Erich Hartmann signed material

[Dark Angel]

@ WJW, your photo of Hartmann might be good, but I am doubting the signature, either it's wartime or post war.

[WJW]

@ WJW, your photo of Hartmann might be good, but I am doubting the signature, either it's wartime or post war.

I wrote in my post that it is post war.

[WJW]

Original

Here is a wartime signed private portrait of Erich Hartmann I have.
It is not in mint condition. I camouflaged it a bit to discourage the fakers and copiers.

[frankandfrank]

ups, what that ?

http://www.legendsaviationgallery.co.uk/cgi-bin/jive2.exe?./jive/largeImage.jiv&ImageName=erich_hartmann.jpg

[Jeremy]

More coherent version

Sorry, last post was done in a hurry. Hope this is clearer, as added post numbers in the thread.

BTW I read on ehangar that this thread was unconvincing, that as few people are posting, it's just 1 or 2 people sounding off (I can't make others contribute), and because I have not been a member long my opinion are not valid (that time does not reflect my time as a collector, only as a member).

Also, it goes beyond just each one of us saying my sigs are authentic and yours are not. That's simplistic reasoning I have been trying to avoid as I have been working through these threads. As collectors we should be trying to establish what is most likely authentic and what is dubious. I am not trying to attack certain dealers or individuals. I am merely trying to present a reasoned argument as to why I think the BS material going around should be identified as that. We all agree you make up your own mind, but I have yet to see anybody present holes in my argument through rational discussion and use of photos and clippings as I have done in this thread.


So, please bear with me on this as I try to clarify my views. What I am saying is we can trace Hartmann from wartime to Taylor and Trudgian prints signed in the early 90's. These are genuine.


This time my argument will start with the good wartime examples (I believe, as I can show their evolution into what are 99% good Hartmann sigs on Taylor and Trudgian prints - beyond this, the general condition of the private photo from WJW (#18) and the HJ clipping and Hoffmann I posted (#3),which at least 'look' more like something from wartime Germany than lovely clippings in perfect condition in almost the same ink irrespective of who signs ). If you are not a member and cannot see the photos, then you have no place to comment on what I am saying - you only have half the story, so get a membership.

Firstly, on the 'good' Hoffmann and clippings (#3, with small pic in #12) and private photo (#18) note the complexity of the 'h' which then links into what almost resembles an 'e' (note the BS ones (#5, #12 - blank clipping, #13, #14) are a simplistic version of this which have a less complex 'h' and a clear 'a' which is separated from the 'h'). So I ask, which is more likely to be the work of a forger - the more complex one or the simpler one?? This is not the only point but one to ponder.

Next, compare what I believe to be good wartime ones with a post-war one from the 60's (#2). I beieve it is a good one as it shows similarities with those characteristics of the wartime sig I mentioned. The postwar BS ones are also similar to the BS wartime clippings - OK, fine. So we have two camps - we have the complex sig camp versus the simpler sig camp. Two distinct types of sig.

Then we have what I believe is a good one from the 70's (#2). The 'h' is less complex now but still links to something that now neither resembles and 'a' or an 'e', yet IMO is a natural evoultion from the 60's sig and bears little resemblance to the BS postwar.

Then if you compare this 70's sig, which I believe is good, to those on Taylor and Trudgian prints from the 80's/90's (#1 - undeniably genuine) you can see clear similarities in the 'h' and the way it flows into what is supposed to be the 'a'.

Now my argument is not nearly perfect, but it is a starting point. There is a notable divergence between the BS postwar sigs (which mirror the BS wartime clippings) and Hartmann's sig on Taylor and Trudgian. I have yet to see anything similar to the BS Hartmann's on Taylor prints, even Knights Cross.

So, we have two camps. I am (and others through PM) in the camp that is arguing that Hartmann's sig can be traced naturally from the war until his death, and we can see this evoultion. I see nowhere in which the BS sigs from post-war or wartime fit into that evolution, either in wartime or postwar. They are fundamentally different.

If you believe in the BS then please come up with a good argument beyond that of Korlin which is based on him stating that he got them from HJ who, at about the same time, all decided to offload their sigs to him, and so they are authentic. Only one camp can have the right wartime sigs and post war sigs. I see no connection between the two.

Feel free to disagree but please explain how the one's some of us think are BS relate to the Taylor or Trudgian versions or have evolved as I have shown for my opinions.

The point of this thread and it's outcome is key - if Hartmann BS exists, and IF we can be 70-80% certain through reasoned argument that it is indeed most likely BS, it has a domino effect, as those clippings which are of a very similar style for Marseille, Rudel, Rommel etc can be seen to be most likely as BS. Some people have much to lose if this is shown to be the case.

As the guy in ehangar says 'oh, this old argument about sigs being fake appears avery few years and dies down'. Sadly, that is true, and that is why we continue to be seeing lots of BS sigs doing the rounds. As collectors we should be working together to stamp this out through open discussion, not dismissing the arguments without a proper response or consideration, or ignoring the arguments because we don't want to believe that our favourite dealers are dodgy and we have possibly spent thousands on dud designer clippings or Hoffmanns.

Thanks for viewing the thread.

[Jeremy]

This is great - Korlin dedicated Hartmann

Here is a post-war Hartmann like the ones I am saying are part of the good set of sigs which is personally dedicated to Stefan Korlin, who probably even visited him to get it. Not sure why it is out there for sale, cos if he dedicated one to me personally I would keep it.

Again, can anybody see how this good sig has any similarity with the BS wartime (e.g. #5) or identical BS post-war (e.g. #4) ones going around?? I really can't

It fits in nicely with the others in the set of what I believe are post-war good ones.

So we have 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's covered for good Hartmann sigs. Here is a 1959 hartmann example which is also close to the 1961 one.

http://www.huesken.com/shop/de/autog...ann-40504.html

The silence is becoming deafening regarding support for the BS ones.



WJW great private photo, but your clipping, I believe, is a BS wartime attempt and not, I believe, post-war (attached photo seems good). Sorry.

[VtwinVince]

Another postwar example.

[WJW]

Signature on clipping

Jeremy -- that is well possible. I bought it for the photograph as it is a private photograph. I have no interest in the signature which is at best post war -which I do not collect- and at worst, and not unlikely, a dealer fake.

Notice also that many of the fakes coming from the same source are done in the same ink. Even when you have more than one person signing. Look at any genuine, say, signed menu or card with multiple people signing and they will be nine times out of ten in different inks and different writing instruments. These high ranking and/or important guys where not standing around waiting to use the same pen. Just my two cents.

[Jeremy]

A classic Hartmann

Yes, WJW. Can't agree more. Thanks VtwinVince. Another good postwar one. And here is another classic wartime Hartmann!!

Look at this and the other Hartmann's I posted as good examples, with the complexity of the signature compared to the fakes.

I think we getting closer to a definitive understanding of what is authentic and what is fake for Hartmann. I no longer feel it necessary to use tentative language or the term BS here. I believe there are clear wartime fakes (#5, #6, #12 - blank clipping, #13, #14) and clear authentic ones like this one.

I have shown a good case for how, from wartime to 1959 to the 90's, Hartmann's signature is.

I'll leave you too enjoy this one. Tomorrow I wll post fake Hartmanns sold as wartime - one with a CofA from a dealer guaranteeing it as genuine. I know I won't get my money back... but I don't need a signature expert to feel convinced that they are fake Hartmann's.

[fz1]

As the guy in ehangar says 'oh, this old argument about sigs being fake appears avery few years and dies down'. Sadly, that is true, and that is why we continue to be seeing lots of BS sigs doing the rounds. As collectors we should be working together to stamp this out through open discussion, not dismissing the arguments without a proper response or consideration, or ignoring the arguments because we don't want to believe that our favourite dealers are dodgy and we have possibly spent thousands on dud designer clippings or Hoffmanns

Hi Jeremy, and greetings from "the guy on eHangar" - It's nice to be noticed!


Being as I don't own any German signatures any more, I've got no axe to grind. The reason I stopped collecting them was that I couldn't tell what was real and what wasn't. As my good friend on eHangar says "A hobby is supposed to be a source of enjoyment, not torture" - I wasn't enjoying it so I quit.

When I was collecting, I had some REAL duds and they didn't originate from your source in Germany but from a US dealer who I believe is no longer trading. I chucked most of them away but I'd sold a couple of them before I realised (I tried to contact the buyer to offer him a refund, but never got a response).

The reason for my comment about "same thing every few years" was made because its true. Every couple of years, someone has a pop at Stefan & co, then it all dies down; why? ......because when all is said and done, it all comes down to opinion. If there was any definite proof that one lot of signatures are fake, then surely the whole argument would have been put to bed years ago?

As you rightly say, you're using reasoned argument, you're presenting evidence and you are supported by a couple of other people who have the same opinion as you ...... but it doesn't PROVE anything, its all opinion.

Like I said, I don't own any of these items, so I'm not deluding myself or trying to justify spending a lot of money on alleged fakes because I have no financial or personal interest any more. I now collect RAF signatures exclusively, so I suppose its only fair and reasonable that I should put myself up on the German forum to be "shot down" (I should be on the telly with material like this!)


By the way, my comment of "if you own one its real, if you don't, its a fake" on eHangar wasn't actually an argument, just a tounge-in-cheek light hearted comment (you'll see the smiley after it) and simply a device to gracefully bow out of an argument/thread.

Finally, please accept my apologies if any of my eHangar comments offended anyone on here; life's too short to get upset about a hobby and (unfortunately) I don't have the time to research the subject in the depth that I'd like to. I appreciate your mission to educate and inform; I wish you well along with your supporters and detractors alike and I'll continue to monitor the progress of discussions.

Cheers,

Jon

[Jeremy]

Great

Thanks Jon. It would be good to have more guys from ehangar comment. Yes, one would have wished the argument had been put to bed long ago.

The Marseille is tricky as the BS ones are well done and we need to do as Steven6095 has done and try and overlay them to compare small but consistent differences. I use the term BS and not fake for Marseille as I think it is not possible to show definitively what is good or not, unlike the comparison for Hartmann where I believe there are clear fakes. Rudel is somewhere between the two, but again a comparison shows consistent differences.

I have always said it has to go beyond the sigs to a comparison of the nature of the clippings - the ink, style and condition of the clippings which I believe are BS and those which are more plausible - the udel thread is a good example.

I think we are in a better position to comment now, as there is more and more access to photo examples and it seems no one has tried to deal with Hartmann before. It is a complex task to compare sigs, but Hartmann is clear (to me and some collectors, but not the guy on ehangar unfortunately). Not sure what I can do to simplify and clarify my argument on this thread.

Appreciate what you say about the purpose of these threads. I am deliberately avoiding attacking individuals including dealers, and want to just show to inform and discuss. I forgot that intention when I mentioned I would post a CofA, and I won't do that. Will just stick to the material I am getting by email from other collectors and looking through the Internet.

I agree with another comment on ehangar about these kinds of threads destroying the enjoyment of the hobby. It is downheartening to feel the sense that someone has actually ripped you off in your hobby as a collector. Maybe these threads will reduce that possibility for future collectors.

And, yes, RAf sigs are much less of a minefield, though Gibson, Bader and Malan BS stuff probably exists. Please continue to post your views here and on the other threads. Thanks

[Jeremy]

Confused?

As I mentioned in the last post, there is some confusion it seems regarding the threads.

I think I have explained what my argument is in post #20. I am now using the term fake and not BS (bit/bloody suspicious because I feel there is a clear argument in ths thread for definitively authentic v definitively fake Hartmann sigs. If your still confused send me a PM.

Once again, here is another fake Hartmann - wthout hat and very similar to #4
The authentic one, like those authentic ones on Taylor and Trudgian prints, is the one where he is wearing a hat. Not sure what more I can say to convince anybody regarding the difference between a fake and a good postwar one.

[Jeremy]

Wartime

Once again... as mentioned in post #20, I have shown distinct similarities in the sigs for wartime through the postwar decades following Hartmann's release from Russia to his death in the 1990's. It's not a cast iron argument, of course. It is not possible to show similarities to the same degree between a fake and indisputable Hartmann sigs on the Tayor and Trudgian prints. There is no evolution from wartime through to the 90's for the fakes.

The fake clippings AND now the fake sig on photo I present have the same sig. We know the postwar is 99% fake and this is the same signer on the fake wartimes.

I add another good Hartmann in a pdf for comparison (it is a complete Hoffmann, not cropped. I just had to post it like this so I could get it under the file size limit for a pdf). Compare the way the first three letters are signed - the fake is agin a simpler attempt compared to the real wartime Hartmann.

Thanks to all of you supplying me with this good and bad stuff.

[Jeremy]

Clarify

Also, to remove confusion... the photo with sig in the pdf file is a good sig example. The photo you see displayed in the thread is a fake sig.

[Jeremy]

Comparing sigs

As with the other two threads, I am using a pdf to compare in close-up good wartime sigs with fakes.

The good sig is at the top of the page and the fake underneath on the pdf.

I noticed that on all the good wartime photos (4 examples, two private and two Hoffmann on this thread), hartmann signs upwards from left to right. The fake is signed straight across - minor point but still an indicator.