Peter J Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 (edited) As a part of a group, here's a document I need help to dicypher. At the right top it reads 1926, but the lower right reads 1935, as well as the comment with pencil 16,5 1935. How could a document that apparently was printed 1935 end up with a reference to 1926? Edited February 9, 2014 by Peter J
Chris Boonzaier Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 Hi Peter, looks as right as rain... all 1926 but with a penciled note from 1935? All the best Chris
Peter J Posted February 9, 2014 Author Posted February 9, 2014 That's right Chris, but what about the printing at the extreme lower right?
dond Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 Can't read the printing in the lower right corner.
Peter J Posted February 9, 2014 Author Posted February 9, 2014 Don, it reads: 1935 26 IIa 4 Din 476 A1
Chris Boonzaier Posted February 9, 2014 Posted February 9, 2014 Hi, i dont think that is a date, just a coincidence that it looks like it...
Chris Boonzaier Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 Perhaps a form number then? I agree, This IS a self authenticating document ;-) I like it.
Peter J Posted February 10, 2014 Author Posted February 10, 2014 Chris, you just couldn't resist, right? I appreciate the feedback guys and I wasn't really worried about the aunthenticity, merely curious about this coincident. For your viewing pleasure, here are the rest of the docs.
Chris Boonzaier Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 Veeeery nice indeed... I have a couple of U-Boot EK1s, but I dont have a group like this!!! Great find indeed!!
Peter J Posted February 10, 2014 Author Posted February 10, 2014 Thanks Chris. I'm sure you'll enjoy these too
turtle Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 Great group, especially with the awards! I think the pencil note on the first document reads something like: Fr. Kr. a. 16.5.35 This could be short for Frontkämpfer Kreuz (Ehrenkreuz für Frontkämpfer / Hindenburg Cross) awarded to him on the 16.5.1935.
Peter J Posted February 10, 2014 Author Posted February 10, 2014 I think that's a very plausible assumption, thanks
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now