Another Hitler bust

[RH1941]

I've been offered this bust and will see it in person in a few days . Is this a repro that anybody has seen before . Sorry these are the only photos I have . Thanks for looking Gary

[bsiwula1]

Hello Gary. I really rather like this bust. I think it's a accurate depiction of AH. The only thing irregular to me is the rather newish looking green felt on the bottom, but that could of easily been added post war, and possibly obscuring a makers or foundry mark. I hope you are able to give it a thorough examination and be able to have it vetted as good. But I like it! Best regards.

Brian

[RH1941]

Thanks Brian I should have better photos soon . Gary

[Anderson]

I don't like the block base which doesn't match the cast bust in patina. That bright yellowish coloration is unlikely to have stayed that bright for 70 years. Possibly the base is more recent and an addition. Is it metal or painted, solid or hollow? Needs a very close in hand examination.

[RH1941]

A few more photos. I'm thinking repo

[RH1941]

More photos

[bsiwula1]

Hello Gary I wish I could give a definitive answer, as I said I still like it. It's certainly NOT the worst representation of AH in "bust" form we ve see here on the forum. This IMO is a very unexplored territory perhaps, the least investigated subject matter in collecting all things TR era related (and I mean AH likenesses, sculptures, paintings etc), for obvious reasons I would think. I watched a documentary a while back called Hitler's riches in it, it discussed AH's relationship with Heinrich Hoffman who we know to be AH's personal photographer. It also discussed how Hoffman had the idea to trademark Hitler's likeness (supposedly the first person to do so). Which begs the question could an artist, a vendor, a manufacturer what have you make, sale, profit off his image in TR era Germany without repercussion or paying for the opportunity to do so? I would think these pieces would be marked by the artisan or foundry if that were the case. And would generally be accepted as a "period" example if the quality was there. If unmarked all a collector could do is go on instinct and price of course. For me if this were a relatively inexpensive piece (in and or around $100 say) ,and were bronze. I'd gamble on it as I think it would be nice as a display piece in/amongst a collection. JMO. Best regards.

Brian

[Combat Boots]

What would the originals be made of..Bronze? Were they ever cast of some type of plaster and painted? The reason I ask is that on the photo of the right side of the head, right on the tip of the ear, I see what looks like a chip showing white underneath. Of course the ears on a bust sculpture are the most susceptible to chipping along with the tip of the nose. I use a technique called dry brushing on my models to highlight raised areas or to give the look of texture or patina. The base especially looks to me like it was dry brushed with a gold colored paint to give the effect of age. I could be way off but this is how this item looks to me. Bob

[bsiwula1]

Bob good eye! To me it looks more of a casting flaw but I'm certainly no expert on the matter. Material construction is a great question. I would think plaster is another medium they would of could of used, for those less wealthy but still would like a item like this in their home. Plaster was used widely in the 20's depression era for all sorts of cheap sculpture, I especially like carnival items of this variety (off topic) .I don't think this one is however. I think it is bronze or at least metal painted to resemble bronze but that's only my suspicion. There looks to be verdigris in around the lower front of the ear you pointed out towards the cheek. Best regards.

Brian

[Combat Boots]

Brian, I do see what you are talking about but the more I look at the fully enlarged photos, I just feel like this is an artistically painted, lower quality casting. What is that lump on the back of the head? Personally I would walk away from this unless it was very cheap. Bob