Opinions of Hitler photograph on the estand

[RaymondG]

Hi

A member has raised a query about this image on the estand, so can I have some opinions on whether it is an original private photograph, a period reproduction of a press photograph or neither of the two.

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...65&postcount=3

Many thanks

Raymond

[Mogdala]

backside

[max history]

As stated in a separate post, I do not see the point of starting yet another thread on this subject as it is well-covered in the original thread. If we carry on like this, we'll have thread after thread, all dealing with the same subject.
See http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=257464
Max.

[RaymondG]

Hi

The thread was to another set of images that were discussed and then the Hitler photographed was tagged on the bottom.

My reasoning for starting another thread was necessary for the following reasons:

a) so that members looking at the forum can clearly see that the item in question is being discussed, rather than it being tucked away on another thread discussing other photographs. It is logical that they will think the thread is still about the original photographs and not the Hitler photograph.

b) it stops members posting on two separate discussions, namely the original SS photographs and now the Hitler photograph. This makes it messy

c) it is normal practice to open a new thread about an item

Hope my thought process makes some sense

Raymond

[max history]

Raymond,
My point is that this photo was already being discussed adequately in another thread. I don't think there is the need to open yet another thread on the same subject.
Hope that now makes clearer sense.
Regards,
Max.

[max history]

Hi

Items should not be discussed on the estand as that is not the place for it. That is why I added a link to the thread where it should be discussed. Thus, it should be debated in one place.

Raymond,
With all due respect, you are mistaken. I believe you are not aware of the previous discussions on similar issues. The outcome was the introduction of a comments section at the top of the photos and paper items table on the e-stand. It was decided that this was the correct place to discuss issues with items offered for sale on this particular table, in order to avoid introducing new threads which would confuse matters, and which is exactly what has happened in this particular case.
Regards,
Max.

[max history]

Now back to this particular image.....
In my opinion the scan of the reverse of the photo confirms that this is not an original private photo. It appears to be a repro which has been artificially aged. And to prove it is not an original PRIVATE photo (i.e. unique), here is the same image currently being offered for sale elsewhere as an original "private photo."
Regards,
Max.

[pantherv]

Now back to this particular image.....
In my opinion the scan of the reverse of the photo confirms that this is not an original private photo. It appears to be a repro which has been artificially aged. And to prove it is not an original PRIVATE photo (i.e. unique), here is the same image currently being offered for sale elsewhere as an original "private photo."
Regards,
Max.

Just one point Max......the scan you show looks as though it's been cropped by a couple of millimetres.

Peter

[Mogdala]

In my opinion the scan of the reverse of the photo confirms that this is not an original private photo. It appears to be a repro which has been artificially aged.

And what makes you thinking that?

[RaymondG]

Hi

The image has been cropped but it is the exact same image and there is not much doubt about that.

Christian, the back does seem to be very yellow and stained whilst the front does seem to be rather white and pristine. I know the back will age quicker than the front, but maybe you could help me understand why there would be such a difference.

With the example that Max has shown, I do believe your image is not a private photograph as there would only be either one, or a very limited number in original circulation. Maybe it is a period reproduction of a press shot or a post war reproduction of a press shot. I cannot say conclusively. Sorry, there is the chance that someone has reproduced your photograph, but if Max believes he has seen it in a book, then this may be unlikely.

Here is your image so that people can see them in the same thread

Raymond

[pantherv]

..........

Raymond, the point I was making was that whether Christian's photo is original or not, I couldn't tell you, but the photo Max posted is without doubt a copy and not original.

Peter

[Mogdala]

Ok the scan is not showing the natural paint. It´s not as yellow as the scan is showing. I´m working with photos for years and i know what is good or bad. In that case there is no problem.

Its for now on hold for stdrbs14. I sent him a private message with this link. I give full credit if somebody is not happy with it, thats it.

Either i do not know whats the real problem? Is it the asking price or what? So what is more worth a PK or private photo - IMO it´s everbody´s own decision.
What do other people think?

[Sal Williams]

Raymond,
With all due respect, you are mistaken. I believe you are not aware of the previous discussions on similar issues. The outcome was the introduction of a comments section at the top of the photos and paper items table on the e-stand. It was decided that this was the correct place to discuss issues with items offered for sale on this particular table, in order to avoid introducing new threads which would confuse matters, and which is exactly what has happened in this particular case.
Regards,
Max.

You are right but that idea is a debacle! A single thread to search through for the whole paper section. it should be done away with right away it doesn't work!

[max history]

And what makes you thinking that?

Well, here's yet another copy of the same photo being sold somewhere else as an "original private" photo. Hear any alarm bells yet?
Max.

[101combatvet]

A photograph of this quality would have been taken by a professional photographer. I'm sure that hundreds of copies would have been produced. What I don't like is the lack of a backmark on the print.... this doesn't mean it is bad.... just that caution should be used.

Well, here's yet another copy of the same photo being sold somewhere else as an "original private" photo. Hear any alarm bells yet?
Max.