need to discussion

[SkaraBrae]

I think this foto on estand needs to be discussion. No maker marking (Agfa), no Widmung or age sign, and very often reproducing.

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=902510

[Edward]

.

[Edward]

I think this foto on estand needs to be discussion. No maker marking (Agfa), no Widmung or age sign, and very often reproducing.

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=902510

A known post-war copy that has been around a long time on the collecting market, and reproduced in some number.

[101combatvet]

I think this foto on estand needs to be discussion. No maker marking (Agfa), no Widmung or age sign, and very often reproducing.

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=902510

Not all photos are marked Agfa or have a dedication.

[101combatvet]

Known post war-copy that has been around a very long time on the collecting market, and reproduced in some number.

Just out of curiosity what makes it a post-war copy?

[Edward]

Just out of curiosity what makes it a post-war copy?

I have yet to see an original of this portrait. This particular studio shot I recall first seeing at the Max Show in the early 1990's along with a good number of similarly themed portraits from other branches eg. Heer and Waffen SS. My understanding is that the portraits were post-war printed from a batch of original studio portrait negatives that had surfaced beforehand. If this one is original it would be a first. At least from that particular series of portraits from which post-war reproductions have been offered on the market innumerable times by dealers and auction houses over many years as wartime. If original it would be quite something. Any provenance?

[101combatvet]

I have yet to see an original of this portrait. This particular studio shot I recall first seeing at the Max Show in the early 1990's along with a good number of similarly themed portraits from other branches eg. Heer and Waffen SS. My understanding is that the portraits were post-war printed from a batch of original studio portrait negatives that had surfaced beforehand. If this one is original it would be a first. At least from that particular series of portraits from which post-war reproductions have been offered on the market innumerable times by dealers and auction houses over many years as wartime. If original it would be quite something. Any provenance?

If it is printed from the original negative it is considered to be an original by many, just saying.

[Edward]

If it is printed from the original negative it is considered to be an original by many, just saying.

I differ in terms of market value if not a pre-1945 print. Although post-war reprints certainly do have there place as reference and research tools within the hobby. Just my 2 (subjective) cents.

[FrenchVolunteer]

Hi,

his the picture reacting to UV light ?

See You

Vince

[SkaraBrae]

Not all photos are marked Agfa or have a dedication.

99 out of 100 original foto have either (1) foto mark or (2) Widmung or (3) date or (4) sign of age, true wear, stain ,so on or (5) some combine of 1,2,3 and 4. Brand new look foto with none is for me suspicion. When this foto so much faked is the 1 out of 100 with none good sign, suspicion is x 10.

[Thomas H]

I agree, for me this is a post 1945 print of an original photo or negative.

The seller has written that this image is copied a lot, but this one is original.
Maybe the seller can let us know why this one is original.

I do wonder what the collectors value is of the original photo, because the image is nothing new, as it is copied in large numbers.

Thomas

[101combatvet]

99 out of 100 original foto have either (1) foto mark or (2) Widmung or (3) date or (4) sign of age, true wear, stain ,so on or (5) some combine of 1,2,3 and 4. Brand new look foto with none is for me suspicion. When this foto so much faked is the 1 out of 100 with none good sign, suspicion is x 10.

I totally disagree, where are you getting this information? Source or opinion?

[101combatvet]

I agree, for me this is a post 1945 print of an original photo or negative.

The seller has written that this image is copied a lot, but this one is original.
Maybe the seller can let us know why this one is original.

I do wonder what the collectors value is of the original photo, because the image is nothing new, as it is copied in large numbers.

Thomas

The value shouldn't be effected by copies on the market.

[SkaraBrae]

I totally disagree, where are you getting this information? Source or opinion?

Empirical data. Professioneller Fotograf, 45 years collecting wartime fotos, attending foto shows in Germany every weekend for 45 years, at least 400,000 wartime fotos seen. You?

[SkaraBrae]

Just out of curiosity what makes it a post-war copy?

1. Foto made in studio, no Fotograph (Atelier) stamp or emboss Logo. Artist studio not signing for copyright, Reklame or pride, sehr aussergewohnlich but not impossible, sometime seen.

2. Foto made in studio using professioneler Kamera equipment und development but no trace Silver Nitrate oder Silver Oxide, so using cheap Eastman Schnappschuss film process for cheap Amatuer camera. Bad sign. Studio Atelier at this period mostly still use high quality chemical process.

3. Foto made in Atelier but using no named Fotopapier (Agfa, Mimosa, u.s.w.) Komish but not impossible, rarely but sometimes.

4. Foto sees no traces of time period age, stain, bend, yellowing, pencil marking, real age. Again can be but not on positive side of Waage.

5. No Name, Widmung, Datum nichts on backside, noch mal can be but also not positive side.

6. Image being reproduced mimimal 30 year, very commom Image of reproduction.

negative Aspekte: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6

positive Aspekte: Keine