Interesting EK2 & Citation Signed By Blue Max Holder Von Hügel

[Moore-Grant]

EK2 & Citation Signed By Blue Max Recipient Von Hügel.

Quite a good piece of history I think?

Thanks

[Green]

Very nice EK II & Citation.....Congratulations

[VtwinVince]

It should read 'Gefreiten', not Gefreiter.

[Brian L.]

The signature is a printed facsimile. It doesn't take away from the historic interest. But, it does impact the value.

[Moore-Grant]

The signature is a printed facsimile. It doesn't take away from the historic interest. But, it does impact the value.

Hi, I'm sorry, it's 100% ink written as many have looked & under a loup too.
It's even ink smudged in places.

[Brian L.]

Hi, I'm sorry, it's 100% ink written as many have looked & under a loup too.
It's even ink smudged in places.

Well short of examining it under a loup, I can't be 100% sure. However, there are several breaks in the letters throughout the signature that are inconsistent with ink flow even if faded, but consistent with a printed signature in which the printing plate or stamp didn't have enough pressure for an even imprint.

[VtwinVince]

This type of EK2 document has been heavily faked in recent years.

[Brian L.]

This type of EK2 document has been heavily faked in recent years.

I sort of thought that too, as I've seen it several times before with the same signature. But, being that I'm not an expert on EK docs, I hesitated to say.

You're correct that it should be Gefreiten. I didn't notice that before now. Such an obvious mistake is enough to make me doubt this doc, as I don't think a German would make such a typo. So, I've just edited this post.

Chris Boonzaier is probably the most knowledgeable EK doc collector I know and therefore, would likely be able to say definitively whether this is good or not.

[Green]

I sort of thought that too, as I've seen it several times before with the same signature. But, being that I'm not an expert on EK docs, I hesitated to say.

You're correct that it should be Gefreiten. I didn't notice that before now. Such an obvious mistake is enough to make me doubt this doc, as I don't think a German would make such a typo. So, I've just edited this post.

Chris Boonzaier is probably the most knowledgeable EK doc collector I know and therefore, would likely be able to say definitively whether this is good or not.

IMO Gefreiter is written correct:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gefreiter

[Brian R]

No, it should be Gefreiten. But, that doesn't necessarily mean it is fake. I'd like to see close-ups of the sig.

[VtwinVince]

It is a dative construction, no real German would write Gefreiter in this way. And the colour of the paper is wrong.

[Green]

Yes , I looked at several citations and you guys are right, it is Gerfreiten......my mistake, sorry!