Kriiegsmarine award docs...

[Tom Yanacek]

Here is a partial crew listing of U-168 showing Göbels name:

Note: + indicates KIA


Feiertag, Hans BtsMt U-168. survived sinking POW. Australia 06.10.44.
Fercho, Kurt MechOGfr U-168. POW
Fränkel, Hans BtsMt U-168. POW
Gensmann, Walter MaschOGfr U-168
Gleixner, Wolfgang MechOGfr U-168. POW
Göbels, Willi OBtsMt 19.11.1918-06.10.1944 U-168+
Grothaus, Egon MtrOGfr 19.03.1924-06.10.1944 U-195. U-168+
Gührig, Gerhard MtrOGfr U-168. 06.10.44 rescued by Dutch submarine and was subsequently put ashore in Japanese held territory by native sailing craft:
Haberer, Franz MtrOGfr U-168. 06.10.44 rescued by Dutch submarine and was subsequently put ashore in Japanese held territory by native sailing craft:
Hausmann, Anton MtrOGfr U-862. 1st.patrol- U-168. 06.10.44. rescued by Dutch submarine and was subsequently put ashore in Japanese held territory by native sailing craft:

*source- ubootwaffe.net

[Tom Yanacek]

Thanks

Great info:-)

I got the docs cheap... and when I receive them I will make some good pics...

The seller had other items that where repro... but these looked different... soo lets see, when they arrive

If no good no harm done

Hello Nicolai,

Glad to hear that you got these for cheap and I hope it turns out to be one super bargain for you. Over the years, I have been very lucky in finding original items for cheap, because the seller believed them to be fake. Please do post some better scans when you receive the documents and also scan the reverse side too.

Looking forward to seeing the pictures!
Best regards,
Tom

[tystgaard]

New pics

Soo the docs have arrived + one extra the seller added for free. Last one is IMO from a modern printer... But maybe not even fake.... something from a postwar vet meeting or something???? wanted to show to compare.

I think the 2 docs in question look very convincing in hand, and important... they looks not total in same style... The paper type is close, but not identical.. the typewriter is also not the same. And In my opinion clearly not from a modern printer.

[Tom Yanacek]

Hello Nicolai,

Thanks for posting the additional scans of the documents. I must say that with the better scans, I do have some concerns about the documents. I have posted below, a picture of things I like to see on the backside of documents.
Documents were printed with heavy printing presses and therefore you will usually see a "ghost image" or even a slightly embossed effect of the printed text, visible on the back. Sometimes there will even be some ink bleed through as a result of the pressure used in printing. I don't see any evidence of this on the backside of either document. Also, the "stops" on hand typewriters are notorious for dimpling the paper, if not actually punching through the paper. Even on heavy parchment, there should be a raised impression of the stop on the backside of the document. Of course, seeing these things is not conclusive proof that a document is original, but it should prove, at least, that the document is not a photocopy.
In the picture below, the "ghost imaging" of the printed text is circled in purple and the "stop" impressions are circled in red. Again, nothing conclusive in and of itself. But the "ghosting" should indicate an original document blank or, at least, one that has been printed in the proper manner i.e., a heavy printing press. Seeing the "stop" impressions will at least indicate that a typewriter was used on the document rather than just being a photocopy.
I still think the Minesweeper document looks good from the front. But I must admit that the von Friedeburg signature looks "shaky" and "forced" on the U-boat document.

Best regards,
Tom

[Tom Yanacek]

I think I do see a raised impression of a "stop" on the back of the U-boat document. I am really puzzled by these two documents. They could still be good or maybe just very good, well-researched fakes. I apologize if anything I have said in this thread has mislead you or anyone else. I hope others will respond and offer their opinions.

Best regards,
Tom

Check the area circled in red here against the large picture in post #18 and you should see it. My software must have automatically reduced the size of the image to where you can barely see the stop impression. I have now added a blowup image of the area concerned.

[tystgaard]

Thanks

Hi Tom

I am very happy with your observations and opinions. I dont have alot of money in these docs... soo are open ether way. Also thanks for the time you spend researching

I have looked ad some other docs, and they are showing these signs more clearly. But than again these are on another kind of paper. I do think that the typewriting is original. The Friedeburg signature is a bit off... and it kind of like painted... like with a paintingbrush... more than writing.... It is hard to say... but not everything is fake because its not textbook....

I am no expert in these... but had I fund them in a grouping maked as originals... I would not have doubted these... and I am still very optimistic about them.
If fakes... very good ones... and fare better than the other items from the seller.

If I get the opportunity to handle other docs in hand of the same kind... maybe I would learn more...

More opinions are ofcourse welcome

Nicolai