Hans Joachim Marseille Signed Photo

[Jeremy]

Yeah, Rommel is a possible thread but it is hard to determine good from fake for him. Hartmann is much easier to show the fakes.

I hve more Kittel clippings and a Hoffmann signed - BS and not hard to locate - but there is no point starting a thread until we can get hold of a good example.

Here are two Marseille on ebay. Not for me.... but interesting examples.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Hans-Joachim-Mar...item2310cca96f

http://cgi.ebay.com/Hans-Joachim-Mar...item2310cca94d

[Steven6095]

May I ask why you think the Kittels are BS ?
Not wanting to start a Kittel thread / hijack this one, but why do you say BS with no evidence to the contrary? The two on the link worry me, but what is wrong with at least mine?

Same question on the Marselles on ebay- other than where they MAY trace back to?

[Jeremy]

Steven6095, let's leave Kittel for the moment. I'll get round to it. There are three threads plus the SS one I am working on already.

Please don't use this thread to start posting other sigs except Marseille ones for discussion. Please start another thread if you want to, and do some digging yourself.

[Jeremy]

So, back to Marseille. I talked about Wubbe and that postcards were sent in response to requests from autograph seekers with a paragraph on them stating that Marseille was busy etc. Well here it is.

The back reads:

"The circumstances on the African battlefield make it impossible for me
to answer all the many letters that I get from home. Especially on requests of photos or autographs. I beg you to take this card instead."

[frankandfrank]

Originally Posted by Steven6095

I don't have much to add. Nothing much more can be said other than finding definite proof one way or the other.

We all have different experiences, but personally I will continue to buy from the source in question in addition to other sources I have dealt with, but as always everything is on a piece by piece basis.

As for rarety - you are right with some people signed more than others. Some were more famous than others as well.

Udet for example was famous from WW1, traveled all over the world, more than a little vain and signed all kinds of stuff!

Rommel was well known and well signed as well ,but his is also a very simplistic signature to copy...



My Kittel is not as good as the scan shows.
It is on rougher paper and at one point was glued to a black piece of paper.
It is also only about 2 inches tall or so. Some bleed through to the black paper as well and the signature is a bit if not a lot more faded into the paper than the scan shows.

And I have to comment on this signature: IMO whomever signed the one on the left also signed mine. Be it Kittel or other.
1) Pen pressure is extremely common between the two.
2) The cross in the "tt" is at the same height between the signatures.
3) e
Pressure is greatly decreased coming on the up stroke of the L and increases on the downstroke at the same place.
4) The dot on the I is a VERY light touch in both signatures starting left to right.
5) The height of both tops of the K in relation to each other and in relation to the top right limb of the K.
6) The big thing for me - Kittel signatures most often always have a slight arch shape to them.
Both look like very natural signatures. The both hand signed mine and one of the ones you posted. The other scan is not high enough quality to fairly do.
Now someone post a KNOWN GOOD of him
The signature on the multisigned article, looks more purposeful. The loop at the top of the K is seperate, the T's are crossed a bit longer and a bit higher, the dot in I is a bit more controlled.
Could be a matter of him simply taking his time or this multi signed one was signed earlier or later than the two others or in a more formal enviroment. Scan would have to be much better before I could comment further.

Also - no comment toward this from me, but http://www.leisuregalleries.com/kittel.html has two signatures as well.

The postwar Kittel has more stops in the signature than writting.

[Jeremy]

To ease comparison between the ones some of us are saying are good sigs and some BS, pease look at the pdfs. It helps you see the differences more clearly.

Steven6095, I have included the one from ebay on one of the pdf's. Please take a look and see what you think. I think it is not a good sig.

Again, a general tendency I recently noticed is that the 2 letter 'L's on the right in the good ones (including the facsimilies on photos) lean slightly to the right, but in the BS ones they go straight up. Agree??

[Jeremy]

I thought it would also be informative to do a comparison between 3 good ones on one pdf, and three BS ones on a pdf.

If you are looking to buy a Marseille, open either pdf, then save the file as a .doc file, then open file with Word, and lastly add the sig you want to buy under the other 3 for checking. Bingo, you will have 3 examples of either good sigs or 3 examples of bad to compare it with!!!

[Steven6095]

Okay folks - I am a graphical person and someone who needs a good summary every now and then.

On the left is one type of signature that I believe has been proven as authentic on these threads.

On the right is the other type of signature that is doubtful.

Between all the other signatures, they seem to match one of these two styles.
I picked the two best and clearest examples to illustrate.

Red Circle:
Version 1 is a smooth downward slope.
Version 2 changes direction before heading down.

Signatures do infact change - but normally you can see a progression. For example, for me the biggest question is the redirection in the red and purple circles. The entire signature on the left does not exhibt a single turn like that.

Blue Circle:
Version 1 heavy / medium pen stroke up.
Version 2 light pen stroke up. Maybe be a variance in arch, but its tiny.

Green Circle:
Version 1 well definded open loop
Version 2 poorly defined closed loop.

Purple Circle:
Version 1 Rounded very much like stroke seen in red circle.
Version 2 Another sharp point and change of direction

Yellow circle:
Every autograph has this additional ink on the tail of the letter which I still can't figure out why. Maybe just a habit of his.

Letter formation pen pressure wise on the L's, transitions between letters, etc could still indicate the same person's hand, but two distinct signatures for sure.

If I had a time machine to check - I would bet that both styles are period. I say one is his hand writing and the other is someone who answered his mail with him / for him.
Why would a forged signature be so different.

Now the question is this and I think it is a serious one that needs to be evaluated.
We need some dated known good examples. These signatures are not close to each other date wise, but perhaps could be years apart. These signatures having the same date would be a huge problem in my opinion.
What was the date on the one on the left?

[Jeremy]

Nice work. Yes, two sets of sigs. So Marseille died in Sept 1942 and did not receive his Knights Cross until feb 1942. Meteoric rise to fame. I doubt he really started signing until mid 1941 at the earliest. IMO there is a short time frame here.

BUT, most clearly, we have good Wubbe examples from May, June and Sept 1942 which closely resemble the Hamilton sig. We have BS ones for Sept 1942. That leaves no time frame for change - the BS ones are signed 9 and 12 September. It's one or the other type of sig - the Wubbes which match the Hamilton verified sig, or the other lot (the BS ones I believe).

I think we can discount variation over time.

[Steven6095]

I will through this out.

In my opinion, the second set of signatures seem to be signed faster than the first. The pressure between the two is a lot better than you would normally see in a forgery.

What is the chance that what we are looking at is a "formal" signature and more of a shorthand / quicker, every day version??

Just thinking out loud.

The more I look at it, the more I see both of these signatures being extremely natural.....???......
I dont know what to think anymore LOL

[Lancaster]

Perhaps it may be worth reading this from Stefan Korlin he posted this on eHanger today


http://www.ehangar.com/modules.php?n...r=asc&start=15

[Jeremy]

Lancaster, thanks for posting the link. See my responses on "Help with sigs" and the Hartmann threads.

Steven6095, I think the idea that there is a formal or informal sig is interesting.
Several of the BS Hoffmans with Marseille sigs are signed cleanly with his rank added underneath (post #5), others not.

Some BS clippings have the same thing with rank under the sig (see post #65, #78, #71). I don't see that as an informal style when someone adds rank to a clipping ( a variety of formality can be seen on the diary pages on 'Help with sigs' thread, post #22).

The BS clipping (#44) with the text from Marseille would seem to be the context for a more informal style of sig, but he gives surname only, rank, location and date. Again, I personally do not see that as a sign of being more informal. The BS clipping (see post #64) with the same type of surname sig but full name is comparatively more informal I would say, as he uses his first name as well as surname. We have varieties of informality here.

BTW, I narrowly define informality in writing here as the use of the first name without rank, position or title. I don't read German, but the nature of the text being signed will also determine the level of informality. The BS combat reports (eg post #51) are indeed a more formal context, but signed with the same style of surname as those on the clippings and Hoffmanns.

The type of Hoffmanns and clippings and combat reports (a more formal context) in the one set I believe are BS do not for me reflect any consistent level of informality which is generalisable to that whole set. We would expect to see variability in levels of formality within this set anyway, because of the different contexts for signing. The variation in formality is also an indication that these are a set of sigs, a set with the same style of surname sigs.

My view of differences in levels of formality are evident in the informal style shown in two good photos on this thread in posts (see #75 and #69) where he uses only his first name - authentic examples of informality. So we have good examples of more formal sigs on official documents in Wubbe and informal sigs (first name) in the two posts I mention. To be expected given the contexts for signing.

I also have photos of a letter sent in a recent PM from another collector which was bought from a Marseille relative in the 70's which again shows this, but the collector does not want it shown here. Sorry, you'll have to take my word for it. It is not about one set of sigs being more informal than another.

Can I just add that if you (or anyone else, please) are going to suggest ideas such as this one for why there are two types of Marseille sigs, can you please use the sigs to support your argument as I have tried to do throughout this thread? Thanks for posting.

[Luger-Hunter]

Dear users !

Sorry to tell you this, but some of the "experts" should be use the "Bundesarchiv-material" to have some comparisons.
Jerremy and "FrankandFrank" should compare those material and
than they can find out, that many of their posted threads are
not correct and absolutely bull****. I am not here to get in trouble
with the "experts" here, but for instant the combat report which
was posted here is absolutely and doubtless signed by Marseille
and it came out of a hundret percent source.

Signatures are always a problem - but the biggest problem is, if
to many "experts" write to much about signatures with a low level
of knowledge about what they say. Please forgive me to write this,
but not only the two mentioned guys should be make more research
before they tell what is a fake and what is real.

If somebody is not happy with what I write, than please feel free to
contact me directly to my email adress.
I have here more than enough proofs out of hundret percent correct
sources (like document center, Bundesarchiv etc.) to proof, that some
of the posted threads are incorrect.

Best regards S. Körlin

[Lancaster]

Originally Posted by Luger-Hunter

Dear users !

Sorry to tell you this, but some of the "experts" should be use the "Bundesarchiv-material" to have some comparisons.
Jerremy and "FrankandFrank" should compare those material and
than they can find out, that many of their posted threads are
not correct and absolutely bull****. I am not here to get in trouble
with the "experts" here, but for instant the combat report which
was posted here is absolutely and doubtless signed by Marseille
and it came out of a hundret percent source.

Signatures are always a problem - but the biggest problem is, if
to many "experts" write to much about signatures with a low level
of knowledge about what they say. Please forgive me to write this,
but not only the two mentioned guys should be make more research
before they tell what is a fake and what is real.

If somebody is not happy with what I write, than please feel free to
contact me directly to my email adress.
I have here more than enough proofs out of hundret percent correct
sources (like document center, Bundesarchiv etc.) to proof, that some
of the posted threads are incorrect.

Best regards S. Körlin

As I have been trying to point out the arguement here originally posted by Jeremy is all OPINION a forensic hand writing expert would have to look at both signatures under a microscope to tell if there were any differennces in stroke, uneven pressure and inks. To use signatures pulled from all over the net is bad practice and should be treated as what it is, which is as I have already pointed out OPINION. Poor Jeremy has taken it upon himself to try and prove that most of the Hartmann's if not all, are fakes.

If for whatever reason there is a faker out there the name and shame Jeremy and let the collectors make up their own minds rather than flooding this with your thoughts as to why these are fake. The onus is on you to prove this not on others to prove that they are genuine.

Thanks for the post Stefan

[Jeremy]

Thanks for the post, Lancaster.

Agree regarding it being opinion. However, it is INFORMED opinion. Not perfect, not as good as a hand writing expert, but still well-informed. There are clearly two different sets of sigs for wartime Marseille, Hartmann, and Rudel. Not sure what is not obvious to you about that.

Focusing on Marseille as that is the focus of this thread. The authentication is pretty good for the Marseille sigs and there is clear consistency between the Wubbe docs and the Hamilton verified doc.

The Marseille sigs pulled from the net (sold as original) provide an excellent source for comparison with Wubbe reference book and Hamilton. How else are collectors going to make comparisons - line up at the Bundesarchiv?? The more examples we can access from sellers (often not well-informed ones), the more we can understand that some material is not quite right compared to known good sources.

try and prove that most of the Hartmann's if not all, are fakes

This is not really the place for discussing Hartmann, but I will do so as you mention it here. If you read the thread properly, you will see I do not class all Hartmanns as fake. There are clearly two kinds of wartime sig that are different enough to cause concern. We could clear up that thread quite easily by Stefan posting one or two pictures on ehangar with simple explanations to clarify what he says about loops (he used to upload on his website, so I don't see what he is finding so technically challenging about uploading photos or things he has from the Bundesarchiv on that forum). Don't you think his customers and the general collecting community (and himself as a dealer) would benefit from that small effort by Stefan, an experienced collector himself?

If for whatever reason there is a faker out there the name and shame Jeremy and let the collectors make up their own minds rather than flooding this with your thoughts as to why these are fake. The onus is on you to prove this not on others to prove that they are genuine.

Once again, I am not attempting to name or shame anyone - please read my post to you again In contrast to your 'flooding' view, other collectors have encouraged me to show as many examples to help them see similarities and differences. This is how we now see the two different sets of sigs and the style and nature of their presentation for the three pilots in question. Real wartime sigs are notably rare (all experienced collectors know this - especially Wittmann), yet it is easier and easier to find more and more examples of the Bit/Bloody Suspicious ones.

Disagree that the onus is solely on proving what is fake. There is a dual onus which can help us determine good and fake. We explore the nature of the good sigs, and we explore the nature of the BS ones. We draw comparisons so we note what to buy and what not to buy. I have never said I am right. I use my informed opinion. Stefan says, "I am right cos mine are from HJ, and I am an experienced collector and dealer. Strong evidence??

I note once again you add nothing to the discussion of sigs and that you are unable or unwilling to post your wartime Hartmann from Stefan on the given thread. All you imply is that Stefan's generic views are right and we, with our specific photos and attempt at analysis here (not scientific but still informative), are wrong and should keep quiet. Erh, helllooo, this is a forum for collectors to see material and examine it so they don't buy duds and are more informed.

I will state this once more. I am not interested in Stefan (or any other individuals, galleries etc). I am not intent on attacking him or his opinions. There is material from many sources here. I am not going to get drawn into a one-on-one argument and see the threads deteriorate like the past Wittmann thread. I am not going to denegrate him (like he does people on this thread) with foul language and their "low level of knowledge". Experienced German collectors on this forum and elsewhere are also pointing out a few aspects to me (there are more than two of us exploring this, Stefan). He could easily stay out of this discussion or now contribute something informative. Same for you, I guess. I hope you both consider the latter option.

Now, can we get back to the focus of this thread which is the photo and clipping analysis instead of discussing your pal Stefan?