Hitler Signature For Review

[TotenkopfSS]

Hello my friend

could I have please your opinion about this AH's Signature?

Looks to me like printed, right? or genuine hand written?

thanks in advance, cheers Mike

[max history]

It appears to be handwritten, but I have a gut feeling that this signature is a forgery. The "itler" in his name just does not look right and the first name has irregularities. Without seeing the whole document, and not having the benefit of physical examination, I would avoid this example. I could be wrong on just these scans, but better to err on the side of caution.
Max.

[BrianK]

Any other opinions?

[TotenkopfSS]

Thanks Max for your kindly help! Here a picture of entire document in question. What do you think?

[hucks216]

I believe it is a facsimile again, possibly stamped. That or someone has copied the facsimile version.
I have an identical (in terms of loops and lines) example on a citation from the same period.

[australia]

Handwritten I would say for sure , first impressions not positive I must admit . Lots of hesitation in all letters of surname .

[max history]

Yes, the similarity to the printed version posted by Hucks, does tend to point towards another printed example. The Werner Willikens signature looks genuine, which in itself, indicates the document to be authentic. I am now leaning towards a genuine printed example.
This all emphasises the importance of physical examination over assessment on a screen. It also helps when the entire document is posted instead of just a close-up of the signature.
Regards,
Max.

[hucks216]

The images of the Hans Seifer citation seemed to of disappeared. Here they are again as it will be handy for future reference purposes - especially if it was to be sold on M321 as an original hand signed example despite evidence pointing to the contrary!