Hello,
Waht do you think of this letter :
Waht do you think of this letter :
-
-
difficult call to make, but I would think it original -
-
I would avoid this one. It doesn't look good.Comment
-
-
I too would avoid this. I have never seen a Rommel signed this finely and there are characteristics that are unusual - eg the forward slant on the o. I'm no expert but it just looks dodgy to me....too unusual to spend money on.
Is it signed with ball pen or a fountain that is almost out ink. I think Rommel usually signed with pencil.
Also why would he sign through the stamp or why would someone stamp ovver the siganture?
ColinComment
-
Colin,
Thanks for stating your reasons!....Always like to see an explanation for someone's opinion. Well done!
Cheers,
Bob.I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.....Comment
-
Sorry, I was in a rush this afternoon. There are a number of reasons I think the signature is questionable, along with what Colin mentioned. The two top loops on the R are much wider than usual. On both sides, there is usually a long retrace. The O is slanted too far to the left with the connector coming from the bottom. Normally his O looped in from the bottom left, up counterclockwise all the way to the top, and then looped down inside and led into the M from the top. His usual signature has the Ms relatively fluid and consistent with sharp angled tops rather than rounded. The L is too slanted to the right with the loop too wide and lopsided, while the terminating stroke should (usually) be sloping farther to the right at about 160 degrees. On the whole it also lacks the sharpness and consistency of a genuine signature. It's true Rommel usually signed in pencil, and occasionally in ink, but the pen used in this does appear to be a ball-point or thin felt pen. The photo is of an original from 1942 which is fairly representative. Hope that helps.Comment
-
Here's a Rommel of mine in fountain pen from 1939.
ColinComment
-
I am not an expert in Rommel signatures, but I would not just dismiss the signature out of hand that easily. The reason why he may have signed it through the stamp and on this particular item and the reason why a hard pen was used could be because this may have been all the recipient of the signature had to hand when Rommel came on one of his surprise visits in the field? As far as the slanted forward o goes, it certainly does look slightly diferent than shown in the other two examples here, but even these two (presumably original) examples have inconsistancies and are not identical to eachother...Cheers, Torsten.Comment
-
Thanks Torsten.
I am not saying it fake. I'm just saying that there are enough doubts to prevent me from getting to a feeling of comfort that its real. Given the frequency of forgery of Rommel, I'm not sure how one would ever get the necessary level of comfort when considering the uncertainties and inconsitencies that have been put on the table. I wouldn't spend $100 on it.
Regards
ColinComment
-
-
I think there are some forgeries that are very good, and some are more obvious. This example, I would argue, is a bit more obvious. Rommel's signature is one of, if not the, most common WWII personality's signature on the market, and the problematic characteristics of the signature in question don't really fall into the range of variation one sees in authentic Rommel signatures. So I think it's a safe bet it's not authentic.
All the bestComment
-
to me, the 21 panzer division stamp looks fake.
That is the first thing I noticed before even looking at the signature.Comment
-
sounds like it is a fake after all then ....Comment
Comment