Photographs on estand - original or repro?

[R MICHAEL]

Scott, That is what the forums are here for, learning and passing along knowledge. Shame there are some that are so jaded that they take the low road.

Take care. Mike

Here is the link to the thread where I posted them. It was on the German helmet board. I thought I had posted them here but did not.
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=249351
Thanks, Scott

[Striking 9th]

Scott, That is what the forums are here for, learning and passing along knowledge. Shame there are some that are so jaded that they take the low road.

Take care. Mike

Thanks Mike

[max history]

Max,

These photos are clearly not original prints....which is why I asked for them to be put up for discussion and expose them for what they really are...Repros. They have been discussed in other threads before but apparently not everyone is aware of those discussions as another member was willing to pay $40 for a photo I would not even consider buying. The E-Stand thread where they were posted are for originals only....anything else must be clearly marked post-war or repros and placed in the Bazaar bin where it belongs. Bill

Thanks.
I know they are not original photographs, are well known images and that they have appeared in several publications. I also know the rules of posting items for sale on the e-stand. I think everyone missed the point of my previous post, which was to point out that we must not insinuate the seller is offering repro photos as originals dishonestly. After all, not everyone knows a repro photo when they see it and I'm sure there are plenty of "experts" out there who are still fooled by some very good repros (which these are not). I think we are sometimes a little too quick to assume that a seller knows he has a repro and is trying to pull a fast one. I say we should be fair and give someone the benefit of the doubt until it's obvious they are not playing the game. That's all.
Max.

[Striking 9th]

Thanks.
I know they are not original photographs, are well known images and that they have appeared in several publications. I also know the rules of posting items for sale on the e-stand. I think everyone missed the point of my previous post, which was to point out that we must not insinuate the seller is offering repro photos as originals dishonestly. After all, not everyone knows a repro photo when they see it and I'm sure there are plenty of "experts" out there who are still fooled by some very good repros (which these are not). I think we are sometimes a little too quick to assume that a seller knows he has a repro and is trying to pull a fast one. I say we should be fair and give someone the benefit of the doubt until it's obvious they are not playing the game. That's all.
Max.

Max thank you very much for your posts on this thread.
Scott

[W Petz]

Max,

I agree with your logic and my purpose was only to bring them up for discussion to expose the prints as repros...no where in my post did I accuse or insinuate that the seller was intentionally trying to dupe anyone. I should have for clarification purposes included that not only the buyer may not be aware of them being repros but the seller as well. Unfortunately you will have some who will be quick to accuse the seller...that is natural but should not be taken personally in these discussions. The discussion here has met it's purpose for now as the seller and maybe a few others have learned a bit more about these russian repros but sadly I suspect this will surface again in the future. This is the reason why I stress the searching of old threads...many items have been previously discussed over and over. The information is at our fingertips. One reason why WAF is one of the best forums around. Bill

Thanks.
I know they are not original photographs, are well known images and that they have appeared in several publications. I also know the rules of posting items for sale on the e-stand. I think everyone missed the point of my previous post, which was to point out that we must not insinuate the seller is offering repro photos as originals dishonestly. After all, not everyone knows a repro photo when they see it and I'm sure there are plenty of "experts" out there who are still fooled by some very good repros (which these are not). I think we are sometimes a little too quick to assume that a seller knows he has a repro and is trying to pull a fast one. I say we should be fair and give someone the benefit of the doubt until it's obvious they are not playing the game. That's all.
Max.

[RaymondG]

Hi

It is good to question the authenticity of an item, but members simply have to give the member a chance to actually respond and stick to discussing the item and not the integrity of the seller.

Given the time differences around the world and the fact that not all members are surgically attached to the WAF, then you have to give a member a reasonable time.

If Scott had been on the WAF several times for a couple of days and never bothered to respond then that would be irritating, but that is not the case here.

Scott received my PM about the thread, thanked me for bringing this to his attention and then asked for the thread to be removed from the photos estand after he read and took onboard over members comments about the photos. No drama and no malicious intent to deceive other members by selling reproduction items.

There is no place for witch hunts and sending members insulting PM's. I am not sure what is to be gained from that, other than making the sender look like a disrespectful hot head.

That is my two cents on the subject

Raymond

[max history]

And as if on cue, Mogdala is offering a well known Hoffmann press photo for sale on the e-stand as a private photo. It is obviously a small repro of the original. Now I am certain that Mogdala is genuine in his description and is honest in the belief that this is an original private photo, but it's not. I believe it even appears in Hoffmann's "With Hitler in the West" book.
This illustrates exactly what I am saying in this thread. Nobody is exclaiming that the photo should be removed and sold in the bazaar, and I hope nobody is sending him nasty PMs, but what he is doing is no different in my mind to what Scott has innocently done also.
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=256760
Max.

[Mogdala]

Max, IMO its not the same as above. I can not say wether this photo is known as a Hoffmann PK photo or not. I saw it the first time and it´s 100% printed on period paper and done at that time.

You mean if there is more than one copy, it is a reproduction he? It could be possible that this photo existed more than one time, but it´s no fake or something like this. It´s just normal - not everybody has a photograph at that time. I give full credit if somebody is not happy with it. I´m working with photos for severall years and i never sold reproductions without claiming it.
I have exactly opposing opinion how you think and it is not correct to be compared with the other photo.
There is absolutely no evidence that the photo is not period.

BTW if you don´t trust me i can send you the photo by post and than i would like to hear your comment.
You would change your mind about 180°

[max history]

Max, IMO its not the same as above. I can not say wether this photo is known as a Hoffmann PK photo or not. I saw it the first time and it´s 100% printed on period paper and done at that time.

You mean if there is more than one copy, it is a reproduction he? It could be possible that this photo existed more than one time, but it´s no fake or something like this. It´s just normal - not everybody has a photograph at that time. I give full credit if somebody is not happy with it. I´m working with photos for severall years and i never sold reproductions without claiming it.
I have exactly opposing opinion how you think and it is not correct to be compared with the other photo.
There is absolutely no evidence that the photo is not period.

BTW if you don´t trust me i can send you the photo by post and than i would like to hear your comment.
You would change your mind about 180°

Don't be so sensitive. Who said anything about not trusting you? Please re-read my post above. I have said that this is not a privately taken photo and I have never said that it is a fake photo. My whole point is about people making honest mistakes.
And I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. This is a well known photograph which has appeared in publications. I owned an original press copy of it because it showed Julius Schaub in the background and I was researching him at the time. Unfortunately, I sold it years ago otherwise I could post it here. Also, I don't have immediate access to my books at the moment, otherwise I'd post a copy of it which appears in several of them. This particular image is not the only one taken by the press photographer at this visit.
Max.

[RaymondG]

Hi

There is a difference between a private photo and a reproduction of a press photo.

One, as the name suggests, implies that there is usually one in existence, whereas there will be many copies of a press photograph.

It seems obvious, but it will have an effect on the price as one is much more desirable than the other and commands a higher price.

Max - If a member spots something that he thinks is not as described, the best course of action is to PM the member who is selling the item, and then start a thread on the appropriate forum as I did with Scott's images.

It is there that they can be discussed, as every member has the right to question the integrity of an item. It may hold a sale up for a day or so, but it is better for the buyer and seller alike.

As per the other items, the question may not have been raised as no one may have actually spotted the photograph and realised the possible connection with the official photograph

Christian - reading the posts, Max is not implying that you are selling reproduction photographs, but he does he has raised a legitimate question.

I think it would be better if this discussion was conducted on a separate thread dedicated to the photograph that Mogdala is selling.

Raymond

[Striking 9th]

Hi

It is good to question the authenticity of an item, but members simply have to give the member a chance to actually respond and stick to discussing the item and not the integrity of the seller.

Given the time differences around the world and the fact that not all members are surgically attached to the WAF, then you have to give a member a reasonable time.

If Scott had been on the WAF several times for a couple of days and never bothered to respond then that would be irritating, but that is not the case here.

Scott received my PM about the thread, thanked me for bringing this to his attention and then asked for the thread to be removed from the photos estand after he read and took onboard over members comments about the photos. No drama and no malicious intent to deceive other members by selling reproduction items.

There is no place for witch hunts and sending members insulting PM's. I am not sure what is to be gained from that, other than making the sender look like a disrespectful hot head.

That is my two cents on the subject

Raymond

Thanks for the way you handled the matter Ray. Your a class act.
Scott

[max history]

Max - If a member spots something that he thinks is not as described, the best course of action is to PM the member who is selling the item, and then start a thread on the appropriate forum as I did with Scott's images.

It is there that they can be discussed, as every member has the right to question the integrity of an item. It may hold a sale up for a day or so, but it is better for the buyer and seller alike.

Raymond

Raymond,
I appreciate what you are trying to do, but does this not defeat the object of a forum? This particular point was not raised in the e-stand, but as an attempt to illustrate a previous point. By starting another thread, one just duplicates and moves away from the original point of raising the matter. The whole idea of a forum is to promote open discussion and therefore a PM defeats that objective. Therefore, I cannot agree with your suggestion.
Regards,
Max.

[Richard]

And as if on cue, Mogdala is offering a well known Hoffmann press photo for sale on the e-stand as a private photo. It is obviously a small repro of the original. Now I am certain that Mogdala is genuine in his description and is honest in the belief that this is an original private photo, but it's not. I believe it even appears in Hoffmann's "With Hitler in the West" book.
This illustrates exactly what I am saying in this thread. Nobody is exclaiming that the photo should be removed and sold in the bazaar, and I hope nobody is sending him nasty PMs, but what he is doing is no different in my mind to what Scott has innocently done also.
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=256760
Max.

FYI this photo does not appear in the aforementioned book.
Richard V

[max history]

FYI this photo does not appear in the aforementioned book.
Richard V

Thanks. As I said, I don't have immediate access to my books at present and I was thinking from memory (which is sadly lacking at times!). I know the photo is in a couple of books as I once owned a press copy of it. Unfortunately I can't remember which books off the top of my head, so when I next have an opportunity to access my books I'll try and find one of them. Maybe someone else can help out?
Max.

[RaymondG]

Hi Max

I think you are misunderstanding my comments about the process.

I am not advocating just sending a PM to the member, though this can help sometimes if a description is incorrect.

If the item is not as described, then the member who spots the issue, PM's the member to say there is an issue and that the member is starting a thread to open a discussion. It is only polite to let the member know that the item is being discussed.

As you can see from Scott's comments, it is appreciated by the member and then they know they should look in on the thread and respond as necessary.

Raymond