Wehrpass Award Entry

[Ian Thomson]

Hi all, just wondering what members think of the EK1 entry, good or bad?

Cheers
Ian

[Lynton Battrick]

...

Not entirely sure Ian, but I am not too keen on it.
It looks to me like it's in a different hand,and I would have thought that if someone else had placed the entry,it would have been entered seperately,not squeezed on the end of the EK2 entry,and dated and stamped too.
Although,I of course maybe completely wrong!Hopefully some of the more knowledgable can help.

Regards,Lynton.

[Ian Jewison]

Difficult to say....clearly in a different hand and entered at a different time. It does not appear to match the writting for the last award.....

New lines should be used for each award, they should not be added at the end of a line, however this as we know did happen!

The colour of the ink and the hand writing looks ok but that does not guarantee anything....

I can't say for sure one way or the other

Anything else that looks to be written by the same hand and pen?


/Ian

[Ian Thomson]

Hi Ian/Lynton, thanks for your input. Ian, I cant see any other handwriting similar to the award entry, and there are entries right to the wars end, the last unit entries ink is similar but wouldn`t say the handwriting is the same. By the way the wehrpass was bought from one of our sponsors as having been awarded the EK1.

Happy birthday by the way Lynton.

Cheers
Ian

[Lynton Battrick]

Hi Ian,
No Problem..it's a shame we can't come to a definate conclusion on the entry !
Thanks too for the happy birthday...the big 30 has arrived!!Trouble is it seems to have arrived very quickly from being 21!!!
Still,Time to have some beer,some good food...and some more beer !!
Cheers and regards,Lynton.

[F L Clemens]

Looks okay to me. Handwriting style and ink are reasonable. I have the feeling I have seen that improvisation before, but I am too lazy to look.

The basic problem is the original block area for award entries is too cramped and does not require the corroborating details of the award (date, location, authority) therefore this block can not be considered as the last authority on the authenticity of an award. The unit clerks would not have felt compelled to follow a specific entry method since there was none. If you read the note below the block, it states that the final unit was responsible for verifying the AWARDS behind the entries, no mention of making sure the ENTRIES themselves were in a certain format.

I can appreciate the argument that a new award would have begged for a new line entry, however as the war dragged on and these blocks filled up, improvisations were inevitable.

Pricing or valuing a Wehrpass strictly by the level of award seems a bit "widerlich" to me. I take a more holistic attitude and would only be bothered by the entry if it was an obvious fraud. Hitler didn't get any medals in WW2, did he? Would you trade his Wehrpass for a DKG wehrpass?

[Gary T]

Looks okay to me. Handwriting style and ink are reasonable. I have the feeling I have seen that improvisation before, but I am too lazy to look.

The basic problem is the original block area for award entries is too cramped and does not require the corroborating details of the award (date, location, authority) therefore this block can not be considered as the last authority on the authenticity of an award. The unit clerks would not have felt compelled to follow a specific entry method since there was none. If you read the note below the block, it states that the final unit was responsible for verifying the AWARDS behind the entries, no mention of making sure the ENTRIES themselves were in a certain format.

I can appreciate the argument that a new award would have begged for a new line entry, however as the war dragged on and these blocks filled up, improvisations were inevitable.

But clerks were not restricted to putting the awards in the authorised blocks. When these were full they were just as likely to use other pages as cram another award in. And when the awards are crammed in they usually enter the full award.

I have some WPs where the EK entries have been entered as above. However these are all for instances where both levels of the award have been awarded on the same day. Although the ink\writing is passable the I Klasse notation clearly hasn't been written at the same time as the II Klasse. That doesn't mean it's fake of course - only Ian can decide if he's happy with it.

Incidentally they have been quite a few similar attempts in SBs that have been posted on this forum in recent months. All these were obvious fakes. This one, if it is a fake, isn't as obvious. I suppose you could try WaST and see what they have...

Pricing or valuing a Wehrpass strictly by the level of award seems a bit "widerlich" to me. I take a more holistic attitude and would only be bothered by the entry if it was an obvious fraud. Hitler didn't get any medals in WW2, did he? Would you trade his Wehrpass for a DKG wehrpass?

But this isn't Hitler's WP. Or any other 'name'. Collectors will obviously pay more for a better decorated soldiers item than one who isn't. Hence the increase in the number of fake EK1 entries over the last few years.

[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.

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.

[Edward]

I have some WPs where the EK entries have been entered as above. However these are all for instances where both levels of the award have been awarded on the same day.


Hello Gary,

Bingo! Your above comment is 100% correct and exactly the same thought I had when looking over those awards. IMO, based on the handwriting comments already made I have doubts that a multiple awarding is the case here. If it were indeed a same day awarding the lack of a date for either the EKII, or EKI is also IMO a flag. In addition, from what I can also see the WP does not appear to be a replacement issue. I do though have pre-war WP's where the individual had mulitple WWI awards and so the clerk entered them one after the other with both the EKII and EKI on on the same line. In this instance the WP in question does not fit this type.
_____________________________________

I can appreciate the argument that a new award would have begged for a new line entry, however as the war dragged on and these blocks filled up, improvisations were inevitable.

Hi FL,

I understand your point and it is valid, but in this case the award is not late-war and based on the experienced observations of those made raises valid concerns IMO.

Regards

[F L Clemens]

I understand your point and it is valid, but in this case the award is not late-war and based on the experienced observations of those made raises valid concerns IMO. Regards

I presume you are assuming the EK1 award precedes the close-out stamp dated Aug 42. Unfortunately, we do not have the complete WP in view nor do we have documentation of the EK1 award date. On the contrary, the man served far beyond Aug 42 to the end of the war. It is quite possible that he had a break in service where a mid-war unit performed close-out and that a subsequent unit in his "second career" retro-fitted the EK1 entry.

[Edward]

I presume you are assuming the EK1 award precedes the close-out stamp dated Aug 42. Unfortunately, we do not have the complete WP in view nor do we have documentation of the EK1 award date. On the contrary, the man served far beyond Aug 42 to the end of the war. It is quite possible that he had a break in service where a mid-war unit performed close-out and that a subsequent unit in his "second career" retro-fitted the EK1 entry.

Hello FL,

No, would not assume that the EKI was awarded prior to Aug 42 as I am not convinced that the EKI entry is genuine based on the observations and reasons already given. True, we do not have more scans of the WP to go by. It is a possibility that the WP is a replacement. However, if we are to go by the Aug, 42 award of the Ostmedal...which IMO is genuine... that would mean the WP was replaced sometime at, or prior to the Aug, 42 entry which is something that is IMO not likely due to the time period. IMO, the WP shown is the orignal one issued. Examples of WP do show up that are exceptions and examples have been mentioned. These are certainly not all the exceptions one finds, but in this case the EKI remains questionable.

Regards

[F L Clemens]

Okay, I was confused by your statement "the award is not late-war", which I took to mean you believed it was early war. Actually, you were saying it is neither early nor late war, and merely a fabrication, correct? If you are right, my hat goes off to the fabricator, he did a damn fine job.

Also, I did not mean to suggest that this is a Zweitschrift. I agree with you that it has none of the appearance of a Zweitschrift. I was talking about a possible reactivation using the original WP, not unprecedented.

Further discussion of this WP would be aided by scans of the full unit page, any additional award pages, and any signs that the WP had been closed out and by which unit(s). Also, if there are any battle listings, including for the post-Aug 42 period, it would identify the man's opportunities to have earned the EK1.

[Ian Thomson]

Thanks to all those that have contributed so far to this thread, certainly for me it has been very, very interesting.
About the wehrpass it is not a zweitschrift, it was opened 23rd February 1937. I`ve added scans of pages that were mentioned, as perhaps helping as to whether the award is okay.

[Ian Thomson]

Training page

.

[Ian Thomson]

Award

..