Opinons on this SS DR group please:

[Michael73]

Thanks for your time

[Michael73]

ek1

[Michael73]

ek2

[Michael73]

tag

[Michael73]

back ot the tag

[Michael73]

any comments?

[kuratorium]

To the EK2 citation with Kepplers signature :
It´s very strange that on the same day was used another typewriter type (with SS runes key) and method of date filling is also different ...
See the comparison below :

And here is the link with similar citation from the same date and also with Kepplers signature .
The question is: Which is correct?

[Michael73]

Any opinions?

[MIG]

To the EK2 citation with Kepplers signature :
It´s very strange that on the same day was used another typewriter type (with SS runes key) and method of date filling is also different ...
See the comparison below :

And here is the link with similar citation from the same date and also with Kepplers signature .
The question is: Which is correct?

The answer I believe is that both documents are correct. The date shown on the documents is the date of the approval of the award and not necessarily the date on which the document was typed out on. So the two documents you are comparing may have been typed up several days or even weeks apart. Even if they were typed up on the same day, the divisional staff company probably employed two or more clerks typing out the documents on more than one type of typewriter. This would allow for the small differences, such as the style of typing the date, that you have highlighted. I have in my collection two groupings for men who served in the same regiment but in different companies. Their Nahkampfspange citations bear the same award date but have been typed up on different typewriters one with an SS runic key, the other without. One of the most important aspects is that the characteristics of both the Dienstsiegel and signatures compare well. That would seem to be the case with the two examples of EK II documents that you have shown in your post.