Your opinion about this Falli-Docs !

[Mathias1703]

Hello,

I need your opinions about these docs please. I offered the docs a collector and he´s not sure about if it´s original.

Please let me know your opinions.

Thanks.......

Mathias

[Gerd W.]

Hello!

I´ll not judge all the documents, but if the sign on the EK2 doc is the one from Kroh, than there is a mistake (IMHO)!

In Sept. 43 Kroh was not Oberst!

[Ian Jewison]

What I don't like about these documemts is each one has a problem with the stamp (Dienststempel) in that they are incomplete or unable to read!

[J.von Canon]

Another clue;the name is blotted out-but spacing between letters of the last name is usual on award documents.Can't really tell on this example.

(Although I have seen "front' awards that lacked the characteristic spacing between letters of the name;probably due to a lack of trained staff types who usually typed them out at h.q.)

[JYN]

I love them very much !

One is signed by KROH.. OK true he was not Oberst and only an
Oberstleutnant at this time.
and the Erdkampfabzeichen is signed by Hptmn. Jürgens in place of
Major Mertins.

Don't see nothing wrong with those documents.

Jean-Yves

[Mathias1703]

Hello,

in my opinion the docs are absolutely original! I think they made a mistake concerning the Dienstgrad "Oberst".

I saw these kind of mistakes already on other documents.

Thanks for your feedback.........


Mathias

[Willi Z.]

The signatures do look ok. Kroh's appears exactly that way on some documents that I have. As Ian mentioned, the unit stamps are very weak. That is very odd. Perhaps a better scan of each would help. They do seem strange as a set with the field-made jump badge, EKII and the way the Erdkampf is. But, I can't see where they are bad. Suspicious at this point for me...

[Rincewind]

First let me say that I`m sorry about my english thats my first post an I am not used to write in E. I can understand the concerns of the collector. For example the EK II doc, usually they had to be signed on the divisional level not regimental , so nearly all docs I`ve seen signed on regimental level are fakes. Only seen one doc which wasnt a fake. Without handling the documents myself I wouldnt buy them. Greetz K.

[Jürg]

it's me

Hi all

well it's me who was interested in buying this lot. My first concern is this that I belive Kroh would not sign a document as Oberst when he was only promoted to Oberst 7 months later! He became Oberst on April 6, 1944 and therefore the gap between the date he signed the doc and the date he was promoted Oberst is to big for me to belive this. I also do not belive that although Germany was at war would tolerate such an mistake. They have been yery straight in that.

Jürg

[JYN]

Thanks Mathias !

They are just great !

JYN

[Luftm40]

I'm not a document expert, but I don't see how we can condemn a piece based on the small administrative inconsistencies mentioned here. For one thing, what source are we using to fix the promotion date for Kroh? In some of the research I have done, there are inconsistencies even among period documents about actual promotion dates, and modern reference material is sometimes just plain wrong. The EK1 doc does not have the standard Div level signature, true, but the document is not your typical format EK1 either. Although it is not marked as such, it may be a replacement of some kind? Perhaps backdated to the actual award date? I know there were 'rules" that governed such things, but administrative expedients and improvisations are still done today in the military....I'm sure the Germans did the same thing. I guess I would focus more on the paper, signature stamps and type when trying to decide if it is real...

a "war story": I have a good sized WSS document/photo group to a guy in the Wiking Div. Taken by themselves the docs were odd, the units and time periods didn't seem to track etc etc. Independently, I found the guy's personnel record in the US National Archives, and once I had the details of his campaigns, transfers, woundings etc. was able to completely explain everything reflected in the document group. The award docs are often just the tip of the ice berg.

[JYN]

In fact, I must add that they were great when I first look at them.
Them, on the evening I received the goodies, I look at the two main ones
with a magnifying glass and just realised that the lettering has been made
with a modern process.

The print was not part of the paper and it was just covering the paper.
I look at all my collection of documents and I was forced two admit that only the paper was guenuine and that the lettering has been made with a laser printer by somebody who know very well the documents and the subject.

Mathias is not the first owner of the group and as I have been in business with him in the past... so I have no doubts concerning him.

I think I am going to stop collecting because this kind of experience is frightening and stressful.

Jean-Yves

[Ian Jewison]

Sorry to hear that Jean-Yves,

However I didn't like them from the first time I saw them and made mention of that....in private I also made mention that I did not like the signatures and how they were all "field" type citations...

This is becoming quite common with quality faked documents... I am becoming concerned with the amount of Soldbücher that have been "enhanced" as well....particularly with extra awards and addition of photos!!! I don't mean the occassional EK I squezzed in between to genuine awards but attempts to write whole pages full!!!!

There does seem to be a common link to these but I need to verify it before I say anything.....

/Ian

[JYN]

Heve a look on his !

[Mathias1703]

Para....

Hello JY,

I´m so sorry, that our deal failed... In my opinion, the docs were absolutely original. It seems, that I have been cheated, when I bought the docs.

There is a very good "Falli-Lot" I want to offer. Before I put in in the rubric "for sale", I want to be sure and ask you about your opinions.

Please look at my new thread!

Thanks a lot...

Regards,

Mathias