Roland Garros canvas.

[Roser]

Hi,
You can place a bid on this item. The red page is A4. It is a original piece of canvas of the plane in which RG was shot down on april 18 1915. You can see a bit of the cocarde.
bdeneckere@gmail.com

[VtwinVince]

Are you the vendor?

[Jim]

What is the provenance - going back to 1915?

[Roser]

Hello,
Indeed, I got this item from a woman. Her ma had taken the canvas from the plane.

VBR
Roser

[Roser]

Indeed, the text on it in dutch mensions the fact that the item was taken from the plane on 18 april 1915. In Flanders (Belgium) we speak Flemish, a variant of Dutch.
VBR
Roser

[DU-DOCH-NICHT]

At first glance, it seems unlikely to me that civilians had the opportunity to dismantle parts of Garros's plane. It was largely intact when it fell into German hands after the landing. And was undoubtedly closely guarded by them for further technical examination. Garros later stated that the Germans were with him so quickly that he even had no chance to set fire to the plane.

[Roser]

Hello

Roland landed and looked for civilians to help him burn the plane. Meanwhile the plane was unguarded. Pictures of the plane show a totaly burned plane.

You must know: Roland was French and the civilians were allies, some of them spoke French. Thus he trusted them. So they could come near the plane, a curiosity for these people.

AND why would people lie?

Roder

[dernancourt]

“AND why would people lie”.

I am afraid, the question you ask, Roser, is a subject large enough for a thread on its own.
This forum has many references to the truth being stretched.
I have no idea whether your relic is the real thing or not, but I am just responding to your question.
There have been times in the past, where alleged relics from famous aircraft have been sold to make some money, from unsuspecting collectors.
DU-DOCH-NICHT makes a claim that Garros was surrounded by Germans very quickly.
But this does not mean some bits of the plane weren’t collected by some-one.
Provenance is rather important. Some more evidence may be required.

Kind Regards, Alan.

[sator]

Shaky looking, very shaky...........

[Jim]

The sad thing about any piece of fabric from any Great War aircraft is that they are all very suspect and unlikely to be real. This is magnified hundreds of times when there is a claim for such a bit a fabric to be from the aircraft of any famous pilot from either side, and you need to multiply that by even more when there is a bit of paint from a cockade or emblem or number. Bits of aircraft fabric from Great War aircraft, and very especially for aircraft that belonged to famous pilots from all sides, were in high demand starting during the war itself and forgeries became a widespread problem. After the war and for the past 110 years even more such objects have been forged to meet high demand from collectors and to line the pockets of the forgers themselves. Enterprising unscrupulous soldiers and civilians were 'creating' instant collectibles by manufacturing such souvenirs from any bit of canvas they could find, whether from some aircraft or from the side of a tent or a truck or whatever, and writing on them some 'claim' and selling them to unsuspecting collectors who were overly eager to buy such things. Just for example, there are so many claimed genuine 'pieces' of von Richthofen's Fokker Dr I in which he was shot down that if you put them all together they would make dozens of aircraft. Or, another way that is less nefarious but still an enormous problem for collectors is that a great many soldiers and even civilians wanted to 'puff themselves up' after the war by making their own forgeries to show off to the families and their drinking buddies down at the local pub. Over the generations the stories were expanded with every retelling, inscriptions were added to be their 'proof', and today these so-called relics are found in family attics and scrapbooks, and in less knowledgeable collector's possessions. While it is possible that your piece of fabric is real, the chances it is not real are about 99 percent which is why the people on this forum, and any experienced collector, are so skeptical of this piece of fabric and any other with similar claims. The one way to create some confidence is through what is called provenance and that is to establish absolute proof that the piece was collected on the battlefield and documented at that time by a reliable source (such as it being in the possession of the military who seized the wreck), and then have absolute documentation of it throughout the 110 year history of it (such as it being in the unbroken possession of a military museum that is known to have housed the wreck). One additional thought is you say this came from a woman whose mother collected it from the battlefield. Not only is it so very unlikely that a civilian woman would be roaming around an active battlefield collecting souvenirs, but the ages do not make much sense as this was almost 110 years ago.

[Roser]

Flanders is nowadays one of the leading and richest regions in Europe. In 1915 one of the poorest . Ernst Udet mentions in his book how poor the people were. Poor people seeing for the first time an aeroplane from an friend and allied airmen have taken pieces of the plane. The piece of canvas was more than 80 years in the possession of one family. I've got the canvas in 1998. Thus we can rely on the origin of the piece.

[Jim]

It may be old, but for all of the reasons I mentioned this does not mean it is what it is being portrayed to be.

[Roser]

Some people see things I never wrote. Her mum did not collect items. In 1915 nobody travelled except rich people and merchants. Her mum or the father from the mum took a bit of canvas from te plane that stood near the house.

[VtwinVince]

Alright, so you are the vendor. I'm not keen on people using this forum to shill their items.

[Roser]

It is a particular item. You will not find much of these kind. Sorry.

[Phil1965]

Asking people on a forum to authenticate a relic is about as fruitful as getting a blind man to choose the colour of your shirt.
You could get the material tested, then see if it matched the linen used on the MS L type in 1915. It’s not going to guarantee authenticity, but it would be something.
But I’m not interested in bidding. I already gave enough hard earned money away in the 1990’s buying Great War relics which turned out to be expert knock off’s dollied up in some Eastern European fake workshop.

[VtwinVince]

I really can't condone using this forum for commercial purposes, such as 'authenticating' relics being offered for sale, or even authors promoting their books. It's a slippery slope.

[dernancourt]

I will not be making an offer to buy and probably no-one else from this forum will be either, as this is not consistent with our rules. But I am interested whether this fabric piece is consistent with a fabric piece taken from a French plane.
It appears the fabric count is correct, now for the reason for the red colour?
I requested the attached photo, and I share it with those in our community who might be interested. (The ruler is marked in centimetres).
Alan.

[dernancourt]

Regardless of the fabric changing hands, or not, in the interest of history, l would like to see what members think about the stories attached to it, given by “Roser”. Seems to be just stories handed down by family or others.

I attach a couple of documented reports on the day.
Any comments on what could be correct?

Alan.

[Roser]

The Germans did not find Roland at once because he was hidden beneath a bush sitting in a brook. In Flanders allmost all pieces of farmland are surrounded by brooks. And all people were then honest. They had to much to loose if the weren't

[dernancourt]

It appears that the partly burnt plane could have been left where it landed for some time, even days. This would give locals the opportunity to grab souvenirs after the military had retrieved all they wanted. Possibly larger pieces were cut off the carcass at the time, and cut up smaller pieces shared around family or friends in later years.
I suggest Roser documents all he knows about the history of this relic, and keeps the written account with the fabric piece, so that what is known at the moment, is not lost in time.
If one family had it for 80 years, some proof of that would be beneficial.
Alan.

[Barrett]

FWIW: if the item is canvas, almost certainly it was not from Garros' airplane nor likely any other of that vintage.

CANVAS WAS TOO HEAVY. Which is why doped linen was universally used.

Unfortunately, the canvas fairy tale was perpetrated by 1930s cheap-o writers who knew little of the subject.

[Roser]

Hello

Being a Belgian speaking flemish (dutch) I don't have the vocabulary to describe the item in a correct way. And I suppose that if the news concerning his item was placed by Taylor Swift, Ronaldo, Netanyahu or Putin, everybody would be convinced about the authenticity.
This item was preserved by a humble family. They nor I had and have the intention to fool the world.
Thus instead of canvas I could use fabric; cloth, textile.... By the way I am the author of many books on WW I aviation in Flanders (Above Ypres ..)

[dernancourt]

This relic is definitely fabric.
The wrong description term was used by “Roser”.
The attached photo is of the reverse side. Thread count is around 30 per centimetre.
Alan.

[Roser]

Hello
The spelling of the dutch text on the textile is the spelling from before 1950.
It says: Airman Roland Garros, crahed in Ingelmunster .... april 1915. But I think all our know-it-all members were aware of this spelling.

[Phil1965]

You have this item “for sale” Bernard. You seem like an intelligent man , so it comes as some surprise that you were unprepared that people would question the history of this piece of fabric. Alan did some good work at finding out the TPI of this fabric and that apparently is in the ballpark of fabric used by the French in 1915. But that is never going to be enough for an item you are seeking to make a financial gain on. Surely you would understand this ?

[stephen]

“AND why would people lie”.

In 20 years of Luke research and after conducting hundreds of personal interviews, my experience has been that they don't. Time and time again I came across evidence, testimony and documentation that confirmed what appeared to be the most unlikely stories. The only consistent liars were government agencies. Private individuals almost never deliberately lied. And even in cases where their statements proved untrue, the eyewitness believed it to be true at the time. Hence they were incorrect, but not lying.

So when researching the authenticity of an item such as this fabric, I no longer ask if the testimony of an eyewitness is true. I ask... did the alleged witness actually make this claim? Can the claim be documented as actually originating with this witness? Can the witness be placed at this time and location? Are they a private individual not working for a bureaucracy? If the answer to these questions is "yes," then I generally accept the testimony.

That's been my experience. Your mileage may vary. ;)

[dernancourt]

Re: Research.
Stephen, that sounds like a good approach to take.
As the Great War gets further into history, the people directly involved have gone, so it is only recorded documents and the accounts passed on, that are now available.
Alan.

[shall87]

Hi,
You can place a bid on this item. The red page is A4. It is a original piece of canvas of the plane in which RG was shot down on april 18 1915. You can see a bit of the cocarde.
bdeneckere@gmail.com

What is the process of authenticating an item like this? Word of mouth is unreliable most of the time and it irritates me how many fake things exist

[Roser]

No word, no sentence that I said about this item is fake. There are still people in the world you can rely on. 2000 euro and it is yours.

[shall87]

Definitely not interested, but thanks

[CjBobrow]

The authenticity of a reliquary is established through a combination of historical documentation, provenance, and material analysis. This often begins with verifying written records, such as ecclesiastical inventories, letters of donation, or inscriptions that detail the reliquary’s origin and purpose. Provenance, or the chain of custody, is equally critical, tracing its ownership and use through time. Material analysis, including radiocarbon dating, metallurgical testing, or examination of construction techniques, provides scientific validation, ensuring that the reliquary's components align with its purported age and origin.

However, the history of fake reliquaries reveals a long tradition of deception tied to both devotion and profit. During the medieval period, the high demand for relics led to widespread fabrication, with unscrupulous individuals creating items to meet the needs of churches, pilgrims, or collectors seeking divine association or spiritual prestige. Despite dubious provenance, people continue to pursue such items due to the inherent emotional and symbolic value they hold, often viewing them as conduits to the divine or tangible connections to sacred history. Even when authenticity is uncertain, the allure of possessing an object with perceived spiritual significance, or its cultural and monetary worth, can overshadow questions of legitimacy.

A parallel situation exists with individuals acquiring war relics, particularly those claimed to have origins in famous battles or belonging to significant figures. Items such as helmets, medals, or weaponry are highly sought after due to their connection to pivotal moments in history. Yet, the demand for such relics has fueled a thriving market of forgeries, where items are fabricated, altered, or misrepresented to capitalize on the buyer's emotional or financial investment. The appeal often transcends the question of authenticity, as these objects provide a tangible link to historical events, a sense of nostalgia, or personal identity tied to military history. Much like reliquaries, war relics hold symbolic power, and for many, the story they represent is often more compelling than their factual provenance.

[Phil1965]

I agree with “most” of what has been posted in response to Roser’s offer , but also .. having a quick check of Bernard , he’s like a teacher , who is published in WWI aviation. He no doubt has relationships with local inhabitants in his area who have a long history on their properties. So if I wanted to sell a swindle on the net , and I wasn’t a complete idiot , would I go to a WWI aviation forum and try to peddle it ? , no I don’t think that would be my strategy. If I wanted to sell a swindle on with said forum would I make it about a French aviator from 1915 ? No I wouldn’t , it would be about some German as 95% of this place goes weak at the knees at the mention of the German aviators from that period. As Dernicourt said a while back” one should keep an open mind “ , but if you ask me Roser is peddling something he believes to be true. So about family hand me downs . I once stayed with a serious French collector 25 years back , we travelled to Picardie where he grew up and spent a few days drinking vino at farmhouse kitchen tables listening to family stories regarding the Great War . I was offered a small box containing British cap badges . The farmers grandad was a small boy in 1916 and it was said he would run out the British troops and run errands, or give a mug of water asking for a cap badge in return . I was offered this box by the current grandson farmer , not just because he would make a few bob , but he enjoyed drinking with me , was impressed I’d come so far to be there , and that I was an attentive listener about his grandad who was long gone . So when I got back to Paris we had a badge guy look at the box. 50% were post war struck pieces . What we decided .. there was some truth the the grandad story , but … current farmers father had most likely bought some badges and added them to the box much later . So that’s an example of how family hand me down stories can be corrupted. Did I demand my money back ? No the wine and hospitality had been worth every penny.

[womenfly2]

Just put it on eBay ... someone will buy it.

[VtwinVince]

Indeed, we are in the golden age of fakery on fleabay these days.

[MASTIFF]

It would appear that no-one has read the Aerodrome rules (see FAQs) which prohibit buying and selling on this site.

[CjBobrow]

It would appear that no-one has read the Aerodrome rules (see FAQs) which prohibit buying and selling on this site.

From the looks of it it does not appear as if anyone is "buying" :rolleyes: just saying... nuff said...

[dernancourt]

Apparently this plane was shot down about April 1915, by a Brit. (This is about the same time, Garos was forced down).
Can anybody give more information.
Thank you.
Alan.