent them to the pilots to be signed. It was a massive PR stunt and everyone on this forum knows that. With that said - they are out there. Granted very few people had the notion to start buying them up after the war...but they did exist and are out there.
Not disputing the existence of clippings, just that there is a difference between these 'modern' clippings and true wartime clippings. Look at Hartmann and Rudel threads - proper clippings not produced factory style - BS ones nearly all same paper, ink, and pristine. Same for ink on the Hoffmann's.


Agree about the forger, but they make mistakes - Ralf commented in the thread on the error in the combat report in the BS one (which has the same sig as other reports presented). Enough said - he showed us a "dumb faker". Once you find holes in the supposed authenticity of one item that is very similar to others then you can build a good argument against the BS ones (again refer to the argument I am trying to develop for Hartmann). Marseille is a problem as the BS looks good and abounds, so we think it's real as we see it so often - REAL Marseille are extremely rare... I believe most clippings for any personel are very rare. Look at Legends gallery, and all the drawings on clippings done, and clippings in framed prints. If we could build an inventory of all these sigs I expect we would know the scale of this BS stuff. The aviation print industry is driving the BS production to some extent.

So yes, agree completely, know the sigs well and don't depend on what a dealer says. That's exactly the point of these threads.

Re signing on the same day in September, it is mentioned in the thread that Wubbe points out and includes a postcard with stamp sig that Marseille was unable to send out signed clippings/cards cos he was busy fighting a war and pictures of him at that period show him in a state of exhaustion. The forger would not expect that all his stuff would be brought together on one thread... and there is sure to be plenty more stuff with collectors not accessing this forum

Anyway, thanks a lot for posting and sharing your views.
 

BS for the SS
Old 05-16-2011, 12:08 PM   #12
Jeremy
Member
 
Jeremy is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 766
Default BS for the SS

And if you want to see more about the, I believe, BS clippings production line (preferred suppliers to the aviation art galleries), which I believe the Marseille stuff is part of, check this thread. You just won't believe it when you see it.

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=509860

Good explanations for these famous SS people getting together and signing these two and the other clipping are welcome.
 

Proof that Marseille combat reports are fake!
Old 08-04-2011, 08:02 AM   #13
Jeremy
Member
 
Jeremy is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 766
Default Proof that Marseille combat reports are fake!

It’s taken a while, but here is some great hard evidence to support the informed opinion presented in the longer thread titled “Hans Joachim Marseille Signed Photo” ( http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=510951 ) - that the Marseille combat reports are very likely forged.

A world-recognised expert in Germany has analysed two Marseille combat reports (the two combat reports are shown in this post, but are of lower quality due to compressing them to under the forum's file size limits) and has stated they were not typed using a pre-1945 type writer, but were typed using a type writer from 1964-66 containing letter types that did not exist before 1964!! So, these two documents (at least) are FAKE combat reports.

Bernhard Haas works for the Landeskriminalamt (sort of state police) in Stuttgart and is an acknowledged expert in type written document analysis. Here is his website for you to take a look at:
http://www.schriftexperte.de/index.html

It details his expertise:

Publicly appointed and sworn expert at the IHK Stuttgart since 1988. A member of the JRC (Society for forensic Schriftuntersuchung). Co-operation with the University of Mannheim (Institute for writings and documents). Co-operation with the ASQDE (American Society Question Document Examiners) http://www.asqde.org/.

So, there are no doubts about his credentials if you care to check out his website. He is not a friend or colleague, but was employed to investigate the authenticity of the type written content on two Marseille combat reports, which were provided by collectors with the same concerns as many of us.
He was given high resolution scans of the two Marseille combat reports to analyse from two different collectors. He was paid to do this (140 Euro for each report including certification).

And here is the Haas report for both combat reports translated to English (see scans of reports in next post):

I. Order
The scanned reproductions of the two combat reports of Leutnant Hans Joachim Marseille,
dated 13. feb. 1942
and 27.feb. 1942
for which I was asked to prove authenticity-

II. Methods of examination
Physical and technical measurement of the type writing (u.a. stereomikroskopie)
Classifying of the typewriting machine with reference to a typewriter archive.

III.
Examination

The combat reports of Hans Joachim Marseille dated 1942 are identical and were made with one machine
which has the type writing type "Ro 1" (this means the type writer machine letters were manufactured by Ransmayer & Rodrian, Berlin).

Page 2
After researching in the archive, these types of letters were used in machines between 1964 and 1966.
These kinds of letters were mostly used in typewriting machines named Adler/Triumph which were produced in the year 1964.

IV.
Result

After getting all this information together, the result is that these combat reports dated from 1942 and the machine used do not match.
Therefore, there is no doubt that these two combat reports dated 13.feb.1942 and 27.feb. 1942 are fakes.


OK, so we have two FAKE Marseille combat reports which were not typed pre-1945, but were actually produced many years after the war on a 1960’s typewriter. And, very importantly, this confirms that the signatures on both the reports, and any similar signatures (which I previously labelled as the BS set in the other Marseille thread) are also very likely post-war FAKES.

And, coincidentally, as we have seen, Stefan Korlin has posted a combat report (and other material) which has the very same style of signature (see post #122 on this link - http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...rseille&page=5 ), and he has said it was authentic based on his 25 years of experience, etc .etc., but we can say (based on the evidence provided by Herr Haas) that it is very likely to be a forgery. Ooopsss… that would be embarrassing if that combat report was found to be post-war, wouldn’t it…

This issue of forged signatures also applies to any of the other material on that thread which has the very similar type of BS Marseille signature – clippings, Hoffmanns, short messages, Schuldenfreiheitserklärung, Erklärung etc. - it is all very likely forged! Just compare the signatures as I did earlier in that other thread. I think it’s as clear as day.

If you own a Marseille combat report which is like the two shown here, I suggest you send them to Herr Haas (he speaks good English, too, and is happy to help after he returns from vacation in 2 weeks) and employ him to confirm its authenticity. If he finds they are fake, ask about getting your money back from the dealer who, knowingly or unknowingly, sold them to you – a reputable dealer should have no problem with refunding your money in the face of such expert evidence.

And I wouldn’t buy the new (158 combat report) special edition of the Marseille print by Trudgian if it comes with a combat report which matches the two that we now know are forgeries. Colin Frost (Legends Aviation Gallery) and Korlin might like to employ Herr Haas, seeing as we know Frosty was forced to remove the false information about their combat report (and other material) authentication source from his ehangar post, and they don't have any recognised expert to verify the 158 combat reports they are offering with a Trudgian print...

So, we now have very good evidence from a very reputable government and expert source to support what many of us have suspected for a while, and which has been the whole purpose of the informed discussion to bring it out into the open – a lot of the Marseille material out there is very likely forged. You can draw your own conclusions as to the source of this forged material from the postings in the previous Marseille thread – see also the following threads:

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=515434

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=509860

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=514742

Anyway, as we all know, the production and/or selling of forged wartime documents is a criminal offense...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Marseille fake 1.jpg (26.9 KB, 687 views)
File Type: jpg marseille fake 2.jpg (53.5 KB, 688 views)
 

Original report on fake combat reports
Old 08-04-2011, 08:08 AM   #14
Jeremy
Member
 
Jeremy is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 766
Default Original report on fake combat reports

Just to show this is for real, here are the 2 pages from Herr Haas in German detailing what was translated in the previous post.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Haas report page 1 (2).jpg (36.4 KB, 684 views)
File Type: jpg Haas report page 2 (2).jpg (39.0 KB, 687 views)
 

Some comments to consider
Old 08-05-2011, 12:03 AM   #15
Jeremy
Member
 
Jeremy is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 766
Default Some comments to consider

Thanks guys, this has been a team effort.

And I would like to draw your attention to some comments made by Stefan Korlin on ehangar about designer clippings shown on this thread http://ehangar.com/modules.php?name=...ewtopic&t=1342 which are very relevant. Stefan says:


Quote:
All the items are without any doubt (also the items [designer clippings] shown here) genuine and every collector who has experience and knowledge about the german signatures knows, where I am talking about.

They are a lot of people which are not in the business with german signatures does not know, where they are talking about.

If you compare the shown signature here with WWII combat reports etc. you will see in a second, that all the signatures are genuine.

Once again: All the signatures shown here - with Robert Taylor drawings are absolutely genuine. If somebody has and doubts, he could contact me directly and I can send him hundrets of proofs for where I am talking about.

As Stefan suggests, please compare the signature on this clipping below with a Robert Taylor drawing, which Stefan refers to as authentic in the ehangar thread, with the signatures on the fake combat reports.

It seems clear to me that the two fake sigs on the combat reports and this one are almost identical signatures (note the ink features, too) from the same hand, and, therefore, IMO it is also very likely a forged signature on the clipping. There is very certainly more than sufficient doubt about the authenticity of the clipping's signature through making this comparison.


So, as experienced and knowledgeable collectors of German signatures, it appears we know what we are talking about, and our views have been supported by hard evidence of what is fake, and it seems that in this case Stefan does not know what he is talking about, despite having "hundrets [sic] of proofs". And so, one must seriously question the authenticity of other such clippings with artist drawings on the same ehangar link for Rudel, Nowotny, and Rommel which Stefan claims are authentic...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg hans_joachim_marseille%20%282%29.jpg (80.2 KB, 589 views)
 
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump






vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Wehrmacht-Awards.com