Modern Wittmann fake document at Ratisbon

[Lionel H.]

I might be wrong, but I strongly doubt, that Wittmann had this kind of letterhead...

Very correct !

I don't know Klaus personally, and don' t want to judge, but well, if something his suspicious, it could be a good advertising and an excellent Proof of his professionalism to take it back from the Auction.

The problem is, more generally, there is an increasing number of auctionshouses in Germany, and throughout Europe. My childy Thoughts are, that the Manager SHOULD only sell Stuff who he is personnaly able to prove it's originality, because the Customer trusts his competence. And ALL the Auctionhouses I personnally know are led by people which are not specialists - especially in PAPER STUFF - or at least only superficially. I'm -again - not talking yet about Klaus, I don't know who he is and his Collector's Past. But those I know are regularly selling fakes, mainly due IMO to lack of competence than the real intention to fool the collectors. L.

[Simon O.]

Explain why these two items are fake please. Nobody is going to pull an item based on 'Jeremy on the internet said so'.

[Jeremy]

Yes Simon, of course nobody should pull an item from auction based on what I or Ludwig have said. That's not the point of the discussion.

My point again is that the forum supporter Ratisbon is selling material as authentic but is unable to suggest why he considers it authentic.

You ask why is it fake? I ask why is it certainly authentic? Klaus is free to answer and participate or not. He guarantees his items, he says. So how is he 100% sure that he guarantees it? If someone buys it and sees it and says it is fake, how does he counter that argument?

Ratisbon sells many good items. I have merely questioned two. I obviously have reasons for my opinion or I wouldn't have raised the issues.

I appreciate Ratisbon is a forum supporter, but he is still a dealer whose items can be questioned here if a member has concerns about what is sold as authentic.

[Jeremy]

Authentic

Here are two IMO authentic Wittmann... one I downloaded from the US National Archive website a while back. I will do a close up comparison later of the IMO forged document version and these. If I were a dealer, I wouldn't sell what Ratisbon is selling as authentic with any confidence. What do you think Simon?

[Simon O.]

Of course it's right an proper to discuss any item, however there are a few things i wish people would keep in mind.

Firstly, discuss the item and not the person.
Secondly, the onus is on the thread starter to explain their opinion, it's also not a good tactic to claim as fact that an item is bad and then challenge the owner or others of a different opinion to prove '100%' that the item is authentic. Especially when that person hasn't proven '100%' that the item is bad.


As for my opinion? I have none of any value. Happily these are outside of my collecting area, but FWIW i'd treat both with a huge amount of sceptism simply based on who and what they are.

Yes Simon, of course nobody should pull an item from auction based on what I or Ludwig have said. That's not the point of the discussion.

My point again is that the forum supporter Ratisbon is selling material as authentic but is unable to suggest why he considers it authentic.

You ask why is it fake? I ask why is it certainly authentic? Klaus is free to answer and participate or not. He guarantees his items, he says. So how is he 100% sure that he guarantees it? If someone buys it and sees it and says it is fake, how does he counter that argument?

Ratisbon sells many good items. I have merely questioned two. I obviously have reasons for my opinion or I wouldn't have raised the issues.

I appreciate Ratisbon is a forum supporter, but he is still a dealer whose items can be questioned here if a member has concerns about what is sold as authentic.

[greg9069]

the document is sold ! i see a bidder on the website !
Congratulation to him

[Jeremy]

Thanks Simon. By Ratisbon putting that Wittmann up for sale they are making the statement it is authentic. Let's be clear about that. So why not ask them to explain the logic of that position at the same time? No need to respond, it's a rhetorical question.

I accept what you say re claims of fact, but I think it's also understood by most collectors that rarely can someone be 100% sure about an item. I agree that an IMO would have made it clearer for those who don't realise we are dealing with informed opinion. I didn't realise Ratisbon was a forum sponsor, or I would have tempered my language more explicitly. Having said that. I agree with 708VGD about dealers, and Ratisbon's post about 'many international specialists' etc lacks intelligence.

In any case, IMO if someone compares the Wittmann sig from Ratisbon with the two I posted, including Ratisbon, they would see the point of my position. Shame Ratisbon don't have the ability to engage with the discussion.

Good luck to the bidder...

[Simon O.]

Someone's status is completely irrelevant, at least where i moderate, that's now twice you've insinuated it has some kind of bearing on treatment here. Do it again and you'll no longer be welcome.
Secondly, your tone is arrogant and disparaging, which is hardly likely to encourage discusion.


Both of these documents are very much worthy of discussion, even outright warnings to potential buyers, however the manner, or rather tone you decided to take has done you no credit. I urge you to take a more considered approach in the future.

[Gran Sasso]

You had it for sale at Kassel before any comment.

He said ON DISPLAY! Not for sale!

[kuratorium]

Older thread: Click!

[Jeremy]

Thanks Simon. You misinterpret the message. Merely style of writing.

Gran Sasso, sure. Correction - On display while being auctioned.

[17thairborne]

I don't know anything about Wittmann's signature, but went here to learn something. Here is what I gleaned.

1. Accusations without some basis for making such a claim should be dismissed. In any jurisdiction, proof of a crime must be offered. This forum becomes a court wherein authenticity = truth. You don't accuse someone of a crime and then say "Prove you are innocent"

2. I learned very little of a technical nature, other than the comment that one does not believe he would have used such letterhead, which I can accept, but only as conjecture.

3. When the barbs fly, the discourse degrades and learning stops. I was hoping to learn something here.

Recommendation:

1. Jeremy: State specifically why you think the documents are fake. That makes it an academic discussion and puts the ball in butschecksantiques' court to refute your academic conclusions.

2. butschecksantiques': Take the high road and provide some rationale why you conclude (technically) that the signatures are original. You do not need to do so as the accuser has presented no facts.

3. Someone in the know take the two signatures of the alleged fake and superimpose them onto one which is adjudicated as original for comparison.

Well, here it is I decided to add them. Signature in question on top, one from US Archives on bottom to further an academic discussion:

[17thairborne]

Here is another comparison of the alleged signature on top and the other provided from the archives.

If we accept the archive signatures as true, then I see a disparity in how the "W" is rendered. The upward stroke is somewhat unsteady on the top signature and on the other two it is rendered with confidence without any wavering. The hook at the top of the "W" on the top signature is a bit tall and does not match the two from the archive at all.

This is but one letter that I have analyzed as a layman. I hope others can see differences or similarities in an effort to help the academic discussion.

[17thairborne]

I guess one has to add to the discussion a few more issues.

1. what is the paper made out of? Does it have the correct types of fibers for the era. This does not prove originality, it removes some doubt as someone could use old office paper from the era. Happens often this way.

2. Does the font from the typewriter match that of the era? Again, not proof positive, only can help to eliminate if it does not match.

3. Is the letter head printed with a press or silkscreen or stamp or computer. Analysis of the ink and depressions on the paper can help.

[Jeremy]

Good post

Yes, I take your points on board and mostly agree with what you say, 17thairborne. Let's get back to the purpose of the thread; it's getting sidetracked.

I still think that anyone who is a forum member who sells something as authentic (and guarantees it as authentic - based on what?) could easily provide example signatures for comparison to justify their view when asked just as those who dispute authenticity are always asked to do so. It's like claiming 'oh, it is authentic until reasonable argument shows it not to be, so I can sell/auction what I like.'

It will be interesting to see if Ratisbon's bother to respond. IMO they won't because the can't (beyond 'many international specialists' have approved it).

Re the signature on the document from Ratisbon, my view is that it is fake. Along with points you make, and beyond IMO it having the nature of being produced with care rather than natural flow, and the nature of the 'M', look at the angle of the writing - notably, the double 't' - which is clear in 1943 and 1944. One thing I learned from studying the fake factory material over the years is that a forger finds it difficult to reposition the hand/fingers to replicate the natural angle of each signatory. I have seen this across different signatories.

In addition, IMO, given the letter head, this is from the same forger as the other two documents I showed and were linked to by kuratorium [thanks for doing that, kuratorium]. However, the forger has improved the signature in the latest document auctioned by Ratisbon. In the jpeg, the nature of the 'Michael' and the first stroke of the 'W' also supports for me, along with the letterhead, my view that this is still the same forger. I cannot, of course, be certain, but for me it is a point of note. No doubt, improved forged Wittmanns will appear in the future - Marseille is a classic example of this.

In any case, I raise the issues and leave it for the reader to decide from your comments and mine. IMO, there is sufficient doubt and it is a fake. If someone else wants to spend hundreds of euros on it, and Ratisbon state it is authentic and feel they are doing honest business in the collecting community, so be it.