Question theme: Authentic or not?

[Mil-Archive]

Helden

I agree, because most photos are really pretty boring.

I wouldn't agree that 'only boring photos are not copied' or that all the 'interesting' ones are either but I think I know what you mean.

In response to that I'd say that I don't think that an album of photos is boring if it does not contain a 'high danger action event' or a rare vehicle/officer etc,

The value of photos in an album is the combined total - not the single picture. So really it's two different kinds of collecting. For example to be able to chart a units progress from pre-war training to deployment throughout the progression of the war, crossing countries and so on - the value of those pictures is not how they fare one by one but what the combined total of them all put together is. So yes some may be 'boring' taken in isolation out of context but the value of them is in the total if you know what I mean. The chances of them all being 'copies out of multiples' are generally slim.

I would think studio photos usually had multiple prints made of them, then you have the official, unit\ship or PK type photos which printed, sometimes in large numbers and then you have copies of some of the more interesting private photos passed around between friends or comrades after the war at veteran meetings. . . .

Clearly there's no way to garantee a photo any of us has hasn't had multiple copies made of it only a level of probability.

Agree with you there.

One of the reasons why I prefer collecting albums or a collection/set over single pictures is that with a set or a sequence of pictures chances are more likely that they are unique.

[HouweTrouwe]

More original photographs which have duplicate(s) ..

[HouweTrouwe]

More originals .. Sometimes cropped and in other size ..

[HouweTrouwe]

Here are the reverses (of the original photographs above).. Completely the same ..

[Marcel Banziger]

In response to that I'd say that I don't think that an album of photos is boring if it does not contain a 'high danger action event' or a rare vehicle/officer etc,

Same here. For me personally all pics are interesting, even when there are no vehicles or high ranked officers or even combat footage on them. Every picture, how boring it may seem at first, still is history and thus has a story to it.

[Marcel Banziger]

Everyone should read following: http://www.kriegsberichter.de/Data/fake01e.htm.

Very interesting link!

[12thPanzer]

Oh Lord.... the blind leading the blind. "dirty tea look" is a sepia tonning process used to enhance its archival qualities. Very commonly used during that period to preserve the photograph.

The sepia toning process or "the dirty tea" look is used on pretty much ALL of the FAKE archive photos. There have been alot of archive photos posted here. Some think that the reverse of these archive photos must be marked....and that is simply not true. Some are marked with russian stamps which make them easily identified as arcvhive fakes. these are all over Ebay and people are still buying them for big bucks. I am going to post a copy of the russian archive photos here with sepia tone.

[12thPanzer]

Here is another FAKE photo which I believe is not on original wartime paper, but is falsely stamped with agfa lupex/brovira markings. The reason I believe they are stamped is because they are not always correctly "lined up" and are stamped in odd places unlike known originals. Heres a photo of Hugo Sperrle that I bought for $4 figuring it was a FAKE, but was curious to see in hand. These could be dangerous for beginner collectors that think as long as a photo is marked agfa that a photo is original/wartime period. The reverse may look fine at a glance, but the fronts are one of the main factors that give them away since they are shiny and feel like they were printed yesterday.

[12thPanzer]

another FAKE from the same source with IMO fake stamps on reverse. the image itself is a well known fake. But it goes to show that these scammers are really trying to pass these things off as real to unsuspecting collectors by stamping the backs of them. Again, the reason I think they are stamped and not fakes on orignal wartime paper is because the marks are always same spot from different maker stamps (lupex/brovira etc) and sometimes off-centered and crooked.

[12thPanzer]

Another fake that is not always talked about and could be VERY dangerous is the ADOLF MULLER LEIPZIG FAKE. these are usuallly found on smaller sized photos----9x6 etc. Most i have seen are images of panzers and other tanks. But they are stamped with a mark type that is sometimes used by other real wartime firms. these are usually seen with serrated edges

[12thPanzer]

It is also good to know the different stamps from certain paper makers such as AGFA marks and the lines used underneath or above the mark itself. I know in certain circumstances this does not always prove true...such as a soldier printing there wartime photos after the war. But here is a site that will tell the differences of wartime AGFA marks and Post-war AGFA marks.

http://lwcollectibles.blogspot.com/2...hotopaper.html

[Andrew Harris]

Another FAKE on original paper (size: 8,2 cm x 11,4 cm). Or, maybe, someone has another opinion?

obv.jpgrev.jpg

[Mark Proulx]

HI:

An interesting thread I will follow closely, as a collector of German aircraft photos.

A few years ago I purchased a great selection of Junkers photos. The seller was up front stating they were repros. So, that isn't my concern as I knew what I was getting into and have no issue with the purchase.

However, when the photos arrived I noticed them to be printed on earlier period paper, or what appeared to be so. The paper itself feels much thicker than traditional wartime paper. I was actually quite amazed at the quality of the repros. The printed was excellent.

It caused me to wonder what is being pawned off as original when we have the quality of the repros floating around. Purchasing them off the 'net, one probably would never have known.

Like everything, it is buyer beware!

Mark Proulx

[12thPanzer]

Another FAKE on original paper (size: 8,2 cm x 11,4 cm). Or, maybe, someone has another opinion?

[ATTACH]1723363[/ATTACH][ATTACH]1723364[/ATTACH]

hello Andrew, does it seem like you could almost peel the photo in two? Just curious as this would be a small hint to a fake.....but that is a pretty good fake that would be IMO a dangerous one to beginners. Im not talking about the image itself, but the paper and markings are what makes it dangerous. I believe that yours is one very similar to 2 of the ones that I posted with similar markings.....and they are the same size as well w/ serrated edges. I think this is a good thread and people should post what fakes they have so more people can be aware of what is out there.