Time period of introduction of zinc for Awards

[Norm F]

the source for this information was the publication:

"Deutsche Graveur Zeitung und Stempel-Zeitung"

from Mai 1942.

This publication was a "newsletter" and magazine for toolmakers.

Excellent information. Thanks Andreas.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Andreas Klein]

Thanks for pointing out that omission Andreas. I've corrected it below. Indeed a very interesting sentence!

Thanks for the translation work

Agreed about the importance because it gives us another timestamp when the cooper/brass coating on badges was applied to the makers.

[Norm F]

Thanks for the translation work

Agreed about the importance because it gives us another timestamp when the cooper/brass coating on badges was applied to the makers.

Mind you, not one of the "Schickle-design" zinc badges uses the copper coating seen on the later crimped hardware products.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Steinhauer & Lück is writing to their toolmaker in 1942 about the massive IAB and is using the wording "now" in the context.

Hi Andreas,

Just to be specific, the letter from S&L to Wissmann dated March 12, 1942 was in reference to the PAB, GAB and IAB and states:

"Wir verweisen aber darauf, dass diese Abzeichen bekanntlich jetzt in massiv angefertigt werden müssen und müssen die Gesenke entsprechend danach gearbeitet sein."

"We point out however that these badges, as is now well known, must be manufactured in solid form and the dies must be worked accordingly after this."

This confirms that by March 12, 1942 this regulation was already in place but no inference can be made about how long before that it was mandated, or whether solid Heer badges were made prior to the regulations requiring that they all be made that way. And prior to the transition from hollow to solid, hollow Heer badges were already being made in zinc.

All Kriegsmarine official award badges from the beginning of the war were in solid form anyway so this has no bearing on when zinc was introduced to awards like the U-Boat and Minesweeper (other than to say it must have been sometime in 1941).

Best regards,
---Norm

[Dietrich Maerz]

"Wir verweisen aber darauf, dass diese Abzeichen bekanntlich jetzt in massiv angefertigt werden müssen und müssen die Gesenke entsprechend danach gearbeitet sein."

Norm,

your translation is not quite correct. It must read:

"We point out however that these badges, as is well known, must now be manufactured in solid form and the dies must be worked accordingly after this."

The "jetzt" (now) in the German sentence is clearly attached to the manufacturing and not to the "as is well known" (bekanntlich). Not even the slightest doubt.

Dietrich

[Norm F]

Norm,

your translation is not quite correct. It must read:

"We point out however that these badges, as is well known, must now be manufactured in solid form and the dies must be worked accordingly after this."

The "jetzt" (now) in the German sentence is clearly attached to the manufacturing and not to the "as is well known" (bekanntlich). Not even the slightest doubt.

Dietrich

Thanks Dietrich. These translations are a struggle for me and it's great to have your help!

One might be tempted to infer that the regulation was recent, but not necessarily since who knows how long S&L was waiting before deciding to make some more Heer badges. They never made a hollow zinc badge like some others, so there may have been a significant gap between their early hollow Tombak and later zinc solid production runs. "Jetzt" they were finally getting around to it.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

A small update. As mentioned by Dietrich in a recent thread, the article posted by Andreas from "Deutsche Graveur Zeitung und Stempel-Zeitung" in May, 1942 was also published verbatim three months earlier in "Schwert und Spaten" in March, 1942. This pushes the date of zinc production for those particular Orders (which didn't mention combat badges) at least that far back, if not earlier.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Schickle is known to have used zinc in their EK2 production, so clearly they were working in zinc before they were banned from all production in June 1941.

For future reference, an example of the Schickle zinc-core EK2 to which Tom referred earlier.

[Norm F]

...SHuCo is an excellent example. They were clearly working with zinc as early as 1941, their dies have the date stamped into it, so there is no question.

And an example of the "41" solid zinc S.H.u.Co. IAB (RonR's example). These do not have the brass undercoating recommended in the 1942 article for KVKs etc. (but neither do many later war zincers so that was not a requirement but a suggestion).

[JustinG]

A thread to be pinned for future reference.

Wonderful thread with great research, documents and opinions given. Quite the scholarly achievement. Worthy of being pinned for future reference.
Thank you all for sharing your vast knowledge.

Best Regards,
JustinG

[Thomas Durante]

A small update. As mentioned by Dietrich in a recent thread, the article posted by Andreas from "Deutsche Graveur Zeitung und Stempel-Zeitung" in May, 1942 was also published verbatim three months earlier in "Schwert und Spaten" in March, 1942. This pushes the date of zinc production for those particular Orders (which didn't mention combat badges) at least that far back, if not earlier.

Another interesting puzzle piece; solid-back zinc IAB allegedly awarded in January 1942:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=754473

Tom

[Norm F]

Another interesting puzzle piece; solid-back zinc IAB allegedly awarded in January 1942:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=754473

Tom

Thanks Tom. Although that doesn't really push the zinc timeline any farther back than we know already since the S.H.u.Co. 41 badges are presumably even earlier.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Andreas Klein]

I think "sold in 2014 together with a document dated 1942" would be a better description of the badge but as said by Norm a massive IAB out of zinc in 1942 is not a big surprise.

It's more interesting to see that it has a design which probably came out of the area of Oberstein where Klein&Quenzer was located.

[Thomas Durante]

Thanks Tom. Although that doesn't really push the zinc timeline any farther back than we know already since the S.H.u.Co. 41 badges are presumably even earlier.

Hi guys,

Norm, it has been argued that the SHuCo41 badges don't necessarily mean they were produced in 1941; and that the "41" could simply signify when the die was created. But now if we can show some solid, zinc badges that were actually awarded as early as January 1942, that more strongly supports the case for zinc production in 1941 IMO. Depending on the exact date of the award document and where it was awarded, this solid zinc badge could have been produced several months before January 1942.

To be fair, 1 solid zinc badge with a single document is not enough to say this for sure, as they could have been switched over the last 70 years. That is why I used the word allegedly, but its a single data point to consider and when taken in conjunction with the SHuCo41 badges and the proven use of zinc by other makers such as Juncker and Schickle then I think it builds a strong case for zinc-based production in 1941.

Tom

[Norm F]

Hi Tom,

I see what you're saying. Personally, I think the S.H.u.Co.41 die would likely have been used in 1941; there's no solid Tombak version from that reverse die and it doesn't make sense to me to make the die in 1941 and not use it until the next year.

Also, in the absence of any known specific regulation regarding zinc use for war badges, I see no reason for all cities to switch materials simultaneously. If Idar-Oberstein and Pforzheim were early adopters that doesn't mean we can necessarily expect evidence for Juncker to have used zinc in 1941. In fact, I think Schwerin (the premier official KM manufacturer in Berlin) made the switch much later than Pforzheim and Idar-Oberstein.

Best regards,
---Norm