Modern Wittmann fake document at Ratisbon

[17thairborne]

Jeremy you are making some great points and are supporting your position. I also feel the flow of the "i" following the "Wh" is at odds. Notice on the original, the first stroke of the I makes an upward stroke much like "/" and then stops with a downward sharp reversal. On the alleged fake, the top of the "i" is rounded indicating a quick turn of direction, rather than a termination of one direction and beginning of another without picking up the pen. The "W" and the "i" are significant enough in my opinion to warrant a pass on the document for me, if it were in my collecting realm.

I appreciate your studious comments regarding the slant of the letters and the mechanics of hand and finger movement during a signature.

[Mithrandir]

Gentlemen and Simon! Jeremy has saved many collectors lots of money in the past. Also he helped to get this collecting hobby cleaner, otherwise it would have died. We can't thank him enough.
I think it is wrong for Simon as moderator to threaten to kick Jeremy off the forum. So please calm down everybody.

[Akira Takiguchi]

I wonder how many members have examined original Wittmann signature in person. I've examined only one from July 1944. I've also checked BDC Wittmann file copies. What I can say is that Ratisbon's example is different from what I've seen, but that doesn't make it an immediate fake, of course.

[butschekantiques]

Hello everyone,

First of all thanks very much to Simon for moderating this thread. I think a lot of important facts have been gathered since he joined which were a great contribution to this discussion.

We always do lots of research with all of our consignments of course. A lot of items do not pass our high standards and do not make it into the auction. This of course means to disappoint consignors. And the majority of our consignors are collectors. In addition, we contact collectors and dealers around the world to ask for their opinion in order to confirm our position on certain items. This includes asking for opinions on forums like that as I always said that there is a lot of knowledge gathered in community forums which can’t be valued high enough. It looks like we should have uploaded this document in advance. Lesson learned.

However, being accused for selling fakes for a quick profit is not justifiable. I can assure you that I have no intense to sell any fakes for any profit.

Thanks also to 17thairborne for your contribution to this thread:
Yes, the paper is made of the correct material for the era. And yes, the letters of the typewriter are also correct. The problem is that we can’t consider these to be a proof of authenticity as you are stating correctly. The letter head is properly printed too by the way.
We have compared the signature with known original examples of course. As we all know signature slightly change. Let’s compare our own signature today and tomorrow and we will see differences.
However studying it in more detail as done during this discussion does indeed raise flags as I have to admit. A few very good points have been done!
The biggest problem I see is indeed the „W“ the „tt“ and the „ch“. These differences can not be explained by acceptable standard mismatches we all have with our signatures.

So I want to change my position based on the facts which you have worked out and have to admit that we were clearly wrong here. Jeremy was right to start to discussion.

We will obviously delete bids already placed on the Wittmann signature and make a note for all potential bidders that it is withdrawn from the auction.

We will also withdraw: Rommel letter, Eichmann letter, Skorzeny letter, Marseille signed document.
These four including Wittmann’s letter were coming from the same source which is a collector like all of you. I assure you he was not aware of any issues to that documents.

Constructive feedback on anything we list is of course always welcome. This includes constructive feedback of Jeremy.

Klaus

[Jeremy]

Akira, I expect very few collectors have examined an authentic Wittmann document in person, or any of the documents at auction or sold online they wish to buy. That's not the way the hobby operates for many collectors, but that does not preclude them from making informed decisions on what is possibly fake or authentic.

What in particular was different about the one you saw in person and Ratisbon's one, Akira? Do you have images of the documents you are referring to?
J

[Eric JB]

Thanks to Jeremy, we have somehow a passable path through the minefield that is called collecting signatures / autographs

[Brian R]

Great thread. Thank you to everyone who has contributed.

Here is, in my opinion, a fake Wittman sig for the "collection". It is from a very well done Vorschlagsliste and was among a number of "high-end" lists I came across about two years ago that all turned out to be bad. It definitely looks good but actually appears to be quite similar the fakes shown.

Brian

[17thairborne]

Hello everyone,


However studying it in more detail as done during this discussion does indeed raise flags as I have to admit. A few very good points have been done!
The biggest problem I see is indeed the „W“ the „tt“ and the „ch“. These differences can not be explained by acceptable standard mismatches we all have with our signatures.

So I want to change my position based on the facts which you have worked out and have to admit that we were clearly wrong here. Jeremy was right to start to discussion.

We will obviously delete bids already placed on the Wittmann signature and make a note for all potential bidders that it is withdrawn from the auction.

We will also withdraw: Rommel letter, Eichmann letter, Skorzeny letter, Marseille signed document.
These four including Wittmann’s letter were coming from the same source which is a collector like all of you. I assure you he was not aware of any issues to that documents.

Constructive feedback on anything we list is of course always welcome. This includes constructive feedback of Jeremy.

Klaus

Very honorable indeed. You are a gentleman and have certainly taken the high road!

[17thairborne]

Jeremy,
Thanks to you for bringing this issue to light. Without your thread, I would not have looked at such items with the same critical eye as I do now. I'm sure your urging via this thread will help me immensely in the future. Thanks for sticking this out.

[greg9069]

Thank you Jérémy for these arguments, I learned interesting things, asking me whether the document was good, i have the answer

[greg9069]

looking at the picture posted by jeremy, I see a pause in writing between letter A and E on the fake, unlike the original signature 1943 where i see a flow between this two letter
This detail is important?

[Akira Takiguchi]

Jeremy，I do not have any 1944 "Michael Wittmann" signature, so I can't comment on the "Michael" part. Attached is his early signature, taken from Lebenslauf document once stored at Berlin Document Center for possible reference.

I do not like the lack of flow and especially how W is constructed. His 1944 signature runs very quick, as shown in the Heese example you showed. By the way, I was told that the two genuine examples had been once together (the clipped signature was in the Feldpost), the collector reuniting them. Do you know if this can be confirmed?

When I first saw Heese envelope, it looked good (including a feature that is not on the scan), but I wondered why the recipient name was typed. My understanding is that it was typed by Herrn Heese, sent inside another envelope to Wittmann. Thus Wittmann just added signature and Feldpost indication.

The clipped signature says "Mich" and I was not very happy about that, I had never seen a signature where he signed "Mich" elsewhere. His writing "Stuf" (like H.Stuf / O.Stuf) reads pretty much like "Mich", so I had guessed that the forgers mistakenly copied it into their product as "Mich". I have heard that Michael was called by his comrade as "Michel" but never as "Mich" by the way.

Anyway, this time you showed a copy of NA document (I've never seen it) which says clearly "Mich". Do you think that "SS-U'Stuf. Mich. Wittmann" and "Hilde Burmester" (in the title) were written by Wittmann? W has different style and H is different from the one I know.

[Jeremy]

Thanks Akira. Some good points.

Attached is his early signature, taken from Lebenslauf document once stored at Berlin Document Center for possible reference.

I think it is best to focus on late 1943/1944 versions given the dating of the Ratisbon document. As can be seen for Schnaufer, Wittmann's early signature could have been notably different to what I have shown here for 1943/44. Also, I think seeing the whole signature including surname is best.

On the same NA document from which I posted the 1943 Wittmann, one 'Michael' is Mi space chael but we also have Mich space ael. So I am wary about drawing too many conclusions from that part.

I do not like the lack of flow and especially how W is constructed.

Which signature?

By the way, I was told that the two genuine examples had been once together (the clipped signature was in the Feldpost), the collector reuniting them. Do you know if this can be confirmed?

No, don't know. I recall seeing the clipping being sold separately at some stage.

The clipped signature says "Mich" and I was not very happy about that, I had never seen a signature where he signed "Mich" elsewhere. His writing "Stuf" (like H.Stuf / O.Stuf) reads pretty much like "Mich", so I had guessed that the forgers mistakenly copied it into their product as "Mich".

Hmm, I don't really see the that. I also believe the clipping and envelope were seen as good and have thus been reproduced by the fake factory forger in that version of fake Wittmann.

I have heard that Michael was called by his comrade as "Michel" but never as "Mich" by the way.

Given I have only ever seen one Wittmann clipping ever which I think is good, it is difficult to comment on the use of 'Mich.'. What is written and what is spoken are not always comparable, in any case.

Anyway, this time you showed a copy of NA document (I've never seen it) which says clearly "Mich". Do you think that "SS-U'Stuf. Mich. Wittmann" and "Hilde Burmester" (in the title) were written by Wittmann? W has different style and H is different from the one I know.

IMO, based on the quality of the image available, I think he wrote it.

The fake Wittman's I have seen seem very 'stiff' compared to the NA document and clipping.

[Jeremy]

Another

At Patton-militaria another IMO from the same forger.

[Akira Takiguchi]

I found these online, A June 1944 letter. I haven't found any conflict against the feldpost example I have seen, including capital H I mentioned.

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-mic...-51534666.html
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-mic...-51534721.html