DKiS Urkunde for Berger: What do you think?

[jh92]

I hope it works out, Its a cracking item
Dan

Same here, good luck!!!

[schnellmann]

Email him asking if he would be interested in looking at it: The BBC use him.
bbh1122@aol.com
Antiques Roadshow | PBS

I hope it works out, Its a cracking item
Dan

Thanks! I emailed bbh. If he looks at it and determines it is genuine, you can bet I will make the announcement right here. If it turns out to be a fraud (which I SINCERELY doubt) I will quietly have my crow sandwich. I suppose if he is in UK it will take a while...

[Woske]

Well, how about posting the so-called real certificate next to mine, and let us see why MY certificate is a phoney? I really doubt if you can, or will do this. Mine looks just like the GC shown elsewhere right now. How do you know the one you saw "somewhere in a private collection" was genuine?

Well, simply because I said it was in a private collection. It's obviously not mine. I am sure it was the real thing because of its provenance, because I knew the source to be 100% reliable, because the owner was an expert in Urkunden, because it came with other authentic unquestionable Berger pieces and because I had the opportunity to examine it close-up.

This situation reminds me of the Bormann signature I posted a while back. all the "experts" said it was a fake, until 1 REAL expert stepped up to the plate and vindicated me. How about it? Any experts on documents out there?

Actually, schnellmann, it was me who said the Bormann was real. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about your Berger piece.

Well what are the so called faults?

I'm sorry to say they are not "so called faults." They are real and for everyone to see.

DKiS Urkunden are more rare than their golden counterparts, but basically they all have one overriding fact in common. Here are some examples of both, including an original blank silver Urkunde to show that they are available to forgers.

[Woske]

More........

[Woske]

As you can see, all the above formal variants are professionally produced with care taken in the formation of the lettering. Some are ink written and some are typed, but none look amateurish. Now closely examine schnellmann’s piece and compare it with the care taken in production. His example displays uneven lettering especially in the formation of the name. The letters are not even level. The addition of the date does not centralize the wording and leaves it looking very unprofessional.
The rank is incorrect. On 21 June 1943, Berger was promoted to SS-Obergruppenführer und General der Waffen-SS. He received the DKiS for his work in the SS-Hauptamt for organization and recruitment in the Waffen-SS. It would be unthinkable to omit his full Waffen-SS rank. The rank of SS-Obergruppenführer on its own was an Allgemeine-SS rank and was never formally used on its own for Waffen-SS purposes.
Added to these faults is the use of silver printing, not impossible, but doubtful. I have not seen this before in many years of research. However, there’s always a first time.
I firmly believe that schnellmann’s document is a forgery and that is without the benefit of close examination, which, in my opinion, would add to the doubts. I also have some reservations about the ink stamp.
I am of the opinion that schnellmann honestly believes his document to be authentic and I am genuinely sorry to disagree.
Woske.

[Woske]

Just noticed a couple of the attachments have doubled up. Sorry about that.
W.

[schnellmann]

All I can say is what I have already said. I intend on showing this to a bonafide expert - not a part time, or amateur expert. And I hope to God this is the end of this matter. I will post the results of the exam - good or bad - when I find out. But I suppose somebody will have to continue this - ad nauseaum. Excuse me if I remove this thread from my email, so that at least I will not hear any more about it until the expert examines it.

[Woske]

All I can say is what I have already said. I intend on showing this to a bonafide expert - not a part time, or amateur expert. And I hope to God this is the end of this matter. I will post the results of the exam - good or bad - when I find out. But I suppose somebody will have to continue this - ad nauseaum. Excuse me if I remove this thread from my email, so that at least I will not hear any more about it until the expert examines it.

But the bottom line is that you are the one who asked for opinions and therefore I'm sorry to say that they will keep coming. As for the "bonafide expert," I doubt that anyone the BBC uses on "Antiques Roadshow" will have the required specialist expertise on this document. I've watched that show and when they (rarely) have Third Reich documentation, they have either got it wrong or have misjudged the valuations. I suggest you use a recognized Third Reich expert such as Kenneth Rendell in the US or Richard Davey (I think that's his name) at IAA Ltd. in the UK. Any other assessment, good or bad, will be worthless if it's not from a recognized Third Reich specialist. I wish you luck.
W.

[schnellmann]

But the bottom line is that you are the one who asked for opinions and therefore I'm sorry to say that they will keep coming. As for the "bonafide expert," I doubt that anyone the BBC uses on "Antiques Roadshow" will have the required specialist expertise on this document. I've watched that show and when they (rarely) have Third Reich documentation, they have either got it wrong or have misjudged the valuations. I suggest you use a recognized Third Reich expert such as Kenneth Rendell in the US or Richard Davey (I think that's his name) at IAA Ltd. in the UK. Any other assessment, good or bad, will be worthless if it's not from a recognized Third Reich specialist. I wish you luck.
W.

I know better than to use the Antique Roadshow. I will use Mr. Rendell. Now I am REALLY disconnecting from this thread. I hope it dies.

[Stewy S]

Size of & signature on doc that started this post trouble me somewhat. Stewy S