charlie2 Posted 12 August , 2019 Share Posted 12 August , 2019 I am saying it is a possibility, if one accepts that Rudolph is the correct spelling of his name and that the spelling Rudolf has been used incorrectly. He has 4 entries in the Verlustlisten http://des.genealogy.net/eingabe-verlustlisten/search filling in the search engine as per the attached will bring up the links to the Verlustlisten entries. The are also PoW records for him on the ICRC site https://grandeguerre.icrc.org/en/File/Details/5122477/1/2/ Charlie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxD Posted 12 August , 2019 Share Posted 12 August , 2019 Father living in Strasbourg though?? Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomb1302 Posted 12 August , 2019 Author Share Posted 12 August , 2019 @charlie2 If this is true, a real gem of a postcard. Thanks for all the insight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie2 Posted 12 August , 2019 Share Posted 12 August , 2019 Just now, MaxD said: Father living in Strasbourg though?? Max He could just be working there as part of the war effort. There is no indication that it is, or is not, his home address. Charlie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fritz Posted 12 August , 2019 Share Posted 12 August , 2019 Don´t forget the cross in the pic over one person! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomb1302 Posted 12 August , 2019 Author Share Posted 12 August , 2019 Another *potential* Rudol(f)ph Wolf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie2 Posted 12 August , 2019 Share Posted 12 August , 2019 A good scan of the rear of the card may help rule out one or the other. Fritz is of course right to point out the x, it may or may not be someone referred to in the text on the rear of the card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomb1302 Posted 12 August , 2019 Author Share Posted 12 August , 2019 Just now, charlie2 said: A good scan of the rear of the card may help rule out one or the other. Fritz is of course right to point out the x, it may or may not be someone referred to in the text on the rear of the card. I did provide a scan of the rear although, the text is very small and difficult to make out. Was it not adequate enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie2 Posted 12 August , 2019 Share Posted 12 August , 2019 Can you make a better scan of the complete rear of the card, it looks like half of it is missing on your previous scan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomb1302 Posted 12 August , 2019 Author Share Posted 12 August , 2019 (edited) Charlie, I did omit parts of the card that contained 'nothing'. What you see there really is all the text. I can get my friend @Jools mckenna to vouch for me when I say it's difficult to get a better scan or to make out more clearly what the text says. Do you recommend any technique or method? Or would you simply like to see the entire back of the card? Edited 12 August , 2019 by Tomb1302 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie2 Posted 12 August , 2019 Share Posted 12 August , 2019 There is no need for anyone to vouch for you, you saying so is good enough. As the month and Pyrmont are cut short it just looks like not all of the text had been scanned. As there is nothing on the other part of the card, scanning it does not help us any further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomb1302 Posted 12 August , 2019 Author Share Posted 12 August , 2019 Charlie, I do apologize for that. I do want to note however that the first line is inscribed in a much fainter fashion, likely by pencil, whereas the list of names and the line below the first are all done with ink. This is reason for why it appears poorly scanned. Is there nothing conclusive from what's displayed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie2 Posted 13 August , 2019 Share Posted 13 August , 2019 Unless there is a cross next to a name on the back which is too faint to be picked up by a scan, I think that is all we can learn from the postcard. Charlie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomb1302 Posted 13 August , 2019 Author Share Posted 13 August , 2019 Is this a common thing on postcards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie2 Posted 13 August , 2019 Share Posted 13 August , 2019 Yes, quite common. Sometimes it is the person who has written the card and sometimes the x marks someone who has been mentioned in the text e.g. a friend of the writer. Charlie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomb1302 Posted 13 August , 2019 Author Share Posted 13 August , 2019 Charlie, I had originally thought the 'X' was some kind of publication note or something. So, it is likely that the 'X' bears significance in the historical perspective of the shot and the owner of the card...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie2 Posted 13 August , 2019 Share Posted 13 August , 2019 The x meant something to Rudolph/Rudolf Wolf, that is why I asked if there was perhaps a faint x next to one of the names on the back of the card. Charlie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomb1302 Posted 15 August , 2019 Author Share Posted 15 August , 2019 Excuse me for getting back to you so late Charlie; I am aware of what you were asking, I was just confirming that the X could have been indication of something interesting historically. There would be no other to utilize the date or uniforms depicted to go from here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now