The Hansen-Hausen debate, a conclusion ?

[Marcus H]

Will this conclude the matter ? I think not in all honesty, so here I propose the finding more for your study than a gospel revelation of fact findings.

I've been on both sides of the fence in this deliberation and sitting in the middle.

There have been alot of informed and well educated speculative gestures in the debate. But, ultimately it's been a side taking stance.

I've often wondered, why the contention over such an insignificant packet ? And truthfully why would a faker produce such a good fake for such a low end scale award, of little money value ?

Common is an understatement......I've seen the contended packets in their hundreds, with or without the award.

And every once in a while the, wound badge, KVK, Eatern Front medal packets with the same anomaly of the 'spelling mistake.'

It is these packets I presented for testing, and further more, the so called genuine (correct spelling counterparts) in a limited multiple.

Comparison is a relevant key, I see many a thread on paint and other attributes to awards, which are meaningless unless you can offer a counterpart and so called genuine comparison's. Graphs and data, prove what ? If you understand them you're a better man than I.

Thats not a criticisim, but more a discerning factor in the results.

The main packets of deliberation: The two West Wall packets

[Marcus H]

Three of the marker marks found to date, that I'm aware of.

[Marcus H]

And a view of some of the packets that were indeed tested, this is just a very limited sample shot, of the different designations and spellings found.....there were 30 plus in the test from all differnt sources.

[Marcus H]

The answer is they are purported to be GENUINE , I'm not sure if I was suprised or not and had to think about it for a while.

So that is to say, what is deemed as the, 'spelling mistake dubious packet' is in fact said to be genuine.

The tests conducted were done by a lab in the UK, whom specialise in old documentation and papers, from artwork to literature to all aspects of paper work.

For legal obligations and further wishes of the contributors to these findings I will not and can not discuss the techniques invloved of the process. If you wish to search the internet for such or contact establsihments for further information you'll find it is a very guarded and a limited response you'll get.

And to add to that, the material subjected being of the period does provoke some hysteria It's taken a long time for me to build a relationship with these guys, and after all who am I.

The packets hence where subjected to forensic document examination and ink chromatography: the last being available in information wise on the net.

Basically, it's removal of a small part of ink and paper, placed in a vile where a solvent is added to dissolve the components, then extracted on a high performance plate.

Then depending on the ink type, the sample is placed in a developing tank, the dyes extrude up the plate and there from the components and make-up form the chromatography plate.

It's a basic process, nothing new here on ink. Not only though is it tested against, Hansen-Hausen examples but other inks period and not and other packets needless to say.

The paper goes through a more elaborate process from simple to complex, all areas covered and compared.

I can't tell you anymore than that, I've presented the findings, it's of your own volition how you perceive them.

There are further questions regarding ribbons etc etc......I can't answer them, I really don't know.

And I can't elaborate or tell you anything further........what you wish believe from now is up to you ultimately. You could even get your own conduction of validity done on these packets via a different source of course ?

So thats it, or is it. I'm satisfied with the results personally.

I hope this will be of some worth to the hobby and your interest.

Kr

Marcus (Hatton)

[Marcus H]

Out of interest I'm at the moment 'researching' the Forster & Graf EK 2 packet, some found with an Ldo warrenty on the back others not. I've some theories (Or is that conjecture) on these, I'll post this latte ron the crosses forum if thats apt ?

There's alot of deliberation (If not contention at times !!!) about such packets, and to take such almost ultimate steps in validation as such I think is almost a shame, but on some packets it gets to that point...and indeed other items within this hobby, a prevailing factor of these times and monies involved.

Before I get the such like of the F&G packet date tested (If I do...it costs good money for little or no effect) I prefer to deduct things useing my own brain than a buch of chemicals and white coats etc.

You just don't learn or discover other things whilst investigating the packet and some how it's not your own work. And it's no fun at he end of the day, I enjoy pondering over these packets with my own devices.....besides TV these days is crap

Like I say, I hope this will help collectors to an extent.

Kr

Marcus

Edited August 28, 2005 by Marcus H

[Gordon Williamson]

Mis-spellings like these are often the cause of near hysterical claims of "fake", but frankly it doesn't surprise much that these will turn out to be genuine. Lets face it, these paper envelopes aren't all that "important" in the grand scheme of things and small errors like these, even if noticed, may well have been simply ignored.

If one of Germany's top craftsmen was able to mis-spell the name of his country " Grossduetschen" rather than "Grossdeutschen" when crafting one of the countries most prestigeous awards, the Grand Admirals Baton for D?nitz, it kind of puts small errors like this into perspective.

[Guest Rick Research]

Thanks Marcus for a valuable and I think definitive result.

God knows what it cost to sort out--and that is real certainty-for-certainty's-sake dedication!

My own impression had always always been that these were FAKE, made to "dress up" those sad, drab zinky 1944 issues that... were never handed out (I've seen exactly ONE 1944 award document for one of these, ever), and which I figured somebody at the factory (or whoever got to their dumpster that 1980s+ day) was making up into a "complete set" since these 1944 zinkys are invariably accompanied by new fake ribbons.

Your labor "pays off" not financially, but now we can be SURE that the typo packet is OK, and the unissued medals WERE sitting around all these years, waiting for delivery of ribbons that never happened.

Folks, TOSS the fraudulent white-glows-electric-blue 1944 ribbons and KEEP what WAS sitting there when the American army overran the town: the medals and packets.

Three for Marcus!

[Nick]

Marcus

Excellent work and thankyou for letting us know your findings. I was suspicious of these packets not so much for the printing error, but because of the sheer numbers out there ! But it looks like we can now put that one to bed !

[Stogieman]

Nice work Marcus! Thanks for helping to define the issue and resolve it!

[Jan Arne S]

Hi Marcus !

Great work and info .

Jan Arne

[Sal Williams]

Hi Marcus,

Excellent work! Not the result I expected. And who knew these paper testers were such a secretive lot?? Why is that?

Best, Sal