Hi Guys.
I was searching through the Estand, when I saw this :
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=819246
Of course, the 5 Awards documents are OK. The Question is : Is the Bestätigung original or added to increase the Value ?
When I see such a document, clearly giving, the date, the Place, the Weapon used, and the Type of the destroyed vehicle, all the red lights are already on. Of course, this kind of documents exists, but in most of original Groups I own or I have seen, this is rarely like this.... On the contrary, most modern Fakes - some of them already discussed on the WAF - are often containing all these Informations.... making the Collector dreaming is important !
Some precise Element now :
1) The Unit as written don't exist. It was none "Feld Ers.-Rgt.63" but a "Panzer-Feldersatz-Rgt.63" (for more Détails : Tessin p.255, Bd.5). If this unit had exist, probably a german Typewriter had written "Feld-Ers.Rgt.63" or "Feldersatz-Rgt.3", but not "Feld Ers."
2) The document has been established by the "I./......", so, the Ist Bat. OK. So, it must be signed by the Bataillon Commander, in February 45 an Oblt or an Hptm. The "countersign" of a "Oblt u.Komp.-Fhr" is "F.d.R." (Für die Richtigkeit) possible, BUT not like this...... Look the Doc..... "F.d.R."...... FRom what ??
If the Authority establishing the Document (here, the Bataillon) is not in situation to sign the document by herself, the correct way is to give FIRST at least the Name of the bataillon Commander, and then "F.d.R." . Example :
gez. Schmitt
F.d.R.
Signature
Oberleutnant u.Komp.-Fhr
</P>
<p><img src="http://cdn04.trixum.de/upload2/f/n/fn62UKY0eCuV144049023222P1683.jpg"></p>
<p><img src="http://cdn02.trixum.de/upload2/u/A/uARTk6wzZXhl144049023668P1683.jpg"></p>
3) Signing UNDER the Rank and Function is actually strange in the german military culture. It would be very difficult for me to provide even one other example... Except for SB's or WP's, where it sometimes happened due to the Lack of space on an already well fulfilled page.... Last point (for me, but perhaps other Members will see other détails...) is for sure the Signature itself, which obviously appears to me to not having been period-made. The style - like 95% of the fakes - don't match with the actual way of writing at that time.
2 important Points : the Lack of a matching Stamp is definitely not a determining Element on such a document, note it is not an "Award Document" (Verleihungsurkunde) but a "Bestätigung". A lot of original, if the Majority, is not stamped.
My apologize for the Collector himself. He is for sure an honest Collector, being self abused,otherwise he would have not published this Document here..... there are much other Places where the risk would heve been minor
</P><p><img src="http://cdn01.trixum.de/upload2/2/n/2nvKhxmMNbJ5144049033276P1683.jpg"></p>
I was searching through the Estand, when I saw this :
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=819246
Of course, the 5 Awards documents are OK. The Question is : Is the Bestätigung original or added to increase the Value ?
When I see such a document, clearly giving, the date, the Place, the Weapon used, and the Type of the destroyed vehicle, all the red lights are already on. Of course, this kind of documents exists, but in most of original Groups I own or I have seen, this is rarely like this.... On the contrary, most modern Fakes - some of them already discussed on the WAF - are often containing all these Informations.... making the Collector dreaming is important !
Some precise Element now :
1) The Unit as written don't exist. It was none "Feld Ers.-Rgt.63" but a "Panzer-Feldersatz-Rgt.63" (for more Détails : Tessin p.255, Bd.5). If this unit had exist, probably a german Typewriter had written "Feld-Ers.Rgt.63" or "Feldersatz-Rgt.3", but not "Feld Ers."
2) The document has been established by the "I./......", so, the Ist Bat. OK. So, it must be signed by the Bataillon Commander, in February 45 an Oblt or an Hptm. The "countersign" of a "Oblt u.Komp.-Fhr" is "F.d.R." (Für die Richtigkeit) possible, BUT not like this...... Look the Doc..... "F.d.R."...... FRom what ??
If the Authority establishing the Document (here, the Bataillon) is not in situation to sign the document by herself, the correct way is to give FIRST at least the Name of the bataillon Commander, and then "F.d.R." . Example :
gez. Schmitt
F.d.R.
Signature
Oberleutnant u.Komp.-Fhr
</P>
<p><img src="http://cdn04.trixum.de/upload2/f/n/fn62UKY0eCuV144049023222P1683.jpg"></p>
<p><img src="http://cdn02.trixum.de/upload2/u/A/uARTk6wzZXhl144049023668P1683.jpg"></p>
3) Signing UNDER the Rank and Function is actually strange in the german military culture. It would be very difficult for me to provide even one other example... Except for SB's or WP's, where it sometimes happened due to the Lack of space on an already well fulfilled page.... Last point (for me, but perhaps other Members will see other détails...) is for sure the Signature itself, which obviously appears to me to not having been period-made. The style - like 95% of the fakes - don't match with the actual way of writing at that time.
2 important Points : the Lack of a matching Stamp is definitely not a determining Element on such a document, note it is not an "Award Document" (Verleihungsurkunde) but a "Bestätigung". A lot of original, if the Majority, is not stamped.
My apologize for the Collector himself. He is for sure an honest Collector, being self abused,otherwise he would have not published this Document here..... there are much other Places where the risk would heve been minor
Conclusion
: IMO a quite-dangerous fake, even if far from perfection.... Lionel. </P><p><img src="http://cdn01.trixum.de/upload2/2/n/2nvKhxmMNbJ5144049033276P1683.jpg"></p>
Comment