Hall of fame of fake "relics"

[Willi Von Klugerman]

This thread is "dedicated" to "relics" that were claimed to be from an aircraft/pilots item but turned out to be fluff

The one that really gets me is a guy selling "French arty shells/MVR's relics" that (according to the seller) was captured by a group of assasins in MVR's bunker I hope nobody was dumb enough to buy that (both the item and the story)

[FliegerJG1]

My favorite is a Richthofen memorial edition Sanke card--issued AFTER his death...that was being sold as an original MvR autographed card.

FliegerJG1

[Chock]

There is quite a contentious one in the RAF museum, that being supposedly the control column from Spitfire R6753, which was flown by Colin Pinckney and shot down in the Battle of Britain by Herman Friedrich Joppiens.

I have some pieces of that aircraft recovered from the crash site in the 1980s, and they confirm the reports at the time of its destruction, that it was on fire in the cockpit area following hits on the fuel tank (Pinckney received some burns before bailing out). The aircraft drilled itself into the ground at high speed and the engine apparently exploded (I have some pieces of the engine which confirm that and also indicate the speed it was diving at). Yet the control column (which on the Spitfire can actually burn, since it is magnesium alloy) on display there is in perfect condition, which is a little unlikely since they also tend to disintegrate when buried in soil, leaving only the firing button, which is brass and therefore survives even when the main control column casting does not. So there you go, even the RAF can be fooled.

Al

[Laserlloyd]

Just like everything else our area of WW1 aviation is not with out it fakes. Some really bad and so obvious they all seems to end up on Ebay and then some that are rather good to even fool our top historians. I think that it thous out there that take the time in recreating some of these items that hurt us the most by passing them on as real.

The number one offender with out a doubt is Rodney Gerrard and his collection of fake documents and fake fabric. He has fooled some of our well known historians for a period of time. The thing about this is the damage is done and from time to time get referred to as some ones research because they read something about it during the time we thought they were real.

It has happened here on this forum that his stuff gets referred to and form time to time pops up every now and then. So for all of Rodney's works of deception I give his the top billing of the biggest offender of passing on fakes.

Lloyd...

['14-'18aviationcollector]

Hi guys,

That's a very interesting subject that you have brought up Willi. I absolutely love eBay, because there are so many fantastic items to be found on it, but as has been discussed here in this thread, and on the Forum numerous times, there are many fake items. I am sure that at least some of the items I have bought from eBay will have been fake. One in particular is a report about the shooting down of MvR. It just seems to be too good to be true, and my bet is that it is too good to be true. Even the condition of it looks too good to me. I have been meaning to discuss this document here on the Forum, and I will do that when I can locate it.

Assassains in MvR's bunker - yes well it's very difficult to know where to start explaining what's wrong with that story! As you said, I hope no one bought that story and the items. Wow! MvR signed a Sanke card AFTER he died! He is truly talented! ..... more to the point someone is talented at faking his signature, as you alluded to. The control column certainly sounds as though it can not be original. Unfortunately it's very typical of what can be found in museums. That's not to say that all museums have fake items and don't know what they are doing, but I have noticed that some museums can't be told when they are wrong. Unfortunately the story seems to be the same around the world. The shame with that is that their mistake misleads researchers and enthusiasts. If you try to bring such a mistake to their attention, such information does not tend to be welcomed, to say the least. I suspect that my document which supposedly relates to MvR is probably one of Rodney's pieces of handy work. If not, it will have been made by someone just as "talented". I should be honoured to have possession of such a master piece! I think they have some educational and entertainment value, provided that they are kept or displayed as fakes, and somehow documented as such.

Quite a few years ago now I was at the Museum of Army Aviation in Oakey in Queensland. They had what looks like a fuselage cross from MvR's triplane, 425 / '17. I was able to look at it reasonably closely, and was not sure about it one way or the other. It did not look absolutely correct, but it was reasonably convincing. I took a photograph of it, and when the photo was developed, I brought it to the attention of the staff at the AWM. My photograph caused a lot of confusion, for myself and for them, since they immediately said that it is one of the crosses from their collection! First of all, as you can imagine, they checked that the cross was still in the collection, which fortunately it turned out to be. The question then became which one of the two is fake? Fortunately again, it turned out that the AWM still has the original, and that the cross in the other museum is the fake. It is a very distinctive piece, since it is covered with signatures. Even the signatures were replicated. One of the features which stood out to me on the non original version was the cross fields where the curved sides of the earlier crosses were overpainted in order to convert them to the later straight sided crosses. This area is a sort of a washed out orange colour on both versions, but on the reproduction it is far less intricate than it is on the original. On the original of course the orange colour is the result of (presumably) white paint being applied over red paint - although for the cross fields white over black makes more sense to me ..... On the fake version the colour was just mixed up to approximate the resulting colour of this area on the original cross.

It is well known, at least here in Australia who produced this cross. I discussed this issue with some members of the society I was a member of, who knew the person who replicated the cross. It was explained to me that it was not done so much as a fake, but as a replica. Being a reasonably convincing replica, it certainly caused a lot of confusion for a while!

Regards,

David.

[rainbase]

I have a stash of 8-Track tapes that Oswald Boelcke listened to in his Albatros. Any offers? Lots of good stuff; Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, etc.

[rexee]

I would have thought Boelcke listened to "The Sopwith Camels" but I guess he was killed before they came out

[Chock]

Boelcke did not use an eight track, he used one of those little dictaphone cassette players; have you never heard of 'The Dicta Boelcke'?

Al

[Southside Bucky]

Hi guys.

I think there's a flip side to the "is it real, or is it snide?" scenario.

I bought this from a friend about 12 years ago and he bought it from a reputable dealer in Mayfair, London. It has no provenance though, and I've never taken it out of it's frame. The Cross arms measure 18" x 18".

I'm fully aware that it might not be genuine, but as far as I'm concerned, seeing as though I'm never ever gonna sell it, I'm quite happy to believe it's the real deal and therefore have no real interest in having it authenticated.

I've posted it full size so you can scrutinise it if you want.





My own (optimistic) thoughts about it are that without a white border or background, and with that Autumnal looking camouflage behind it, it may be Austro-Hungarian?

Anyway, I just thought I'd put forward the "Sometimes ignorance is bliss" view?

Regards.

Bucky

[Chock]

Yup, I agree with that viewpoint for much of the time, and even mentioned it on the other recent thread where someone was asking about something supposedly off a SPAD.

An item might be fake, but if you liked it when you bought it, then there's no real reason start disliking it if it turns out to be a ringer. Sure, you could dislike having been conned, but you've still got a piece of canvas with a cross on it, which is no less than what you'd have it was from WW1.

Different story if it affects research of course, but there you go.

Al