UniformsNSDAP

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Marseille fake combat report

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by Hofstetter View Post
    Is anyone able to answer this question put by Luftm40 and a similar question by myself ealier in this thread ?

    If not I see the whole relevance to the whole thread of no use whatsoever except in the case of this particular document alone.

    (though I know the point was in regard to the signature, I think this aspect of the typescript is an important aspect)

    I don't collect documents per se, although I have owned them in groups. I've collected for 40 years, and frankly documents and signatures scare the hell out of me.

    My point in asking this question has to do w/ the relevance of type set to medal and badge award documents. If the "tells" used to refute the Marseilles documents are accurate and universal, it expands the scope of this issue significantly....

    Comment


      #32
      Ro1

      Hofstetter/Greg
      I think it is a fairly evident conclusion that a document with Ro1 typeface is postwar aka the Marseille combat report crap Frost and Koerlin have been/are attempting to flog multiple versions of.

      see also this thread regarding Rommel and the same type on a series of fake docs:

      http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ghlight=rommel

      Beyond that, you should contact Herr Haas with specific questions about a document/s with other type faces or if you still can't understand about the Ro1 as per your other earlier post.
      Jeremy

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Luftm40 View Post
        If the "tells" used to refute the Marseilles documents are accurate and universal, it expands the scope of this issue significantly....
        Take a look at the W and M in these two documents.
        These documents (not mine) are copies from a German archive so are in no doubt original wartime.
        There were a few other documents copied with these two that did not have the shortened middle elements in the M and W. These are all out of the same persons file.

        Jeremy thanks for the link on the Rommel thread I haven't seen that one.

        Regards
        Greg
        Attached Files
        Last edited by Hofstetter; 04-02-2013, 05:49 AM.

        Comment


          #34
          so?

          Greg
          and so what is the type face? not Ro1 anyway...

          maybe you or luftm40 can start another thread on type faces on documents as this thread is about Marseille combat reports...
          J

          Comment


            #35
            Although I have no interest in Marseilles combat reports, nor do I have any affiliation w/ the dealers or experts mentioned....if this document did in fact come from an archive, it refutes the piece about short Ws and Ms I'm afraid. Of course this doesn't make the combat reports or Marseilles signatures real, it just casts doubts on the type face analysis...and I think this DOES apply to this thread, since type face analysis features so prominently in it.

            Comment


              #36
              ppfff

              luftm40

              Look, nothing presented by Greg refutes anything about M or W with short middle element. It certainly does not cast doubt about the typeface analysis by Haas. Think before you embarrass yourself further with foolish comments based on simplistic reasoning... nobody with any intelligence here has assumed that any document with shortened middle element M and W is automatically fake...

              Ro1 is a specific post-war type-face on the Marseille combat reports as attested to by Haas. The documents posted by Greg are not typed with Ro1 typeface. I'll simplify the argument for you by just accepting they are authentic (though blithely accepting what he states about an archive is silly).
              There are many, many wartime typefaces, some with short middle elements on various letters (Haas told me this). Greg shows two documents reflecting this... But Ro1 is not a wartime typeface. There is no connection between the typefaces - they are different, one unknown wartime (assumed) and one known postwar... that these typefaces just happen to have some letters with shortened middle elements is irrelevant...

              If you want to know the details of the typefaces on Greg's documents, then pay Haas to analyse them, or you might email him to help you and Greg understand about the difference between wartime and postwar typefaces. If you have an issue with his analysis of the Marseille combat reports, I am sure he would be happy to hear from you, though he might be bemused/amused by your line of argument presented here.

              And, yes, based on what I thought was obvious but have typed above for you to help you, the documents Greg posted are irrelevant to the specific points made about the Marseille combat reports and Ro1.

              Comment


                #37
                I'm simply using the summary of the analysis provided by YOU above to make a point that perhaps the short and long letter issue has more to it. The analysis states that the letters were shortened in 1951. Frankly...I wouldn't have needed a type face expert to clue me in to these dubious documents and signatures. We all make out own collecting decisions though, don't we!

                You seem like an angry, arrogant person who was obviously taken for a lot of money. Guess I'm happy to be the "ignorant" one in this situation.....have a nice one.
                Last edited by Luftm40; 04-14-2013, 09:46 AM.

                Comment


                  #38
                  oh yeah

                  no, luftm40, I just have no time for your stupidity in that previous post...

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Well...as I said, I am smart enough not to have been left holding the bag for thousands in worthless documents, aren't I ?

                    Comment


                      #40
                      yawn

                      yawn... stick to the focus of the thread, luftm40. you have nothing useful or intelligent to add, only moronic and flawed assumptions about the typefaces, Haas's analysis, and about me.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by Jeremy View Post
                        luftm40

                        Look, nothing presented by Greg refutes anything about M or W with short middle element. It certainly does not cast doubt about the typeface analysis by Haas. Think before you embarrass yourself further with foolish comments based on simplistic reasoning... nobody with any intelligence here has assumed that any document with shortened middle element M and W is automatically fake..[/U].
                        Well, with the analysis of that Marseille document saying that those middle elements were shortened in 1951 did give the impression (to someone ignorant of typefaces, which I'd say would be 99% of us ) that all such documents with those characteristics ''could'' possibly be fake.
                        If it was so obvious to you, why didn't you clear it up for the ''less intelligent'' of us, you could have done that with a few words, instead of getting all defensive (as anyone with any intelligence would know that these comments were not to refute any of the arguments put by you earlier in this thread)

                        Of course there are many different makes of typewriters and typeface from WW2, that doesn't mean that there of course were typefaces with those shortened middle elements does it.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          ok

                          Greg, I did not give any comment in this thread, or get the impression myself, that the specific analysis by Haas of the documents in question with specific respect to Ro1 implied all documents with typeface letters containing shortened middle elements were fake... how could anyone seriously draw that conclusion??

                          not being defensive in any way at all, but I would expect anybody reading this thread to try to think a bit more carefully before posting daft conclusions/comments like that of luftm40 previously.

                          as I have said to you and luftm40 before we got to this stage, contact Haas with specific questions about typefaces rather than offering uninformed opinion or bemoaning the fact that I didn't feel there was any onus on me to help those unable to figure out the obvious for themselves from the documents you posted and the analysis by Haas of 'Marseille' fakes sold by Koerlin.

                          I think by now I have made blatantly clear enough for both you and luftm40 regarding what you were querying, and BTW you are both wasting your time attempting to cast doubt on Haas's analysis (for whatever underlying reason)...

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Jeremy,

                            Sorry to say that I can't follow it myself by now.

                            First I thought that it was all clear, and thanks for that Herr Haas.
                            Good middle characters and the bad ones, so that shortened middle w and m were the marking of a bad / post war typing.

                            Kotiza's documents do show that such a shortened middle character was in use during the war.

                            And now the question is - which shortened middle character is good or not good, war time of post war typing.

                            For me it is now so much more confusing and not clear any longer, for me it is back to the beginning and being empty handed at this moment.

                            Jeremy, thank you for all your effort, lot of time and great work on this thread and many others, but I have lost track on this one, sorry for that.

                            Best regards

                            Eric-Jan




                            Comment


                              #44
                              again

                              Come on EJ... did you read post #36 carefully??

                              I will say again, the analysis by Haas points specifically to Ro1 as post-war - it has shortened middle elements on some characters... he is talking about Ro1... nowhere does he imply that any typeface with shortened elements is post-war, nor do I claim that anywhere in this thread.

                              I have commented on the other documents from Greg - I repeat... yes they have a shortened middle element on some characters which is possible for some wartime typefaces, as Haas told me. However, Haas did not tell me which typefaces nor has he analysed and detailed the typeface in the documents posted by Greg. It is not Ro1 on Greg's docs, however, from a basic comparison of the characters in question.

                              so, Ro1 is postwar, but not all typefaces with shortened middle elements on 'm' and 'w' are necessarily postwar.

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Jeremy,

                                Yes I did read them all, including # 36, and yes carefully, as I did read carefully all the other posts in this important thead also.

                                It is just hard to compare all those different letter types when it concerns the shortened middle characters in the w and the m.

                                Best regards

                                Eric-Jan

                                Comment

                                Users Viewing this Thread

                                Collapse

                                There is currently 1 user online. 0 members and 1 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 4,375 at 10:03 PM on 01-16-2020.

                                Working...
                                X