by
William1
You ARE joking, right?
I think he's covered himself legally by describing the trench map as original but not specifically the sign, which could be knocked up with a bit of rotten fence and a felt tip pen in minutes. To my mind it's an obvious fake but that can't be proved either way, so consider the following: It's plainly a piece of low-quality soft wood. If it's got that much rot, why didn't it rot away entirely over the course of a century? That green mould looks very recent - if so, why would a trench sign that survived so long suddenly be neglected just enough to cause selective damage? Why isn't there any damage to the front? Add in the clumsy attempt at Art Nouveau script, the seller's track record of "improved" items, his unwillingness to sell it under his known names and the careful wording of the title, and draw your own conclusions.
As a surviving piece of the Western Front, a believably original trench sign would be an extremely desirable item and most people in the militaria field are well aware of this. It's a brave collector who buys one without meaningful provenance and without handling it first.
Bookmarks