Adolf Hitler marble plaque

[J. Wraith]

Possible. But why having to hide (behind the wall so quite elaborate hiding spot too) a sign that poses no more danger of offending anyone in its denazified form?

cheers

Matt

Probably de-nazified immediately after the war and left in place, later put away or stashed for whatever reason from prying eyes. Would not think too hard about it and this type of thing is prevalent in many places in Germany.

[ErichS]

Probably de-nazified immediately after the war and left in place, later put away or stashed for whatever reason from prying eyes. Would not think too hard about it and this type of thing is prevalent in many places in Germany.

One to take on face value and like J Waith said, don't over think it.

[mrec27777]

if i owned this item,it would be in front of wall,...not behind it ,LOL ...EC

[J. Wraith]

I tried to back into the asbestos regs in Germany to get a range, they did not ban it till 1993 which is late and yet they were the first to the dangers as early as the early 1930's. That puts the range all the way from the late 1800's to 1993 and probably easier to date the house or with the type of asbestos and its date of use as it varies. Neat piece just the same and may just have been sitting around the house until they put up the walls and they tucked it at the time to,get it out of the way maybe.

[Matthew]

One to take on face value and like J Waith said, don't over think it.

There is absolutely nothing in this hobby I take for face value.
Thanks for your advice.

cheers

Matt

[J. Wraith]

It's 100% and face value is part of the hobby but not for everyone, too many books will melt your brain and limit your scope of opportunities. Kind of have to find a balance but it's not a badge so if that is what you accustomed to looking at then you tend to apply that type of criteria. Looks good from here but to each his own, if that were not denazified I would be all over that.

[Matthew]

Going back to the piece for a while and my original questions- typically denazification meant obliterating the offending details and leaving the rest of the piece(s) in question for later use. I can't say I am able to think of any possible use for this sign in the future and so any partial denazification simply stands out as something that does not really make much sense to me. Defacing, yes, attempting to erase the offending details while keeping the rest intact- not really.
Much like Hitler monuments that disappeared from open view in Germany post 1945 instead of being denazified or turned into something else (although some were initially defaced or covered), denazifing this piece makes as much sense as putting it inside the wall as something that was in the way as suggested above.


Not thinking hard about it either- not owning the piece or being in the market for one, I am simply taking pleasure from discussing interesting artifacts with other collectors. It might seem strange to some but some of us like it so much we call it a hobby.

As for the piece being 100%. That is a statement that leaves very little wiggle room.
I presume there are some facts behind it like what is it, where was it used, what was it used for, when was it used, and the most obvious of course- what makes it indisputably, unquestionably, 100% original . I for one would love to learn.


cheers

Matt

[J. Wraith]

As for the piece being 100%. That is a statement that leaves very little wiggle room.
I presume there are some facts behind it like what is it, where was it used, what was it used for, when was it used, and the most obvious of course- what makes it indisputably, unquestionably, 100% original . I for one would love to learn.


cheers

Matt

It's 100% in my opinion based on what the Germans did, the metal frame is not pictured but would most probably be manufactured like a box style frame and hearty of steel or iron and the stone? Or marble would lie in and you would either have rear mounts or chain mounts depending on where it was to hang. The swastika was not outlawed in the immediate post war but I think in the fifties and the name would fall under that same rule if I am not mistaken. So it celebrates the Putsch to the Reichstag speech or Potsdam and Hitlers rise. That means it could have hung in any number of cities from Munich to Berlin or?. The swastika appears to be raised or was raised but the painted areas I can't tell. With some searching a photo of it may avail itself.

So it's real, and denazified with removal of the swastika or the paint, the photo is not good enough, why it was hidden after denazification requires thinking for other people which by no means allows for any way to debunk or knock the piece as original. If denazified immediately post war it could have remained wherever it was for some time, and at some time placed out of the way behind a wall. Why? Who knows and it could have been from a commercial establishment or a home that changed hands, the fact that's behind asbestos wall material means it's been there for some time and at least 21 years, but more likely based on a rotted frame more like 70 years when you were installing asbestos for quite some time in that fashion.

So, your question seems to be questioning the piece based on a question of logic, but your thinking is boxed in and I am not trying to be a wise ass but somewhat like tunnel vision. Logic is not something you can readily apply to everything, not here anyway as the reasons for it can be a dozen different things and factors from ownership to the law.

[Matthew]

As cynical as I may be, I would prefer to concentrate on the piece itself and leave the story of frames, asbestos, behind the wall finds to others. Some may believe, others may not.
Reading into the post above- I think we can agree that we simply do not know what it is, where it was used, when and how. We may suspect and/or guess but we do not know. Calling it an original is also bit of a wishful thinking- either that or I missed some part of your post with some important facts.
To clarify- I have no idea if it is original or not which is why I never called it either way. You did, so I presumed you had something up your sleeve.
Judging by the dates, it had something to do with the event in 1933 but that is a big assumption on my part and only if it is in fact an original.

cheers

Matt

[mrec27777]

Going back to the piece for a while and my original questions- typically denazification meant obliterating the offending details and leaving the rest of the piece(s) in question for later use. I can't say I am able to think of any possible use for this sign in the future and so any partial denazification simply stands out as something that does not really make much sense to me. Defacing, yes, attempting to erase the offending details while keeping the rest intact- not really.
Much like Hitler monuments that disappeared from open view in Germany post 1945 instead of being denazified or turned into something else (although some were initially defaced or covered), denazifing this piece makes as much sense as putting it inside the wall as something that was in the way as suggested above.


Not thinking hard about it either- not owning the piece or being in the market for one, I am simply taking pleasure from discussing interesting artifacts with other collectors. It might seem strange to some but some of us like it so much we call it a hobby.

As for the piece being 100%. That is a statement that leaves very little wiggle room.
I presume there are some facts behind it like what is it, where was it used, what was it used for, when was it used, and the most obvious of course- what makes it indisputably, unquestionably, 100% original . I for one would love to learn.


cheers

Matt

DEFACING SWASTICAS ,AH,etc ..after WW2 I can see ...but banning it 70 years later because a few see it deemed ,is rediculous ...it is now a part of history ,LIKE IT OR NOT , and should be preserved for future generations ...if ever oppresive item was banned,destroyed on this planet ...nothing would be left ,including the american flag (treatment of american indiains)....EC

[J. Wraith]

As cynical as I may be, I would prefer to concentrate on the piece itself and leave the story of frames, asbestos, behind the wall finds to others. Some may believe, others may not.
Reading into the post above- I think we can agree that we simply do not know what it is, where it was used, when and how. We may suspect and/or guess but we do not know. Calling it an original is also bit of a wishful thinking- either that or I missed some part of your post with some important facts.
To clarify- I have no idea if it is original or not which is why I never called it either way. You did, so I presumed you had something up your sleeve.
Judging by the dates, it had something to do with the event in 1933 but that is a big assumption on my part and only if it is in fact an original.

cheers

Matt

Matt,

No disrespect but your way past cynical, your a thick head. I'm not going to debate it with you because the piece makes sense, the story makes sense and the dates jives. Sometimes that is all we get, so buy your comfort level.

[Matthew]

Matt,

No disrespect but your way past cynical, your a thick head.

Sarcasm is always a welcome addition to one's informative post. Rarely does it work as a substitute for it though. Looks like your gene pool could use a little bit chlorine Kris.

Almost forgot. No disrespect.

[der-hase-fee]

So after the war it was de-nazified and that is it.

... by only removing the paint and leaving the carving unharmed ?

Then it's more likely that the asbestos cladding was applied in spring of 1945.

[J. Wraith]

Sarcasm is always a welcome addition to one's informative post. Rarely does it work as a substitute for it though. Looks like your gene pool could use a little bit chlorine Kris.

Almost forgot. No disrespect.

Hey Matt, it should be no wonder that collectors are running from the hobby at full sprint when you can't post a denazified sign without some book worm crapping on it. if you knew what you were talking about it might be worth a chat, but I guess you have gone from Gau badges to stone signs now, what book you using?.

[BrianK]

... by only removing the paint and leaving the carving unharmed ?

Then it's more likely that the asbestos cladding was applied in spring of 1945.

Who would want that ugly thing?