If it is fake then the fakers have correctly positioned the Tail fin part dataplate and the style of tail fin part dataplate itself. Also they have correctly positioned the many small serrated edged circular fabric patches used to cover the holes where the fin is bolted to the horizontal tail plane and the various other fabric patches on the part. Obviously these are missing on the relic itself, but where the paint that once covered these patches has pulled off, the edges are also serrated…. Could you please post a link to the discussion on the other forum you mention? I’m intrigued to find out why this has been determined as being a fake. Are we sure that one of these rudders that resides in the museums you mention is not being auctioned off? Might this be from another aircraft of this pilot? If it is a fake the workmanship is beyond spectacular and that is putting it lightly… 😉
In my opinion at the moment this is not a fake. 🙂
I dare say its provenance can be proven, so I imagine it is real indeed. But “beyond spectacular” workmanship has fooled many an expert before. Think high-end art and the many times that the art world has been hoodwinked. All we have here is a nicely-patinated piece of aluminium after all; in many cases, art fakers have created catalogue entries and inserted them into the holdings of art libraries to create false provenance. The limits of a faker’s art go a long way beyond what is shown here.
As I continue to remind myself, one should never say, ‘never’.
Sign In
