Helmut Lent - Anyone have documents?

[Steven6095]

Greetings. Does anyone have any examples of signed Helmut Lent documents?

Thank you for your time.
Steven

[Jeremy]

two

here u go... there are a couple in the book The Lent Papers by Hinchcliffe, too. To date, I have only seen the lower sig style on late 41/early 42 docs, with the top style seeming to be more prevalent generally. Lent is relatively easy to forge, and I have seen the usual BS clippings which are similar to the top style, but with consistent differences in the 'e', for example.

[Steven6095]

Thank you for the reply.

Yes it was in relation to autographs, but I have one in the bank box, not from the source, not even from the source in question originally as far as I am aware, WELL aged, a tiny bit of foxing over the signature, ink sunk into paper, etc.

Mine is extremely close to the bottom on. Letter formation is dead on.
That is why I wanted to see a document, the T on mine was not like anything I had seen on the internet until you posted the bottom document.

Thank you very much.

[Jeremy]

more

Yes, I have seen your Lent clipping with attached aircraft picture on ehangar... is it on a feldpost/stock card or cut book paper? the paper in itself is not necessarily an indicator of authenticity as we have seen... I agree it is similar to the bottom sig I have shown...

btw, I am not saying the bottom Lent doc is necessarily authentic... the top one comes from the Rudolf Frank collection which was up for auction along with his KC and effects, and I have faith in that one for sure...

I have two scans of private photos with this different 't' with Lent wearing oakleaves (post june 1942) in one and swords (post aug 1943) in another ... this, I find, is particularly odd considering the prevalence of the normal crossed 't' in Lent signed photos. The unmarked combat report from sept 1941 in Hinchcliffe's book has the uncrossed 't' and is similar to your sig... (Hinchcliffe gives no source for this doc). I have examples of Lent on private photos and postcards with Lent wearing oakleaves and with swords which all have the crossed 't' except for the two private photos which I mentioned with oakleaves in one and swords in the other...

I have avoided buying the uncrossed 't' Lent sigs until I can gather more info to make me feel more confident about that style of sig, given it's random and uncertain use on material I have access to so far... I am more cautious these days for obvious reasons...

[Steven6095]

Yep and mine has the letter formation of the bottom one yet with a little of the sharpness on the top of the letters as the top signature has.
Again, IMO my signature would easily fall right into middle of them.

Also, I dont want to get into a qualification argument, but one of my certifications dealt at length with document conservation and the study for it was substantial.

This paper is not like the other ones I have seen come into question. Bit thinner, edges are toned, etc.

My main argument: The photo is brighter than the article itself, but in person there is light foxing through part of the signature. That plus how the ink has soaked and feathered and the edges are a tad darker where the metals in the ink settled are usually extremely good signs of something being old.

Can you tell me how you forge foxing on a document when it's orgin is still a debated topic in the archivist community?

There is substantial age to this item - plain and simple.

I also have access to one of the top archivist in the United States working for the museums and goverment in DC. I have not yet, but I am going to contact him to see if he would be willing to look at a few items to establish possible dates. Gratned it is not an exact science but wartime vs modern should not be too difficult.

As for the letter formation, positive sign #1 is that it does not match the majority of the signed cards on the market. There are wartime documents with that style of signature, there are wartime with the other style as well.

I honestly think some of this authenticity matter is going to come down to the best we can do. There is simply not enough source material out there to unequivically say one way or another.

[Jeremy]

yep

yes, indeed, fair enough comment... I am not arguing with what you previously posted or asking you to explain why you feel it is from the wartime period... I was just pointing out that the use of the uncrossed 't' style on the limited material I have current access to for referral is somewhat random and open to question... agree with you that it differs to that sig on the standard dud clippings for Lent besides the uncrossed 't'... the wartime docs may or may not be authentic with this sig... same for other private photos with this sig... as we both say, more examples are needed...

perhaps you could post your Lent so people know what we are talking about for reference?

thanks...

[Hundestaffel]

A friend of mine has two very comprehensive Helmut Lent NJG "Kill" Reports (each of which contain numerous Lent surname [only] signatures), these being Lent's 11th and 13th victories:

Kill No. 11 - 30.6.1941 1:40 Stirling 6./NJG 1 10km S Wesermaunde Stirling I (N6001) “MG-?” of 7 Sqn, RAF flown by S/L WTC Searle

Kill No. 13 - 4.7.1941 0:34 Wellington 4./NJG 1 Exloo Wellington IC (R1492) “GR-?” of 301 Sqn, RAF

Unfortunately, my friend is (justifiably) not a fan of Forums, and will not be posting these Reports (which is really too bad as the Lent signatures - I believe 9 in total - are unquestionable)


"Hundestaffel"

[stgeorge64]

I have in my collection a 7-page 'Abschussmeldung' submitted by Leutnant Rudolf Schoenert and his Bordfunker Unteroffizier Johannes Richter of 4./Nachtjagdgeschwader 1 for the destruction of a Vickers Wellington bomber on 04-August-1941.

The 'Abschussmeldung' contains 4 signatures of Oberleutnant Helmut Lent as Staka. 4./NJG1, which I hope will prove of interest.

Regards Richard.


#1 'Abschrift Bericht uber Beobachtung'.

[stgeorge64]

#2 'Abschrift Bericht uber Beobachtung'.

[stgeorge64]

#3 'Abschussmeldung'.

[stgeorge64]

#4 'Stellungnahme'.

[Jeremy]

great

very interesting, and many thanks, Richard, for posting those examples!! really useful.

so we have examples of the uncrossed 't' in docs from aug 1941 to feb 1942. The second doc on p165 in hinchcliffe from probably post sept 1942 has the crossed 't'. And an informal piece from winter 1940/1941 on p86 shows a crossed 't' example.

but, here is also a crossed 't' example from Jan 1942... rank, designation and date tie in with info in hinchcliffe's book, too, and Becker was in his Gruppe.

here is a Lent example as Kommodore of NJG3 dated 30 aug 1943, too.

anybody have any more Lent signed docs from 1942 onwards they can post the sigs of?

[CWP]

Yep and mine has the letter formation of the bottom one yet with a little of the sharpness on the top of the letters as the top signature has.
Again, IMO my signature would easily fall right into middle of them.

Also, I dont want to get into a qualification argument, but one of my certifications dealt at length with document conservation and the study for it was substantial.

This paper is not like the other ones I have seen come into question. Bit thinner, edges are toned, etc.

My main argument: The photo is brighter than the article itself, but in person there is light foxing through part of the signature. That plus how the ink has soaked and feathered and the edges are a tad darker where the metals in the ink settled are usually extremely good signs of something being old.

Can you tell me how you forge foxing on a document when it's orgin is still a debated topic in the archivist community?

There is substantial age to this item - plain and simple.

I also have access to one of the top archivist in the United States working for the museums and goverment in DC. I have not yet, but I am going to contact him to see if he would be willing to look at a few items to establish possible dates. Gratned it is not an exact science but wartime vs modern should not be too difficult.

As for the letter formation, positive sign #1 is that it does not match the majority of the signed cards on the market. There are wartime documents with that style of signature, there are wartime with the other style as well.

I honestly think some of this authenticity matter is going to come down to the best we can do. There is simply not enough source material out there to unequivically say one way or another.

I can't comment on the validity of the signatures but have some experience in faked wartime paperwork. Original wartime German blank paper is widely available in many forms, not only things like end papers in books but also typical writing and typing paper of all kinds in the form of blank Feldpost stationery, original notebooks, envelopes, etc. In my collection I have much material of this kind. This paper may show foxing and real age and serve as an ideal blank canvas for the faker's art. With a fountain pen signature, it is easy to create a huge variety of ink effects. Bleeding, feathering and shading are largely created when the pen hits the paper and various ink formulations and dilutions can create or eliminate any of these effects. Iron gall ink forumulated to match old inks can still be readily obtained, there are people in Germany crafting small batches of "Urkundentinte" that in theory would be chemically identical to pre-modern inks. Original wartime ink is more difficult to obtain but still out there in many forms. Even fading of ink is not a sure sign of age as there are widely available commercially manufactured fountain pen inks that will show visible fading in a matter of months even without chemical or UV exposure to accellerate this process. Authentication of any signature needs to go beyond the age of the paper and the appearance of the ink.

[Jeremy]

sig

For reference, I think this is the clipping Steven and I were discussing which he had posted up on ehangar:

http://ehangar.com/modules.php?name=...ht=helmut+lent

[Jeremy]

interesting

Interesting comments, Chris.

Here are some other docs, supplied by Wim... I received 14 documents from 11 Oct 1942 to July 1943, all with the crossed 't'... I have attached one as representative of that crossed 't' sig.

I also received 8 gefechtabericht from between 3 July and 13 Oct 1941, only 7 of which have the uncrossed 't'. All the uncrossed 't' examples are from 4./NJG1 Im Felde, but the crossed 't' is on the 6./NJG1 O.U. (which means?) doc dated 3 July 1941 in relation to June 1941 (see attached). This crossed 't' was evident when Lent was in I./ZG76 before that, too.

Lent moved to 4./NJG1 on 1 July 1941, but I wonder if he signed the 6./NJG1 document with the crossed 't' because it was related to that staffel from which he had just moved?? Did the actual signature change start with his shift to 4./NJG1 on 1 July 1941 and remained like that during his time as Obertleutnant and Kommandeur of II./NJG2 from Oct 1941 (Hauptmann from 1 Jan 1942) also?

And did it change back again to the crossed 't' when he became Kommandeur of IV./NJG1 (II./NJG2 became IV./NJG1 in Oct 1942) unofficially in early Oct 1942 and officially on 1 Nov 1942 (paperwork lagged behind his appointment as usual, according to Hinchcliffe)? So maybe the uncrossed 't' was around from 1 July 1941 until end Sept 1942?

Hundestaffel, can you let us know which signature types are shown on the two docs you mentioned, one when Lent was in 6./NJG1 (crossed 't'?), and the other a few days later when he was in 4./NJG1 (uncrossed 't')?

If this is indeed a plausible explanation that the uncrossed 't' was only used during Lent's time with 4./NJG1 and as Kommandeur II./NJG2, I can't understand why a crossed 't' is on the Becker related document from 21 Jan 1942 I posted... hhmmm... dodgy?? What do the letters relate to under the rank and title on this doc??