Authenticity is Everything
Adolf Hitler Autograph Discussion: Should we allow them here?
Hi guys. I bought an autograph about 10 years ago, made by Adolf Hitler in 1935 in Munich on a postcard and I'm thinking about selling. Does anyone have a clue if it is genuine? Have mailed around questions to different pages but get no good answers. / Marcus
- Attachments: No photo uploads here
-
-
20180421_135119.jpg, 3.4 MB -
20180421_135147.jpg, 4.1 MB
-
20180421_135220.jpg, 4.6 MB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jim McFiver on
-
That's a proper and reasoned solution, Steve. I'm in complete agreement.
For autograph collecting purposes, this forum shouldn't be the place to debate evil (because there's no debating involved). But like the person who initiated this topic, it should be a resource for authenticity and similar historical finds or inquiries. Your solution resolves that and puts these type of signatures in their proper place and context.
-
Permalink Reply by Alastair Mulholland To Jim McFiver on
-
Who would want an autographed photo of hitler on their wall?.
-
Permalink Reply by goodcat To Alastair Mulholland on
-
is that supposed to be a serious question?
did you actually read any of this thread?
-
-
Well would you?
-
Permalink Reply by Cogo To Alastair Mulholland on
-
You know that it’s actually possible to own an autograph and not have it framed and hanging on the wall, right?
But I understand what you mean. The OPs third pic shows a framed signed Hitler photo, that’s just wrong according to me.
As a history teacher I would like to own a piece of history like a Hitler autograph. To be able to use it as a educational piece while teaching, to make history ”real” for the students. Many students today have problems grasping that the horror that were WW2 actually has happend. They think it’s almost like some kind of fiction.
I use real nazi money the same way with good results. That why I would want one!
-
Permalink Reply by Danny Francis To goodcat on
-
+1 SMDH
-
Permalink Reply by marc e To Alastair Mulholland on
-
no dame clue but there are rise in white supremecy and nationlist in America in the last year so they would love to hang or own there heros autograph .yes its sick.my 2 cents
-
-
what are your sources about the rise of these things? Please don't post any fake news articles. :-)
-
Permalink Reply by Scott Paul on
-
I think a private group would be a proper compromise. I think that it should be urged that only the merits of the signature be discussed there. Personally I would urge anyone interested in the monetary aspect to look elsewhere. I also think probably leave it to your discretion on who the "other despicables" are.
-
-
Cat expressed disappointment that so few have weighed in on this discussion. I've been following along, and thinking. I struggle with this topic. We collect autographs because we somehow are driven to own what we consider and hope is a piece of history. But the general categories are broad. I collect music autographs. Looking around the room where these are displayed, it's clear that what I own is what I like, primarily because of the music and also because I consider much of what I own to be art. In the vast landscape of music over the decades, the number of bands I own is a tiny, tiny sample of the thousands of artists who have created music. So I arrive at a simple conclusion; I own what I like. Why would I own anything I don't have an interest in? So extend that logic to Hitler. Why own it unless you like it? A larger pursuit of historical documents, taking an academic approach, makes sense perhaps. So maybe it's perfectly valid that someone may wish to own Hitler in an academic, dispassionate way. But what I've concluded is that its very easy to be presented with something like Hitler and automatically question the person presenting it. I don't want to judge anyone else's motives, but it takes discipline to avoid being judgmental, whether you admit it or not. So....what does all this mean? The battle is between censorship, as Cat points out, and unregulated presentation of someone like Hitler, who many, most, all, agree should not be glorified in any manner. Setting personal feelings aside and attempting to be principled, my vote is against censorship and for some modest form of regulation. The segregated discussion area for this topic seems a reasonable solution. As an aside, other than my grandmother's family being from Liverpool England and being bombed regularly during WWII, I have no family directly impacted by Hitler. But I used to travel internationally a fair amount for work, which took me to Krakow Poland many times. A truly lovely city. And a short distance down the road is Auschwitz. I took the tour twice, walked through the gate "Work makes you free". Those tours are among the most powerful experiences I've ever had. We must keep history alive, but I wouldn't want a Hitler autograph within a hundred miles of my house, unless it's in a museum.
-
Permalink Reply by a pug called eva To Christopher on
-
I wonder if this issue could be resolved by using the forums in a more structured way.
When I see historical figures, be they "good" or "bad", posted alongside rock stars and the like it makes me wince. Discussing the autographs of people like Adolf Hitler, Ghandi and Martin Luther King alongside the autographs of Joey Ramone, Michael Jackson and Bon Scott seems inappropriate. Why not post authenticity questions on the first three to the "Historical" forum and the other three to the "Music" forum?
In fact, I have often wondered why we even need an "Authenticity Opinions" forum. I am sure that it takes a lot of interest away from the specifc subject forums. I for one hardly ever look at any forums other than "Authenticity Opinions", "Town Square", "Beatles" and "Music: Rock, Blues, Jazz". I also often wonder why I bother to look at the last of those as it rarely has any posts other than ones relating to artists selling their autographs "in store".
Getting back to the original post here, I have to say that the signature itself looks a lot like a stamped or printed signature to me. Obviously it is hard to tell under the glass. I am also not sure that a stamped autograph would include a place and date.
Speaking personally, I would think there would be much less risk of glorifying people like Hitler if posts relating to such people were only allowed to include images of the autograph itself. To give an opinion on the autograph we don't need to see Hitler's face and his Nazi uniform. I think TradeGeek made a good point when he said that Nazi symbolism is still being used to incite racial hatred. Why show a swastika if if is not relevant to the authenticity opinion?
-
Permalink Reply by Bjorn VDB on
-
Why do I collect music autographs? Because I love the artist and his/her music.
Why do people collect autographs of actors? Because they love the movie.
Autographs are about the emotion behind it.
Now why would someone collect autographs of Hitler? I honestly don’t have a clue.
It has got nothing to do with historical relevant reasons. Why would it be relevant to have a Hitler autograph in your closet at home? Let alone hanging it on your wall. We don’t need his autograph to understand history. Why would you need his autograph in history lessons as a teacher? I am very interested in history too and I watch lots of documentaries. I don’t see an autograph as a part to learn history.
They might belong in a museum that shows all the evil from the nazi’s, along with all the other gadgets and symbols. Why would someone outside a museum and thus not for scientific reasons be interested in a Hitler autograph being genuine or not? I really don’t have a clue.
© 2025 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
