Porky Pies beware as ever HP/0100

And another!
This time an ‘honest fake’
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Relic-WW1-painted-Fabric-section-from-a-Handley-Page-O-400-Bomber/332107502390?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D20140122125356%26meid%3D8361e2650fc0453db9dc65848ffe0ac7%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D6%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D262810830295

You still have to read carefully before it is admitted he painted it,is the fabric genuine just with the added paintwork,not clear if you read it quickly
“Relic WW1 painted Fabric section from a Handley Page O/400 Bomber

A relic piece of fabric from a 1915 Handley Page O/400 bomber, complete with original dark green paint.

Handley Page O/400 bombers were the largest bombers of WW1. Huge twin-engine aeroplanes with 100-foot wingspans.

I’ve painted the ‘nose art’ image and numbers onto the fabric similar to the section of a O/400 bomber from 216 Squadron as kept in the RAF museum reserve collection.

216 Squadron can trace its roots to ‘A’ Squadron, RNAS, which formed at Manston on 5 Oct 1917 with four Handley Page O/100s. After moving to Ochey in France as a strategic night bomber squadron, it was re designated No. 16 Squadron, RNAS, on 8 Jan 1918.

When the RAF was formed on 1 Apr 1918 it was renumbered No. 216 Squadron, and soon afterwards became part of the Independent Force under Major General Trenchard flying Handley Page O/400s.

216 Sqn HPO/400 bombers flew as part of the 83rd wing. They were the ‘bloody paralyser of an aircraft’ requested by Commodore Murray F. Sueter when he was Director of the Admiralty’s Air department. The O/400 had a normal crew of three had a maximum speed of 97mph and could carry eight 250ib (or sixteen 112lb) bombs stowed internally.

An original photograph of a Handley Page 0/400 is also included.

Dimensions of fabric approx. 400mm by 330mm

Photo approx 160mm by 115mm

The photo and fabric will be sent insured, tracked and signed for to the winning bidder.”

And another!
This time an ‘honest fake’
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Relic-WW1-painted-Fabric-section-from-a-Handley-Page-O-400-Bomber/332107502390?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D20140122125356%26meid%3D8361e2650fc0453db9dc65848ffe0ac7%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D6%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D262810830295

The plot thickens!

Just a little internet research turns up this about the aircraft in question:

http://ww1aero.org.au/pdfs/Sample%20Journal%20Articles/Frankfurt2004.pdf

It begs the question that the RAFM piece might also be a fake 🙂 Maybe the artist had a lucrative production line!

It states:

The first of these night losses was on the night of 21/22 August, when another 216
Squadron Handley Page 0/100, No.1466, received flak damage to a fuel tank over Frankfurt,
unbeknown to the crew. This caused them to run out of fuel shortly after crossing their own lines,
and they crashed in a wood, the fuel soaked aircraft catching fire and being totally destroyed. [/I]

It seems highly unlikely that even one fabric section were recoverable, let alone two.
We may never know.

Please elaborate.

Chap called Rodney Gerrad gained notoriety for creating and distributing fake WW1 fabric samples to several well known researchers. Theses were complete fakes, but this only came to light some years after his death (Several said they had ‘suspicions’ before then)

Why he did this, we will never know. You can read some of the background and fallout here:

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45396

He also faked a fairly large number of RFC captured aircraft reports, which still turn up for sale today.

Please elaborate.

I’ve heard that there’s enough fabric from the Red Baron’s Fokker around to cover the entire Flying Circus. 😀

If this was possibly the case, it does not allow for the fact that the separate fabric with the aircraft number, just also happened to have been saved, and stuck in the same place as the original at Hendon?

Unless in the case of a recovering of the original airframe (or the fabric with the number is from the other side of the same airframe or was removed at a different time)…

…but basically I agree; a fake is by far the best explanation.

This is particularly so given the attempt to add ‘provenance’ with a photograph that doesn’t match!

Please elaborate.

There is a long and sordid history of fake WW1 fabric samples

It went for £376.

I suppose we shouldn’t dismiss other explanations:

Did only one version exist of the original?

Was this device painted on more than one part (one side) of the aircraft? Was it painted on other aircraft of the same squadron? Was it painted as the personal device of a particular pilot?

Was it re-painted on the same aircraft when the aircraft was repaired or refurbished?

Was this device painted on something else belonging to the squadron; like a (rough canvas) tent hangar for example?

Was this a ‘practice piece’ by the artist before he painted the aircraft?

If this was possibly the case, it does not allow for the fact that the separate fabric with the aircraft number, just also happened to have been saved, and stuck in the same place as the original at Hendon?

Maybe, but if it is a reproduction of a ‘unique’ original, what would be the point…

…even a perfect reproduction, when compared to a unique original, has to be a fake doesn’t it?

Maybe also somebody thought that such ‘black-faced’ character wouldn’t be so appealing to potential buyers?

But the OP and others are inferring that the seller is a liar and that it is a fake i.e. a counterfeit or imitation reproduced to deceive, my argument is that if that was the case then the ‘artist’ would have taken greater care in his reproduction.

Probably, but that’s the only way I can explain it…

…also, remember, you’re probably not going to bid for this item if you’ve seen the ‘other’ one in the RAF Museum; so it doesn’t matter that it isn’t the same colours, does it?

Probably because you’d only ever seen a black-and-white photograph of it?

Well you would at least see that the pupils weren’t black.

I suppose we shouldn’t dismiss other explanations:

Did only one version exist of the original?

Was this device painted on more than one part (one side) of the aircraft? Was it painted on other aircraft of the same squadron? Was it painted as the personal device of a particular pilot?

Was it re-painted on the same aircraft when the aircraft was repaired or refurbished?

Was this device painted on something else belonging to the squadron; like a (rough canvas) tent hangar for example?

Was this a ‘practice piece’ by the artist before he painted the aircraft?

There are many differences but the most obvious are the spacing of the first and second rows of bombs, and shape of the last number 6

Also, the eyes are wider apart in the B&W photo.
Could they simply be from opposite sides or the same aircraft?

Does anyone have a photo of the aircraft in question? Some research on the type might yield some information.

Still at the current price, someone could take a chance on it…it might turn out to be a bargain if authentic.
Hopefully, the bidders know that it may not be the “real deal”….but after decades of Antiques Road Show, I’m sure they know that.

I cannot say for certain that the item on eBay is a ‘fake’ but it is certainly different from the item in the photograph.

And the image on the RAF Museum website is, apart from anything else, a completely different colour from the item on eBay; one character is red the other is black.

If you were going to produce a fake to pass of as the original why would you paint it in the wrong colours?

Probably because you’d only ever seen a black-and-white photograph of it?

Also the black-and-white photograph is the best, and only, piece of provenance listed with the item; I mean, the seller can hardly direct any potential buyer to the RAF Museum website photograph of their exhibit, can they?

If you were going to produce a fake to pass of as the original why would you paint it in the wrong colours?

For those still questioning if it is a fake .

Evidence
The provenance provided for the piece for sale is the old black & white framed photo
The piece for sale & the piece in the photo ARE NOT THE SAME,
but the old provenance photo & the RAFM piece ARE THE SAME
So you have 2 choices
1/ the piece for sale is fake
or
2/ the old photo & the RAFM piece are fake

So what do you think is the real piece ?