Souval Gilder Pilot Badge

[speedytop]

Hi,

there are two pages in the "Revue" from 1953.

The large headline was:
"Ritterkreuz für DM 14,50
In the next line:
Deutsche Auszeichnungen des zweiten Weltkrieges werden wieder hergestellt und öffentlich verkauft"

In the text:
"Das Ritterkreuz ... kostet ... 14.50 DM, allerdings nur bei einer Mindestabnahme von 20 Stück"

14.50 DM only by a minimum purchase of 20 pieces!

That is for me not "a very limited basis" (Leroy).


And the part of the second headline "werden wieder hergestellt und öffentlich verkauft" means "are new produced and sold publicly".
In the text:
"Aber einige Fabrikanten haben die Herstellung von Orden wieder aufgenommen." = But some manufacturers have resumed the production of decorations.


Dietrich wrote in his book: "... Knights Cross, made post-war by S&L"
In the Revue text: "... Hauptlieferanten Steinhauer & Lück" = major supplier S&L.
I think, that this is correct.

In the list and the text on page 2 in the Revue, "lieferbare Orden", e.g.:
KC without ribbon (not silver) DM 14.50 (Im Einzelverkauf = 1 piece alone DM 19.-)
KC without ribbon (silver) DM 24.- (1 piece alone DM 32.-)
...
Eichenlaub mit Schwertern, echt Silber DM 12.70 (1 piece alone DM 17.-
...
and so on.

Uwe

[Leroy]

Uwe - It would help if we could see (and have an accurate translation of) the entire "Revue" article, all at once, so we could all see the context of everything and not just in bits and pieces. Perhaps you can provide this for us.

When I spoke of a "very limited basis" I was referring to the liklihood that S&L did not start off re-striking its entire product line, but only those items which offered the best sales potential (seeing how Souval was already "up and running" and had been for several years). You will recall that, in the article (or at least the sections I have ever seen shown here), the tobacco shop owner around whose "backroom medal store" the article was based, was requiring German vets (or so he claimed) to provide evidence that they were entitled to a decoration before he would sell it to them. I wouldn't suppose that RK awardees comprised the bulk of his clientelle, so perhaps we must be looking at two markets?

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that S&L commenced actual new production of pieces (i.e. new die striking) after the war. I used to believe that such actual new die-striking (not just assembly of leftover parts, which had been going on for a long time) began for the first time in the mid-1950's, close in time to the authoriztion of "1957" pieces, but I believe now (after research done by me for an article in Dietrich's magazine) that new die-striking first began a bit earlier and increased in volume almost exponentially over the years. If it was in 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956. or 1957, who cares? Still, at the earliest (assumiing the "Revue" article to be accurate) it was seven years after the war.

Apart from Herr Knoth, please show any "dealer lists" you have from 1953. All I seem to ever see are from 1956, 1957 and later.

[Thomas Durante]

but I believe now (after research done by me for an article in Dietrich's magazine) that new die-striking first began a bit earlier and increased in volume almost exponentially over the years. If it was in 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956. or 1957, who cares? Still, at the earliest (assumiing the "Revue" article to be accurate) it was seven years after the war.

Sure, the Revue article came out in 1953, and that indeed was 7 years after the war. But how do we know that S&L wasn't producing new die striking for years prior to this?

Another question that I have is that if it was so taboo to produce items with a swastika in the postwar years, why would anyone admit to it in a Revue article and why identify the exact manufacturer by name?? I would think that would have been a death sentence for S&L in 1953 so soon after the war, but yet they apparently weren't affected by it in the least since they were the main firm chosen to produce the 1957er badges.

I look very much forward to your article Leroy!

Tom

[Norm F]

Sure, the Revue article came out in 1953, and that indeed was 7 years after the war. But how do we know that S&L wasn't producing new die striking for years prior to this?

Another question that I have is that if it was so taboo to produce items with a swastika in the postwar years, why would anyone admit to it in a Revue article and why identify the exact manufacturer by name?? I would think that would have been a death sentence for S&L in 1953 so soon after the war, but yet they apparently weren't affected by it in the least since they were the main firm chosen to produce the 1957er badges.

Tom

Hi Tom,

Good question but one minor clarification. As I understand it, S&L wasn't "chosen" to produce 1957er badges, but rather entered the free market in this area. The format of these badges was defined in law but my understanding from Gordon Williamson's writings is they were never commissioned nor awarded, but simply condoned for wear and anyone who wanted to could make them.

Having said that, I believe S&L was "chosen" to produce Bundeswehr awards which gets back to your previous point that their public reputation suffered no ill effects.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Leroy]

Sure, the Revue article came out in 1953, and that indeed was 7 years after the war. But how do we know that S&L wasn't producing new die striking for years prior to this?

Another question that I have is that if it was so taboo to produce items with a swastika in the postwar years, why would anyone admit to it in a Revue article and why identify the exact manufacturer by name?? I would think that would have been a death sentence for S&L in 1953 so soon after the war, but yet they apparently weren't affected by it in the least since they were the main firm chosen to produce the 1957er badges.

Actually, it's 8 years, but I gave it another year...... How was it "news" otherwise and all of a sudden worth writing about?

I don't see anywhere in the portions of the article I have seen that S&L gave permission for anything, or was interviewed by anyone. Everything seems to be coming directly from Herr Knoth. How truthful was he? Who knows...

How do we know anything? Only from putting pieces together. My article, which you were looking forward to, was on the S&L Oakleaves and Oakleaves and Swords and was already published last year. While researching it, the earliest "documented" set of postwar Oakleaves and Swords (with flaws which did not exist during the war) I could find was @ 1955-56 and was presented to the widow of a posthumous recipient by a former squadron mate. It is a "blank slate" before that and no one has ever produced examples of anything which for sure date earlier than that.

I'm happy to listen, but so far no one is talking with any evidence.

[speedytop]

Leroy,

"... but so far no one is talking with any evidence."

That is for me a boldly statement.

Is it not evidence for you, that we can find offers for decorations since 1952? I have publicized it over and over again; I'm tired now.

Or take for example these two miniature sports badges, here you can form your own opinion:



There are sports badges in the original size with swastika, no maker mark or with maker mark 4 on the needle of the last versions without swastika and without the tip.


The list in the REVUE from Mai 1953 is the best list I can find in that time. I think, that we don't need more!



As I interpret it, the list is from Knoth's main supplier S&L, a list for the order of each a minimum of 20 pieces for 99 decorations! On the list are only 32 to be seen.
And Knoth added handwritten his prices for one piece of the offered decorations.

No translation of the text, because my translation is not good enough for you: "... (and have an accurate translation ..."


And for my opinion about postwar S&L Oakleaves and Oakleaves and Swords please see for example here, Post 7:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=676606

Uwe

[Leroy]

Frankly, Uwe, I am tired, too. If you say 1952, then fine with me. (That is, in fact, a "true" seven years postwar.)

I've had it.

I will leave this (as a European friend and distinguished collector who no longer posts here describes it) "Kindergarten playground" to others.

[Nigel N]

This is a grey area I think, and for me, there is, as yet, no hard evidence to proove when S&L, or any other maker started postwar production?
Its probably too late now to ever know for sure?? Sales catalogues and such are always interesting, but we don't know anything about the pieces themselves from such lists, the pieces listed could be wartime produced/leftovers, they could be postwar assembled from wartime made parts, or they could be "new" postwar production, who can say???

@Uwe, I think we are all aware of your feelings on postwar Oaks/Swords etc. but I am afraid these are not the feelings of the majority of the 57 collecting community from my experience!!
There is a HUGE difference for us between Oaks made by S&L in the 50's/60's alongside their 57 Rk's etc, and a set of Oaks made yesterday in Latvia!
To class them all as "copies" "not originals" maybe acceptable to you, but not for me, or most of the 57 collectors I know! While its true that they are all later versions of the wartime originals, the ones bought by and worn by vets, in the early 57 production period, are worlds apart from simple fakes of the wartime pieces made to fool, and we must have terminology that differentiates one from the other!!
-Nigel

[Thomas Durante]

This is a grey area I think, and for me, there is, as yet, no hard evidence to proove when S&L, or any other maker started postwar production?

Yes, this is the age old question and one that we all should want to know the answer to. I don't know why these discussions always have to turn into heated debate with people storming off in different directions.

I can certainly see Leroy's point about wanting firm evidence, I am in the same boat with him and I think most people are too. But we can also speculate and put forward reasonable scenarios based on the limited available evidence and that should be good too. We have come so far just in the last 15 years, and much of what we understand today is based on speculation with no real "hard" evidence to speak of.

However, I refuse to believe that we will never know the true story. New evidence pops up every day and who knows what lies around the next corner. Dietrich turns up period documents all the time, only a few months ago he helped bring forward an award list that lists all the major awards and how many were awarded by the end of the war! A fascinating, period document that re-writes some information that we previously thought was indisputable. I for one am glad he hasn't given up the fight.

Tom

[Nigel N]

Hi Tom!!!
I hope you are right!! It would be great to shed some light on the "dark ages" of the early postwar period!!
What worries me, is that maybe not a lot was written down at the time, and we perhaps need first hand experience to tell us more, its getting towards 70 years since the wars end, and this period is moving out of living memory!!
-Nigel

[speedytop]

Leroy,

a pity that you left us here, just because someone disagrees with you.

The date 1952 is only for documents.
It is without any doubts, that the miniature sports badges and the sports badges in original size are several/some years older.
Definitely (mostly) made before 1952.


Nigel,

we will always disagree in this point "postwar Oaks/Swords", because my credo is based on facts and knowledge and not on feelings.
In my opinion, feelings are not a good basis for a collection.
I'm not talking here about new made pieces.
I'm talking here about the old pieces, made long before the law from 1957 and the regulations from 1958.

Uwe

[Nigel N]

Hi Uwe!!
It isn't so much a disagreement on the pieces themselves, more about the descriptions??
Heres an example............
A guy shows a set of S&L Oaks made in around 1960, and he asks for opinions....
You might answer him by saying "these are copies" or "these are not original"
Which, while being technically correct, would make the guy think he had junk or fake pieces, which S&L Oaks from that period most certainly are not, in fact quite the opposite, to a 57 collector, they would be very desirable!!
This is why, I believe, many people here will refer to pieces such as that as "57ers", not because they believe they are part of the 57 redesigned series, but because they need words or terms to differentiate what we think of as good from bad?
Also I think there could be a slight difference in the German and English meanings?? "Copies" is a word that is most often used in English to mean a fake, a forgery, or something trying to be what it is not, like a fake Rolex watch would be a "copy"
Anyway, I think we are going off topic here, as this started as a Souval badge thread!!!!!
But its all makes for an interesting discussion......I hope!!!!!!!!
-Nigel