I must echo Tony's note below, concerning some of the 'giants' of our hobby. It seems that one of the realities collectors have accepted is that, over decades, people are branded as "forgers," "fakers" or phonies within our circle of hobbyists and their reputations -- as well as all of the good things they may have done for our hobby in past decades -- is pushed aside and overshadowed by something negative that may have turned up more recently. The names of Bill Rasmussen, Jack Angolia and James Atwood are perhaps the most well-known 'larger-than-life' collectors and students of TR and NSDAP history to have fallen onto bad times, reputation-wise, but many others, especially authors, have been discredited over time and their work bad-mouthed into oblivion.
Why has this happened? Who among us has never been stung by purchasing a piece we thought to be 'good,' only to find that, years later, that piece was 'bad?' But apparently if Jack Angolia bought a piece back in the 1960s and believed that that piece withstood all the 'tests' that he knew to apply, and then years later he sold that piece to another collector with no bad will intended...only to find since then that piece may have been a skilful reproduction...then that makes Jack Angolia a person with malevolent intentions, out to misrepresent and hoodwink unsuspecting collectors! Am I the only one to think that that conclusion is BS -- especially given all that Jack Angolia has done for this hobby through his publishing work over several decades? Much of what we believe to be true about the details of our hobby today was learned by reading one or more of the books Jack Angolia wrote in his effort to enlighten us all. (I doubt that many of us believe that there has been a fortune made in writing books about TR and NSDAP collecting subjects...by anyone other than the publishers, of course!)
Apologies for taking up your time with this note, but I for one am deeply grateful that people over these many years have been concerned enough about this hobby I have enjoyed for 50+ years to have spent their time and often their own money in an effort to educate other collectors with the knowledge they have amassed over time. That there are mistakes and erroneous conclusions found in some of those books must be a given over time, but their desire to serve the collecting public deserves more than a footnote in history stating that a certain writer or collector made a mistake or sold an item which turned out to be a fake, years later. IMHO, of course!
Br. James
Why has this happened? Who among us has never been stung by purchasing a piece we thought to be 'good,' only to find that, years later, that piece was 'bad?' But apparently if Jack Angolia bought a piece back in the 1960s and believed that that piece withstood all the 'tests' that he knew to apply, and then years later he sold that piece to another collector with no bad will intended...only to find since then that piece may have been a skilful reproduction...then that makes Jack Angolia a person with malevolent intentions, out to misrepresent and hoodwink unsuspecting collectors! Am I the only one to think that that conclusion is BS -- especially given all that Jack Angolia has done for this hobby through his publishing work over several decades? Much of what we believe to be true about the details of our hobby today was learned by reading one or more of the books Jack Angolia wrote in his effort to enlighten us all. (I doubt that many of us believe that there has been a fortune made in writing books about TR and NSDAP collecting subjects...by anyone other than the publishers, of course!)
Apologies for taking up your time with this note, but I for one am deeply grateful that people over these many years have been concerned enough about this hobby I have enjoyed for 50+ years to have spent their time and often their own money in an effort to educate other collectors with the knowledge they have amassed over time. That there are mistakes and erroneous conclusions found in some of those books must be a given over time, but their desire to serve the collecting public deserves more than a footnote in history stating that a certain writer or collector made a mistake or sold an item which turned out to be a fake, years later. IMHO, of course!
Br. James
Comment