Announcement

**max history** · 05-02-2016, 04:46 AM

Very good scans.
In my opinion this is an excellent copy of Himmler's signature. It is one that I would wish to physically examine, but on balance I would say it is a forgery. It is certainly handwritten in ink, but it does display characteristics of a drawn signature, i.e. slowly copied. Whoever created this example has done a very good job.
Max.

**Tom B** · 05-02-2016, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by max history View Post

Very good scans.
In my opinion this is an excellent copy of Himmler's signature. It is one that I would wish to physically examine, but on balance I would say it is a forgery. It is certainly handwritten in ink, but it does display characteristics of a drawn signature, i.e. slowly copied. Whoever created this example has done a very good job.
Max.

I 100% agree

**stevenentabita** · 05-02-2016, 05:08 AM

Thanks guys

i almost payed alot of money for it

Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

**THE WAFFEN-SS** · 05-02-2016, 08:55 AM

Hi All, Im the one selling this letter and in my eyes it is an original, not a copy.
I have had about 6 Himmler signatures in the past and all have been original
The one in the first link is not mine, just an example of the same national hartpost paper and signature

http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/photos...d-letter-3105/

The national hartpost logo was used from 1932 till the 1960's
It is the same paper used by the SS reichsfuhrer office... Himmler
This is were it came from:

http://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/au...6-a40100e0e999

It is one of those things that you need to see in hand as was said earlier.
Thank you for your time

**stevenentabita** · 05-02-2016, 08:57 AM

Thanks for clearing up the details!

Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

**Br. James** · 05-02-2016, 09:01 AM

It is often helpful to see the whole page/document when assessing originality.

Br. James

**max history** · 05-02-2016, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Br. James View Post

It is often helpful to see the whole page/document when assessing originality.

Br. James

If you look closely, it is clear that this is the bottom half of a torn page, so the whole piece is, in fact, shown!
The more I look at this example, the more convinced I am that it is a "drawn" copy - a forgery.
Unfortunately, the watermarked paper does not add much weight to authenticity as it was produced by the ton during that period. It is quite easy for forgers to obtain original paper.
Max.

**Vilja** · 05-02-2016, 05:27 PM

I find the vertical letters ("i and m") far too thick and bold for an original Himmler signature.

Should look more like this;

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...mler+signature

….as well as many other original Himmler signatures found in the search library.

Vilja

**Br. James** · 05-02-2016, 05:57 PM

Your eyes are much better than mine, Max; it looked to me like the page was folded.

Br. James

**stevenentabita** · 05-03-2016, 12:47 AM

But the signature comes from a high end auction house (Hermann Historica), i didn't knew this when i posted the question.... So you are saying the high end action house with a ton of experts are wrong??

**THE WAFFEN-SS** · 05-03-2016, 05:19 AM

The fact that there is no hesitation in the way it is written from what I can see, if the signature was drawn it would have ink leeching were there was hesitation on drawing it and the ink would bleed out to the paper around it... this is written fast and them blotted with an ink blotter, as they would have done. The same paper was used by the Reichsfuhrer SS office, while it is true it was made by the Ton this does not go against it....The effort of finding the same period paper, typing a letter of congratulations and best wishes then cutting it in half adding a Himmler signature aging it to look the same age as the paper and then selling it in a large group of documents for a small amount of what it could get for a full letter does not make any sense..
The signature is as old as the paper and is not a newly done edition. It shows the same aging as the rest of the paper which shows that it is a period done signature... It has the same colour tone to the ink as other period signatures..
i.e. It is not modern ink, and to find and get 70 year old just to fake one Himmler on a half of a letter that congratulates someone is a bit far to go... you could not age it the same as it should look, even if they used period ink. It would still look new to the paper and this doesn't.
You would think that they would type a letter on an important moment in history or a major order given.. not congratulations and best wishes..

How many people sign their name the very same way every time they sign something...

Thank you for your time

**praubal** · 05-03-2016, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by THE WAFFEN-SS View Post

The fact that there is no hesitation in the way it is written from what I can see, if the signature was drawn it would have ink leeching were there was hesitation on drawing it and the ink would bleed out to the paper around it... this is written fast and them blotted with an ink blotter, as they would have done. The same paper was used by the Reichsfuhrer SS office, while it is true it was made by the Ton this does not go against it....The effort of finding the same period paper, typing a letter of congratulations and best wishes then cutting it in half adding a Himmler signature aging it to look the same age as the paper and then selling it in a large group of documents for a small amount of what it could get for a full letter does not make any sense..
The signature is as old as the paper and is not a newly done edition. It shows the same aging as the rest of the paper which shows that it is a period done signature... It has the same colour tone to the ink as other period signatures..
i.e. It is not modern ink, and to find and get 70 year old just to fake one Himmler on a half of a letter that congratulates someone is a bit far to go... you could not age it the same as it should look, even if they used period ink. It would still look new to the paper and this doesn't.
You would think that they would type a letter on an important moment in history or a major order given.. not congratulations and best wishes..

How many people sign their name the very same way every time they sign something...

Thank you for your time

Totally agree....an original sig.

**max history** · 05-03-2016, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by stevenentabita View Post

But the signature comes from a high end auction house (Hermann Historica), i didn't knew this when i posted the question.... So you are saying the high end action house with a ton of experts are wrong??

Auction houses are well known to make mistakes. Bear in mind that this particular auction house is a general militaria auction house and not a specialist autograph auction house, but even autograph auction houses make mistakes. I'm sure that other contributors on this forum will also support what I am saying. Read the discussion here: http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...light=Heydrich
Max.

**Br. James** · 05-03-2016, 07:52 AM

"Auction houses are well known to make mistakes."

Not only do auction houses make mistakes, but militaria dealers make mistakes...and even I have made a mistake or two over the years! Indeed, the basic purpose of this forum is to gather opinions on a particular subject or item from as wide a variety of experienced collectors in these fields as possible, and even from newbies who may also have experience with a particular item or question. While complete consensus is not always obtainable -- 'opinion' being that personalized -- it is good to see what other collectors have to say about a piece, and especially if it is pricey.

Br. James

Announcement

Himmler signature, real or not?

Himmler signature, real or not?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread