U-Boat clasp silver - but with mm

[Seewolf]

Finally i was lucky to get a very early u-boat clasp in silver. It has the typical S&L avers but reverse the pin is different to the S&L pieces. The "scratches" on the pin is, under the microscope, a mm from my most "loved"maker Souval.
As i have seen very early S&L CCC´s with broad pin and the L/58 mark i am now convinced that this mark was not made to upgrade a S&L piece in value.
I am very happy with this rare one

please feel free to post your thoughts and opinions

[DavidM]

Hello

First, this is a very good, very early new form U boat clasp - and very hard they are to find as well

As for the 'maker mark', why would anyone bother to put an obsolete mark onto anything? The PKZ and LDO markings died out at the end of WW2, and were neither required or in use when the new form items started to be made. So why mark anything? I could understand it being marked 'RS' but not 'L/58'. Sorry, but I am totally unconvinced by maker marks on new form pieces.

So an excellent piece, worthy of being in anyones collection, but not convinced at all by the maker mark.

Regards
David

[Seewolf]

Hi David,

many thanks for your reply. Souval did marked his pieces after the war with this L/58, not very long but they did it. Nigel has shown a EK II with L/58 markings and as i wrote above, there are CCC´s with that mark out there.
Why Souval did that ? Sorry, i can´t explain that but i think they really did it.

[Nigel N]

Hi Rudiger! Very nice U-boat clasp!!
As you probably know, i've been a firm believer in Souval being a maker, or at least a seller of 57 pieces for some time, and this looks like another example of this!!
Wether Souval bought these pieces from, say S & L, and added their own MM, bought parts, assembled them, and marked them as their own, or actually made them themselves, i dont know??
As David said, it never made sense to put a wartime LDO mark on their pieces, but for whatever reason, they did!! There are many examples of L/58 marked EK1 & 2's, and theres no denying they are Souval pieces!!
So.....congrats on a rare piece -Nigel

[Mike Yokum]

Interesting to see the L/58 mm. I can't offer a knowledgeable opinion on that, but regardless, you have an excellent and early U-boot in sillver! Nice find!

[Matthieu]

Great piece, buddy !!!!! I just love that worn look on it ..... wow ... such a rare badge, well done !

[jt327gir]

Very nice! I like it.

[Peter Wiking]

Could it be that the needle was replaced?

Peter

[Seewolf]

Could it be that the needle was replaced?

Peter

I don´t think so but could be possible. I am more and more to say that Souval indeed made 57ers and that they marked only their early versions. A few month ago we had the discussion about the L/58 marked naval clasp, Thomas Huss showed us. Now i think that the clasps were made by Souval as regular 57ers.

The marked L/58 EK´s are accepted, why don´t this one??

The marked "3" and "4" EK´s are accepted too, without asking why Deumer or Steinhauer marked them after the war.

It is well known that Souval was very very active after the war to produce TR copies and we ALL have seen later Souval 57ers with the typical 70s setup and without mm. Why isn´t it possible that they produced very early 57ers and marked them and used another hardware?

The L/58 marked CCC´s match exact with the S&L ones and this clasp matches exactly with the very early S&L clasp, so what about cooperation between S&L and Souval ??

We still don´t know everything about who all made 57ers and who made which 57ers and should be open for new findings. We are fixed to S&L, Deumer, a little bit Assmann, a little bit Deschler. I know that i was one of the collectors who said "Souval is bullsh*t" but after looking without prejudices it is IMO proven that there is a cooperation between S&L and Souval. Maybe Souval produced for S&L (S&L is/was a very busy firm) the limited lot productions like like some clasps with the S&L dies and marked these pieces with their wartime L/58 mark.

[LuckyLuudje]

Very interesting clasp!

I do not think that the needle is replaced.
I have seen many clasps badges and crosses with this same mark. And the same marked needle on other clasps.

But was it really Souval that made and marked these items?
Or was it for example a guy that worked at S&L that took some stuff home and marked them?

I remember a few L/58 marked ek2's I had that were IMO postwar S&L. Why would Souval stuff from others while they had their own stuff.
It would be logical that Souval also had the knowledge and materials to make their own stuff.
They used their own frames on the blank cored Souvals.
But knowing that Souval faked everything, these blank cored ek2's could well be a copy of a 1813 ek2 in stead of a 57!

Most of the L/58 items are postwar fakes of TR items. Now we find this marked needle on a 57 clasp.

Is the needle a leftover from the fake era? Is the clasp a copy of 57?
I know that according the regulations it can never be a fake of a S&L 57!

Souval was an Austrian maker. What was the Austrian law/regulationsregarding 57's?
Can we actually call these items 57's if they are not made by Germans for the German market?

So many questions that I don't have and never had the need to find them.
But I do know that if Souval is involved, my level of acceptance is very high.

A few month ago we had the discussion about the L/58 marked naval clasp, Thomas Huss showed us. Now i think that the clasps were made by Souval as regular 57ers.

I remember that clasp. It had the "silver" grade !!!!
But was it a 57, a postwar copy or just a postwar fantasy item?

[Nigel N]

Interesting points Luud, as Rudiger said, we just dont know everything about 57 production, especially involving Souval! But i think their is plenty of evidence to link S & L and Souval in 57 award manufacture.
Souval used their own frames and S & L frames on their blank core EK2's, both types usualy marked L/58 on the ribbonn ring, they also used both types of frame and both their own and S & L hardware on EK1's, with mainly the S & L style crosses being MM'd, again with the L/58 mark.
The blank core Souval EK's turn up regularly in Austrian vets groupings and medal bars, so i think they are beyond doubt, i also think the evidence for clasps such as Rudigers being Souvals is also too much to ignore!!
I think too many people dismiss anything by Souval because of their Third Reich postwar copies -Nigel

[Seewolf]

If this clasp would have had no mm i think EVERYONE would have said "S&L clasp". So IMO it´s only the mm that is the point or red flag.

Souval did made TR copies of the u-boat clasp with exactly this pin and mm so why don´t they made this one as a normal, regular 57er and used only the pin while assembling? If it is really the original Souval pin what do you think then?
"Original" 57er made by Souval or 57er fake done by Souval?

As an evidence for the Souval pin here´s a pic.....the bronce one.
The silver one shows a more S&L pin, only more flattened.

So what now ??? IMO that shows that Souval WAS involved as a 57er maker but he is only not accepted by the collectors.

[DavidM]

Hello

I don't think anyone is necessarily questioning that Souval made 57 items. What I was querying was why put a spurious mark onto them. Now the photos that you have just posted of their post war repros, which I haven't seen or come across before, of the U boat clasp go some way to explaining this - in that Souval thought lets use up the pins that we have made for the repros on some legit 57 stuff!! Hence the mark. OR, given that a lot of the Souval attributed pieces actually appear to be from S&L, did S&L buy up stock from Souval? Or was it the other way round? Or, did they simply trade with each other or even use a common supplier/manufacturer for certain components of their 57 items? I know, more questions than answers at the moment with this one!!

Why don't collectors question '3', 'L/11' and '4' marked pieces? Simply because these manufacturers also made the same items during WW2 and it is a widely held belief that they used up left over parts when making the very early 57 pieces.

Regards
David

[George L]

This is certainly true, but in the case of Assmann, they did mark their '57 wares with the 'A' stamp, too.

Why don't collectors question '3', 'L/11' and '4' marked pieces? Simply because these manufacturers also made the same items during WW2 and it is a widely held belief that they used up left over parts when making the very early 57 pieces.

Regards
David

[Matthieu]

Thinking a bit ouf of the box here ... Could it be that both dies were made by the same "die maker" and then sold off to both S&L and Souval ?
Souval could then mark their items L/58 to spot the difference, where as S&L did not bother.

But why use L/58 instead of RS or 98 ... perhaps L/58 as the 57er awards would have been bought privatly by the veterans ???

Seems that Souval is no longer in business, but S&L still is ... you guys think they might have any records proving the cooperation between S&L and Souval ( if any ) ???