Opinions on Rommel Signature

[hmsbrinmaric]

Hi Everyone,

What are you thoughts on this signature? I personally don't care for it, it looks forced to me. I think the document is originally and was possibly enhanced to raise the value. I could be wrong and this could just be a sloppy signature.

Thanks,
Keith

[crfraser]

Perhaps a carbon signed on a rough surface? Why would a forger deliberately produce such a poor example? I wouldn't want but would tend toward real.

Colin

[i.spring]

im no way an expert with this stuff but I also think, it looks like it was simply written on a wooden board or table.
I would also lean towards real.

Ian

www.colorwarphotos.com

[Jon. H]

It's quite obvious not real.

[hmsbrinmaric]

Thank you Colin and Ian, I definitely think it was done on a rough surface, but I think it may have been done to cover up that it is a forgery. Like I said I could be wrong.

Jon-Olav thank you for your opinion, can you elaborate on why you think it is fake though?

Any other opinions would be appreciated.
Keith

[Jon. H]

It shows no signs that and original Rommel signature would have, other than the style it's written in. Even though if it was written on a plank or a piece of wood.

And why would he sign at that point, there is no name or anything under it. Just "Rommel". Would he autograph on a document?

Just my cents though, but IMO a obvious poor fake.

[crfraser]

If its a fake its a stupid one as no one would want it as its impossible to prove its real. Unfortunately its pretty much valueless even if it is real.

That's why I was tending towards real, as even bad forgers have some brains.

Colin

[hucks216]

...as even bad forgers have some brains.

Colin

Depends on what sort of collector they are aiming at. You only have to see some of the obviously faked citations to see that sometimes they are just putting stuff out there aiming to fool those who don't have access to forums or books. The forger doesn't care if he snares a new comer as a profit is a profit.
Look at the 2 items at the top here, they fall in to the 'how could you ever prove they're real' category - http://www.germanmilitaria.com/Galleries/Paper.html

[max history]

Colin,
I cannot agree with you. I have seen some extremely poor forgeries which are so obvious it would take an imbecile to say it was real. Jon-Olav is quite right, of course. This example is a poor forgery. Rommel's signature is relatively easy to copy and therefore it is forged more commonly than most. Added to this is the fact that Rommel is more collectable than most GFM autographs. This lends it to being attractive material for forgers and they plant it in the most unusual places. Take a look at Hamilton's book on TR autographs. In it there is a fake Rommel autograph on a sketch of a tank, below a fake Hitler signature (p54). A real Rommel autograph carries a certain value, even if it is on a clipped piece of paper.
And now back to my research and writing.............
All the best,
Max.

[hmsbrinmaric]

Thank you Max and everyone, it's as I thought it was added to increase the value of a grouping. The same grouping has an EKII document signed by Ritter von Thoma. Go figure!!!

Keith