True color of MVR Fokker Dr1 425/17

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Langdon:
There is nothing like accuracy in print! Amen!
Blue skies,
Dan-San

[Langdon]

Dan-San,

Can't have it any other way.

Langdon

[Cigogne]

Taz, Langdon, Dan-San, RagIII, Acer, et al,

Sorry I've not had a chance to jump in before now. Taz sent me a high rez scan a couple of weeks ago and I've played with it quite a bit. It is very grainy when blown up, but the number upon examination to me after spending a lot of time on it is:

2102 or 2103.

The second and third digits are not both 1's. The first one has a ascender/serif on the top portion. The third digit lacks this. ( 1 vs. l ) The angle of sight squishes the open portion of the "0" and making it appear to be a straight line. But, the difference between them cannot be ignored. The stencil used by Fokker for "0" was made up of two halves... like so () (crude representation). The angle is what throws the eye off and through optical distortion flattens it and makes it look like this "l". The last digit has to be a 2 or a 3. The film grain and texture of the paper in the print makes it very difficult and the lower left corner of the digit is hard to discern, looking much like a 2. There is a grainy blotch right where you want to look!

That is what I am seeing. Thanks, Taz for supplying the print for examination.

[CWatson]

Originally Posted by Taz

Langdon- I am convinced. Nobody has to provide hard proof on the Forum and some collectors do not. Just the information is valuable.

Originally Posted by Langdon

That's fine Taz, but for me evidence is necessary. Otherwise anyone can claim anything. It makes no difference to me which aircraft it is but I would like to get it right.

Originally Posted by Dan_San_Abbott

Langdon:
There is nothing like accuracy in print! Amen!
Blue skies,
Dan-San

I got to agree with Dan_San and Langdon on this one, even experts and collectors have conflicting opinions among themselves. Both on this thread have put forth conflicting opinions that both felt was correct and put forth their theories and reasons for them and either carry more weight then a couple vague post with unsubstantiated claims.


Who flew this plane while in JG1? That is where it was issued when the photo was taken, correct? It has been argued on this very thread the original picture was in a period album of another pilot stating it was MvR's triplane and now another period log book or album has conflicting information?

As you have stated "Just the facts Ma'am".

CWatson

[RAGIII]

As much as I respect him, I will not accept Dan san Abbotts word as "Gospel" without some kind of backup facts(or at least a well presented theory)! ,Let alone someone of unknown identity!! For the record, I have made over 700 posts and have not produced a single "New" piece of evidence to any discussion, Just my opinion and insight It is not that I don't want to have this aircraft identified as 521/17,( to me it really doesn't matter). I just require some evidence other than the vague postings we have seen! I have looked at Acers previous posts, Mostly in the FTS section, and I must say, not much to impress me. (Acer was warned at least once for not contributing but trying to stir things up by a moderator).Taz, I hope I am wrong but I think you are being a bit premature in your ready acceptance of this info. JMHO,
RAGIII
PS: Acer has been a member since 2004, again I ask why now? Why not one of the MANY threads that this has surfaced in in the last 2 years?
PPS: Langdon, looks like I am still flying your wing!

[ManfredT]

Langdon-

you do not owe any apology. It is very important to have a different look. But may I ask you what hard proof you have had before #234?

acer

[ManfredT]

RagIII-

well said. And why not posted early? Want not to be kicked out so early with all these inconvenient facts at hand.

acer

[Taz]

Langdon, RAGIII, CW- I think it is important we realize some people have put years of effort and money into traveling to meet WW-I veterans and their families, haunting museums and their collections, exchanging photos with other collectors, and purchasing albums at auctions to put together their collections over a 20-50 year period. Ed Ferko even cashed in his whole life insurance policies to buy albums. I have been lucky to have access to some collectors' images and several have said "for your collection only, not to be shared" on the back in notes from deceased collectors. Many of these collections are worth tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars if sold slowly. Some collectors freely share their collections with people who have a legitimate need for the data such as authors, modelers, and aircraft builders/restorers. Peter Grosz is a saint in that respect. Greg VanWyngarden is very generous in that respect. Dan-San shares his knowledge freely, as well. Others feel they have devoted years and a considerable portion of their income to putting together a collection and see no benefit to sharing it except on an exchange basis. Especially if they intend to publish eventually. Nobody wants to be scooped with images from his own collection.

I have a very small collection and am glad to share it with other enthusiasts who have a need for the data. But if someone I do not know very well said "I hear you have a collection, send me everything you have" with nothing offered in exchange, the answer would be no. We have no right to demand access to another person's hard earned collection that they may have spent decades putting together. So Acer is completely within his rights to provide information to us without his having to show us the WN which proves his point. If we do not want to believe him, fine, but he owes us nothing. I am just grateful when we get somebody who has information and shares it with us, even if I do not get to see the image in question.

So in this age of instant gratification, there is nothing wrong with someone sitting on 40 years worth of sweat and blood saying "I do not think so" to our demands of "show me".

Taz
Terry Phillips

[Biber]

Hi all,

I don't think anybody's demanding access to anything, just expecting that claims and conclusions to be documented. With such a polemical issue (or anywhere else for that matter), substantiation is the foundation of veracity.

all the best,

Timothy A. Collins, DMA

hiding behind the pseudomym "Biber"

[Taz]

Timothy- Acer said he has access to an original photo and the serial number is much more legible than our first or second copy print. The photo is pasted in von Greim's diary/logbook. I know of three copies of that document out there and the original is still around. The last I heard, von Greim's son was still alive, so he may have the original, I do not know. It is natural for a pilot getting a new toy (even if it is a used Dr.I) to be interested in where his aircraft originated, so somebody gave him a print of the photo we have been viewing. That is one of the reasons multiple copies of the same photo are found in several individuals' photo albums, because multiple prints were made from the original negative and passed around.

Will have to wait for Acer to publish a book or article on von Greim unless he decides to take pity on us and post the WN in question.

And actually yes, everybody is demanding access to the "proof". Acer provided us the source of his information, the only thing he has not done is show us the image.

Taz
Terry Phillips