Waste of a good document?

[James Clark]

This seems to be a pretty convincing document as far as the printing, paper etc go. Even the pattern of the document seems OK for 1940 (doesn't it?), but I don't like the stamp or the signature:



I keep thinking it's a perfectly good blank EKI doc badly filled in by a faker, but then if you were going to do that wouldn't you have made it out to an SS Panzergrenadier or something?

[Rick Research]

Gack! Plui!

Don't even have to look at the "temporary Commander in Chief" (!!!) signature horror---

prime, textbook example of what happens to old, dried up stiff paper when rolled through a typewriter recently.

These "Venetian blind" cracks are dead giveaways.

[prvtdck]

James I think (even) the paper is bogus. It looks like the 'note' pages from the back of an old book with a photocopy image badly centered!! It is sloppy, the style of hand is wrong and the ink too vivid.
About a year ago I bought a package of blank documents just to see how far the crooks have come...I was shocked! They are so good as to be scary. Coincidentally, they are currently on Ebay for $5.00!<http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1042615148>
And, even from afar they appear 'neater' than the doc you were so kind to post. To add to it...these don not react to Uv either!
It's a dangerous world out there.
Dave

[ 04 December 2001: Message edited by: prvtdck ]

[James Clark]

Actually the off-centre bit was my fault - result of sloppy scanning! I's actually pretty well centred in real life. What doesn't show up in the photo in its true horror is the vivid blue ink signature!

[Rick Research]

And of course aside from the silliness of any supposed "temporary commander in chief" of the Wehrmacht , the German is incorrect--

had such a creature ever existed (while Hitler was having a nap?...) he would have been the "zeitweiligER Blahblahblah," NOT the "Zeitweilig Bbb."