Detlev PLM Fake of the Week

[Les]

The photo of the early Wagner I found in a file dated 2006. If I knew who it belonged to I would be all too happy to share it. Funny you should pursue that with such zeal here. I seem to recall well-intended and innocent postings of pics from Prussian Blue.

Since you bring that subject up, the use of those photos was accompanied by clearing marking on the photos the full source details of what book they came from, page, and the author's name. The author took affront over the use of those photos without understanding published photos can be used without any permission whatsoever, provided fair use applications were followed. The photos were marked and cited as his, but that didn't matter to him one iota. When he sent me a nasty-gram, I posted his comments with an apology to all, and later pulled the photos.

Truth is, many of the forum members here have graciously granted ongoing permission to use their pictures in my PlM study series. Many have emailed pics but on the proviso that I not identify them. In any case, this picture I did not have the info as it came from an old web file I had before I started to seriously collect PlMs and categorize the pics.

"Statements" presented as "facts" with no way to verify whether photos have been altered, statements of information taken out of context, or whether speculation is being presented as fact is almost worthless to being able to fact-check. Unverifiable statements and photos that have no attributions, or lack context should not be mixed in with actual details.

Nice to see your disdain for me brought you back up on the WAF, if even to slight my character. I will not return the favor. As much as you hate me Les, I'll move on and address something I agree with you on.

I don't hate people I've never met, and don't know. I've never met you and don't know anything about you, and as a consequence of that, have no negative emotions towards you as a person. What you think and espose as "truth" on this forum with regards to medals and associated details is something else, and I do take exception with what is often false or misleading when what you write is examined closely.

Thanks for implying motives and emotional context to my statements. Or, are you falling prey to the common human tendency of self-projection?

Your statement is typical of taking what other people say, and implying or believing what you want to make of it.


I had also considered whether the piece is so exact as to cause a reexamination of it altogether. I'm with Brian, better pics would be nice. Perhaps we could persuade Detlev to offer more pictures of it and in greater detail. But perhaps as has been noted, too much detail can have adverse consequences as well. Steve

Interesting. At first you stated this didn't appear to be a Wagner and talked about it possibly being an altered S&L. Following Marshall's comments about your observations and what he saw, you changed your line of commentary and shifted towards "early" and other Wagner pieces.

Steve, there are characteristic die flaws on original Wagner/Fr solid silver gilt PlMs that are visible in the photos on Detlev's site. "early, middle/late or even postwar" eagles made on Wagner dies all share the same die flaws. Obviously, you did not notice those flaws which are tell-tale signs that more than a few advanced PlM collectors and those who study them, immediately key in on. If you had noticed them, there would have been no comments by you about the eagles resembling S&L eagles because of head shapes, etc.

[Les]

I'm not sure I follow you here. You're saying it's possibly real, but if it's fake, you see evidence it was made in the 1990s? Is that about right?

Trevor,

Not quite. If it's a fake, which Detlev says it is, I have reasons for believing this piece was made in the 1990's. Explaining why would require discussing methods by which fakes could be made, critical details, and the like, which could be used to improve on the next version of fakes. I'd prefer not to do that openly, because there are still critical details regarding originals that should be protected.

If this photo were posted on this or other forums, with no comments other than "please advise, is this real" there are enough specific details visible in the photos the responses would be positive. The photo doesn't provide details that would indicate it is fake, and Detlev has not provided enough information indicating why he labelled it a fake.

[Brian S]

Brian,

Photos are often borrowed without asking, and there's little or nothing that can be done about that. What bothers me is the use of photos and other information that is someone elses', being taken out of context, and not being cited as to where it came from. Sometimes the descriptions and context of photos and related details can be important.


I understand the legal concept of fair use, but that concept carries with it a duty to acknowledge where items are taken from.

Since you mention photos are available for public consumption on this site, that would seem you are saying that implies to the awards you have in your collection and those that belonged to your grandfather, his photos, etc?

Respect the copyright on the photos and mind the caveats associated with downloading photos. That should always be the rule. But you post here you post according to the Forum's rules regarding posting of photos, I would think... So often a photo has no owner name imprinted and the context of the saved file on your hard drive doesn't contain the metadata to know where/what/how a year or more or less later. But yes, when I post a photo here, I assume it's for anyone's use according to the WAF's rules. You go to my web site, another set of rules. I begrudge no one from storing some pretty nice closeups of a PlM, mini and several RAO grades to help them avoid getting burned by a fake. But my site says don't go cropping the photos and using them on forums... That's my luxury, no one else's.

As for the two of you, you both bring value here no matter how apart you may be on "OPINIONS". Whenever anyone who's questioning and challenging gets their panties in a bunch and goes away it doesn't help the hobby.

[Montgomery Burns]

I agree with your observations Marshall. I went back and looked at earlier examples of Wagners rather than the late war examples. While there are some differences more akin to S&L as compared to the late war, it is almost identical to the early Wagner. This is indeed scary. It also raises many questions.

If this was made in the 1960s or 1970s, then is it an anomaly or are there more of them out there? Or are they being made currently?

I've posted a comparison of this piece as it is sure to generate more discussion and not all here may be members of Detlev's site. Steve

the eagle is giving it away easily
( look at the Beak) its an open well detailed open beak on the wagners .

and if aim not mistaken ,,
it almost looks like original Wagner ( moulds ?) tools are used fore the core details ,,,,(crown and letters ?)

al do i do not know if in the manufacturing process off these plm's the core details( like the letters and crowns ) where separate from the rest off the frame

am I mistaken ?

[Les]

Respect the copyright on the photos and mind the caveats associated with downloading photos. That should always be the rule. But you post here you post according to the Forum's rules regarding posting of photos, I would think... So often a photo has no owner name imprinted and the context of the saved file on your hard drive doesn't contain the metadata to know where/what/how a year or more or less later. But yes, when I post a photo here, I assume it's for anyone's use according to the WAF's rules. You go to my web site, another set of rules. I begrudge no one from storing some pretty nice closeups of a PlM, mini and several RAO grades to help them avoid getting burned by a fake. But my site says don't go cropping the photos and using them on forums... That's my luxury, no one else's.

As for the two of you, you both bring value here no matter how apart you may be on "OPINIONS". Whenever anyone who's questioning and challenging gets their panties in a bunch and goes away it doesn't help the hobby.

Brian,

The photo I'm talking about was not posted here on WAF by me. It was posted on another forum, downloaded and then posted by here but not by me. IN short, it was taken from another forum and posted here, without citing that it came from another forum which might have "ownership" claims against it.

That forum is a British forum, and British views on intellectual property of all kinds, including photos, is more stringent than American internet useage might allow.

Internet-based entities often claim "ownership" although American federal laws regulate internal communications. American courts have typically upheld rulings that prevent entities who try to force people to waive civil and legal rights. The internet situation becomes a tad more complicated the moment communications cross international boundary lines and international conventions and agreements come into the picture.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Les,

please calm down. It is not a big deal. Sure, the ownership should have been mentioned (which is you, not the British forum - unless you transfered the rights in writing to them) and I agree it is not very good style to just take a picture and pretend (or not - I am not reading all this here) it is one's own.
But fact is this: the moment you post a picture it is in the public domain and there is the rule of "fair use". As long as nobody uses your picture to make money it is not a problem. It also doesn't matter where it came from. This is a US forum so US laws apply.

It is all very complicated (actually it is not). You need to prove that it IS actually a picture YOU took (first step) and then it needs to be proven that the poster here did it to make money or to harm you financially. Both could take years and it not worth the hazzle.

This forum (and the British one - and others, too) are here to help the collectors to separate the good from the bad. Not to make money or not to harm other's people properties. I am sure that tons of my pictures rest on a lot of Hard drives and I am proud of it! Because it is for the better of the community.

Dietrich

PS: If you want me to remove the picture, I will.

[regular122]

Thanks Dietrich. Sorry you had to get involved at all.

Les, I did not know until Dietrich's post that the picture was yours. As I stated earlier, I placed it in a file in 2006, long before I began to seriously study the PlM. If you want it removed, as Dietrich stated, that is no problem.

The intent was to provide some visual element to a fake being discussed that no one could see. Steve

PS - you may use any picture original to me without worry.