SS camo Portrait - opinions please

[Jolly Roger]

Hi,

can you please let me know what you think of the authenticity of the following portrait photo.

Thanks in advance!

Ben

[Jolly Roger]

Maybe some of you have seen this photo on ebay. I bought it for a relatively reasonable price far from the buy it now price. Its only relatively reasonable though if the portrait is authentic. Otherwise I would return it to the seller, so your opinions would be very helpful.

Kind regards

Ben

[BlackWatch1]

The collectors site Warrelics has some info on fake photos and Mister.Kite is mentioned(Jul 2, 2013 - Some photos from seller: Mister.Kite on Ebay have been popping up for sale that are digitally enhanced (photoshopped). Most are easy to spot, ....) I can't tell you if this is a fake as I do not collect "sexy" war photos but others on here might be able to tell you if this image is a "known" one. Good luck and happy collecting!

[Lionel H.]

No red flag for me.

[Jolly Roger]

Thanks for your help! :-)

[chrischa]

Surely red flags would be the seller, if a respected site considers them dubious?

And the back seems both yellow with age and water damaged but the front has minor discolouration.

Really not saying the photo is a fake but to say no red flags is not the case for me.

[Jolly Roger]

Surely red flags would be the seller, if a respected site considers them dubious?

And the back seems both yellow with age and water damaged but the front has minor discolouration.

Really not saying the photo is a fake but to say no red flags is not the case for me.

Hi chrischa,

the yellow on the back of the photo is something I found strange as well. Do you have an idea what might have caused it? Water stains are on the front as well. Maybe just improper storage or artificial aging? It doesnt look artificially aged in hand though and there would be no point in aging just the back of a photo. I have found other photos (from unquestionable sources, e.g. woodwork finds) with color differences as well, just not as strong as on this photo. Please let me know if you have some ideas!

Thanks for your input!

Kind regards

Ben

[Lionel H.]

Hi chrischa,

the yellow on the back of the photo is something I found strange as well. Do you have an idea what might have caused it? Water stains are on the front as well. Maybe just improper storage or artificial aging? It doesnt look artificially aged in hand though and there would be no point in aging just the back of a photo. I have found other photos (from unquestionable sources, e.g. woodwork finds) with color differences as well, just not as strong as on this photo. Please let me know if you have some ideas!

Thanks for your input!

Kind regards

Ben

I have hundreds of Portrait, most of them directly from Vets § Families. Minor différences between the back and the front are very common,due to unproper Storage or "Age effect". If it is the only argument to say "fake", it is a little Weak IMO. I don't know neither Seller nor Site.... I just consider what you are submitting us.

[chrischa]

Hello Ben.

As I say, the photo may well be 100%.

I'm making the point that healthy suspicion is right for a photo like this and the uneven ageing is a point to note and evaluate. If your comfortable with it then that's fine.
But, if the seller is known to be selling fakes then that is a major red flag.

I'm merely giving an opinion that may balance others.

Cheers,
Chris.

[chrischa]

If it is the only argument to say "fake", it is a little Weak IMO.

Hello.

I haven't said its fake.

Regards,
Chris.

[Jolly Roger]

Thanks for the discussion! I would consider it to be a good one from what I see (thats why I bought it) and what you are submitting to this thread. Thanks for your help! This portrait is a great advance for my photo collection!

kind regards

Ben

[Thälmannpionier]

Ok..Im no expert on photos but handled a few over the years...such yellow backside is not that common on photos and would make it a little more suspicious for me...i mean yellow-ish okay..but that is quite different imo from normal yellow-ish paper aging..the 4 corners of the photo look still perfect..maybe from an album with protective photo corners?maybe..we dont know. It also looks like one side of the photo is uneven cut (backside scan right side) ..that also no red fleg but just sayin....this Mr.Kite guy is known for selling dodgy photos sometimes..he now sells some negatives on ebay...i dont want to talk the photo bad..its a great image..just give my opinion.....may i ask how far off his asking price, he sold it to you? Could also be a red flag or not..i mean if he offers it for 300 and then maybe sells it for 80..that would make me wonder.

[Tom B]

This is difficult......I'm just not sure about this one ??? Tom

[Jolly Roger]

This is difficult......I'm just not sure about this one ??? Tom

Hi Tom,

thanks for your reply. What are the points that make you positive on the one hand and skeptical on the other hand?

Kind regards

Ben

[Thälmannpionier]

ok..here you'll find 2 Agfa marks accepted on original postcard photo paper..yours is different.....i checked my few portraits on agfa paper and they match with the 2 accepted.

http://www.kriegsberichter.de/Data/fake03e.htm