Announcement

**Ian Thomson** · 08-06-2005, 11:24 AM

Service

...

Attached Files

battles.JPG (56.7 KB, 61 views)

**Gary T** · 08-06-2005, 11:28 AM

Ian - I can't say I'd be too happy with the Erdkampfabzeichen entry. As it appears to be in the same hand as the 'I Klasse' entry I'd have to give that the thumbs down as well.

**Gary T** · 08-06-2005, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by F L Clemens

If you are right, my hat goes off to the fabricator, he did a damn fine job.

I'd have to disagree if it is a fabrication. It raised concerns immediately with most collectors here.

**Gary T** · 08-06-2005, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by F L Clemens

My bottom line is that it looks good enough to me given the reasonable variation in practice in a multi-million army. I wouldn't "collect" it however based simply on this one award entry, not only because that's a narrow focus which fabricators can more easily exploit, but because I prefer to look at the soldier's story as a complete picture. That's what makes a Wehrpass more interesting to me than a medal.

If i had seen it 15 years ago I probably wouldn't have looked twice...but then EK1 winners were only slightly more expensive. Now they are twice the price of similar EK2 WPs and SBs.

Remember how few fabrications there were back when WPs and SBs were not so collectible? Now that every non-Sutterlin-reading boob from Botswana wants to have them, we have to double-check such small things as an EK I entry.

Sadly very true. And it's not just EK1...practically any award entry needs looking at. Remember that one that was on here (via militariaweb then ended up on Detlev Niemann's site) - the man he question had actually won the EK1. The entry was good and it even had the document. But someone saw fit to add add very poor CCC, IAB and even KVK entries. Utterly baffling, that one.

**F L Clemens** · 08-06-2005, 05:48 PM

I believe the WP is still good, even down to the Erdkampfabzeichen entry.
I think it is a mistake to look at entries in a WP the same as you would an SB. WP entries were not required to be signed off the same as an SB since it was assumed the WP was in the hands of responsible clerks versus the SB in the hands of the soldier. The WP was a temporary field record, not meant to be a document by which a soldier could be held accountable.
Thus, you see the award entries in a WP are simply a listing, whereas in an SB they are "beglaubigt" in the form of an officer's signature and unit stamp. The only point at which the entries in a WP are required to be signed off is when the WP is closed out. Others will know what I am referring to if they have WPs from soldiers who have been formally discharged.
Now that I have seen more of the WP, please ignore my earlier speculation about the WP having been "closed out". It wasn't. The stamp on the first scan showing awards is simply the entry of the Ostmedaille AS IF IT WAS BEING ENTERED INTO A SOLDBUCH. The unit has unneccessarily dated, signed, and stamped that single award entry.
Once more, unlike the SB, there was no necessity in a WP for awards to be entered in any order. Typically they are in order, but it isn't mandatory. Also, unlike the myth of the Wehrmacht clerks trained in calligraphy, many of them had some awful handwriting skills, so you get examples like the Erdkampfabzeichen entry AND the Kampfabzeichen der Flakart. entry (which nobody has questioned). I am surprised that anyone would see a match in handwriting between the EK1 (slick) and EKA (skanky) entries.
Bottom line for me is that the whole WP hangs together and the entries are of handwriting styles I have seen before (I do a lot of Feldpost reading).

Believe me, I hate fabrications and I'd be the first to spit on this one if I thought it was bad.

**Gary T** · 08-06-2005, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by F L Clemens

I believe the WP is still good, even down to the Erdkampfabzeichen entry.
I think it is a mistake to look at entries in a WP the same as you would an SB. WP entries were not required to be signed off the same as an SB since it was assumed the WP was in the hands of responsible clerks versus the SB in the hands of the soldier. The WP was a temporary field record, not meant to be a document by which a soldier could be held accountable.
Thus, you see the award entries in a WP are simply a listing, whereas in an SB they are "beglaubigt" in the form of an officer's signature and unit stamp. The only point at which the entries in a WP are required to be signed off is when the WP is closed out. Others will know what I am referring to if they have WPs from soldiers who have been formally discharged.
Now that I have seen more of the WP, please ignore my earlier speculation about the WP having been "closed out". It wasn't. The stamp on the first scan showing awards is simply the entry of the Ostmedaille AS IF IT WAS BEING ENTERED INTO A SOLDBUCH. The unit has unneccessarily dated, signed, and stamped that single award entry.
Once more, unlike the SB, there was no necessity in a WP for awards to be entered in any order. Typically they are in order, but it isn't mandatory. Also, unlike the myth of the Wehrmacht clerks trained in calligraphy, many of them had some awful handwriting skills, so you get examples like the Erdkampfabzeichen entry AND the Kampfabzeichen der Flakart. entry (which nobody has questioned). I am surprised that anyone would see a match in handwriting between the EK1 (slick) and EKA (skanky) entries.
Bottom line for me is that the whole WP hangs together and the entries are of handwriting styles I have seen before (I do a lot of Feldpost reading).

Believe me, I hate fabrications and I'd be the first to spit on this one if I thought it was bad.

You're teaching your grandmother to suck eggs.

I'm not making any mistakes or jumping to the wrong conclusions between SBs and WPs. I've seen enough over the years to know what was standard practice. Post 1940/41 nearly all award entries are dated. More often than not a unit will authorise it's entries whenever the wehrpass was transferred on. And they would certainly not add further entries to those already authorised by another unit. I'm sure someone could check the FP Nr of the stamp.

I've seen thousands of WPs and SBs (with their relevant diaries and FP letters) over the years and I agree with you that handwriting alone can't be taken alone as being an indication of an entry's authenticity. But I don't like these entries and neither do others. I've seen enough fakes entries to spot the warning signs. Does that mean they are 100% false? Of course not. Does that mean I'd pay £100 based on what I see. No.

No-one else has questioned the Erdkampfabzeichen (is this the Flakkampfabzeichen you refer to?) because I assume they've only just seen it. Does anyone else think it's good? Or have their doubts? I would definitely disagree that the EK1 entry is slick - as mentioned before the only time I have seen them entered this way is when they have been awarded together. Which these weren't.

**F L Clemens** · 08-06-2005, 08:18 PM

Would it help if I smeared some chicken blood on it? Ha, ha - saw that done to an otherwise nice Sicily WP before all the entry alteration craze started.

Anyway, I'll take a look in my collection to see if I have any similar retro-fits. Meanwhile, I hope the owner of this WP will still keep it under his pillow.

Announcement

Wehrpass Award Entry

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread