Norm - "Observational science" is NOT science, although that elevatory notion is floated here frequently. It is merely (and this is not to degrade) simply the useful practice of recording observable information. That information is only as good as the provenance (as to time and circumstance of award) of the piece, which is: 1.) frequently simply made up, or 2.) bears no proveable relationship to time of actual manufacture. We have been through, before, the notion in inventory systems of "first in, first out" or "first in, last out" or "last in, first out" or "last in, last out" or "no order at all". Where is the RELIABLE AND CONFIRMED documentation you can bet your life on?
-
-
Ouch. Large parts of Sociology and Archaeology are observational science (and Medicine for that matter) which is perhaps why Sociologists, Archeaologists and Doctors often debate as much as we do here.Originally posted by Leroy View Post
And you're right, I wouldn't bet my life on observational science, but it's still a useful practise.
More correctly "Observational science" is not "Hard science", but it's still a form of science and not to be ignored, and it's a step more rigorous than speculation which was the only point I was making. And it can indeed be incorrect, just like a prescribed medicine for an observed symptom complex or a sociological theory of the tool-making abilities and diet of Australapithicus garhi.
But I digress...again.
Best regards,
---NormComment
-
This is a little bit harsh, wouldn't you say?Originally posted by Leroy View Post
The process, use, and application of the the LDO numbers is very well documented and nailed down to dates and companies. One missing company is "L/20", which is most likely Lauer, Nürnberg (but that is speculative).
The process of recalling the Knights Cross and higher in October 1941 is well documented (Schwert und Spaten, October 1941, Uniformenmarkt Nov. 1941)
I think that alone covers already roughly 50% of the knowledege regarding LDO- and PKZ-numbers.
Now to the part that needs to be constructed out of the factual evidence and I find it funny that in a sub-forum, where more than 50% of the knowledge is based on "forensics", all over sudden only 100% documented facts are valid to some and circumstantial evidence is no longer of any use. But here it goes (again):
- all first types of German Crosses are without any markings, not LDO nor PKZ. First award of the order in mid October 1941 = clear evidence that there was no number before October 1941
- First award of the Diamonds 15. July 1941. Moelders set is marked "L/50" and was ordered directly by the PKZ, no recall from the marked. Ergo was Godet at that point in time under the impression that "L/50" was the number (and not "21" like very much later on)
- manufacturing regulation regarding the DK issued in first half of 1942, dictating switch from 12 or 6 rivets to 4 rivets. Deschler goes from 6 to 4, but still no marking.
It is also clear that only orders and medals, which have been ordered by the PKZ needed to be stamped with the PKZ number. This applies to the RK and higher, where the examples started to show up mid 1944 due to the stock on hand at the PKZ.
The Golden KVK Knights Crosses are are PKZ marked and were introduced in July 1944.
Andreas has an example of a Wound Badge with the number "42"(NOT 1942 as he writes above!) and "65". It is not known whether that "42" is the year or some die number or machine number or actually the year of the die manufacture. He is under the assumption that it is January 1942 and I am under the assumption (if I go with the assumption that it IS the year), that it was December 1942. Hey, maybe it was June and maybe it was October, maybe it was a worker number. And, yes, maybe Preuss mixed up the year and instead of late 1942 he said 1943. I will not blame him for not recalling exactly after 35 years. But he did NOT say 1941, or 1940 or 1939 - he said 1943.
There are no written records of the PKZ that I know of regarding the PKZ numbers. That does not make them go away and that still allows use to record the use, the time of use, the purpose of use, and come up with a picture. That picture is also very nicely reflected in the story and evolution of the EK1 and EK2.
We never saw any order from the PKZ to any of the companies producing the Knights Cross and higer, but we all know that they did and that the order came from the PKZ.
Regarding the mandating I can only say that for me the double stamping of EK1s of S&L with "L/16" and "4" are a good indication that it was mandated. I don't think that S&L would go through the hazzle to restamp the medals just because they love to spend money. Just as it was a method to proof for the final customer who the medal made in case of the LDO, it was a means for the PKZ to track the quality of any shipment they ordered. One could ask why they did not use the existing LDO-numbers and the answer is"Well, they didn't!"
This is "observational science" just the same way astronomy is an observational science, based on pure deduction of what we see and observe. The same with physics: there is do document by a higher entity describung why the apple falls from the tree. Observation is enough to prove it and as long as no apple falls upwards that deducted theory helds true!
There is also no written record about the creation of the universe - but it still exists (I guess....)
DietrichComment
-
Very interesting. Norm thought it was "0.01% documentation, 49.99% observational and 50% speculation..."Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post
On balance, I would lean more towards Norm () (although - and don't take this personally, either of you - not very far).
In the courtroom (where I live), I am afraid this would not last an hour before being thrown out. No one makes it past the 50 yard line, no one gets to the end zone. (But that's just the cynic in me coming out.)
I am glad that everyone knows the story now. Who will be the first to cry "THE PLANE, BOSS!!! THE PLANE!!!"?Comment
-
Hi Dietrich,
A few questions:
This doesn't prove that no number existed before October 1941, only that perhaps there was no requirement in place to mark awards by their makers. That explains why all the early ones are unmarked. I think we can all agree that there were no PK numbers as early as 1939, and that is why we don't find them on Spanish Crosses. Some makers like Juncker and Meybauer chose to add a maker mark (CEJ or Meybauer crest, etc.), but for the vast majority they were left unmarked save for the respective silver content. From this I think we can "speculate" that maker-marks were not mandatory and left up to the preference of the manufacturer early in the war.Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post
The only instance of an "early" DK being marked is the Heavy Zimmermann L/52. But there is also a Heavy Zimmermann marked 20, both are identical save the PK mark instead of the LDO mark. How can we be sure which one came first? Could they have been produced at exactly the same time? In all your research, have you run into any records of the earliest recipient of a 20-marked Heavy Zimmermann?
Continuing to speculate, is it plausible to think that the few few years of the war there was no mandate to mark awards? In 1941, the LDO establishes the "L" marking system as quality control for private awards. At the same time, they also tell all makers to "go ahead and add their PKZ number to all official awards". Before this time, there is no need to mark awards that were ordered by the government, but now because there is 2 different numbering systems in place, the government requires all makers to add their marks to their awards to differentiate the two.
TomIf it doesn't have a hinge and catch, I'm not interested......well, maybe a littleNew Book - The German Close Combat Clasp of World War II
[/SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Available Now - tmdurante@gmail.com
Comment
-
Well, there might be another particiant who might say 0,0001% documentation and everything else is just BS. That still does not make the evidence go away.
It might very well be that this all this might not hold up in a courtroom and the "other party" (as we see so often in these TV court room dramas) might even call an expert who can proof that there is no evidence that the "Schwert und Spaten" and "Uniformenmarkt" really existed during the Third Reich, or even the PKZ.
But this is not a court room, at least not for me, and I know what I see and I understand what I read. Just as the majority of the "forensic" guys believe what they see, which really is 49.99% observation, 0,01% documentation (if that much at all) and the balance speculation (or, more positively described, current working theory).
Here is what we do in science (meaning outside of a court room): we formulate a theory based on the facts, be it observeable, documentatory, or an assumption. From that we formulate a hypothesis. This hypothesis we check against reality (meaning real other facts, not something like: I heard a guy who knew a guy who said the the PKZ was introduced in 1929!). If new believeable and factual evidence comes up, the hypothesis will be revised or in some cases completely discarded (the earth is no longer flat!). So far everything I have stated can be checked against reality.
In a courtroom, and I understand that, the whole maker connections that are brought forward here in this forum will be dismissed by an average lawyer as "complete and utter nonsense, you honor!"
But the LDO-documents, the L/50 marked and timed pieces (like the Moelders), the evidence regarding "4" and "L/16" will still hold up.
If the requested standard is now 100% documentation we might as well close the forum. A lot of people would even like it!
But we really digressed and I apologize for staring the diversion by correcting what was and still is flat out wrong, namely the statement in Frank's book.
DietrichComment
-
Collector-compiled (i.e. observational) PKZ and LDO numbers (not by me). (A lot more PKZ than LDO, and there is NO PKZ written documentation?)
PKZ
1 Deschler & Sohn München
2 C.E. Junker Berlin
3 Wilhelm Deumer Lüdenscheld
4 Steinhauer & Lück Lüdenscheld
5 Hermann Wernstein Jena-Lobstedt
6 Fritz Zimmermann Stuttgart
7 Paul Meyhauer Berlin
8 Ferdinand Hoffstadter Bonn a. Rhein
9 Liefergemeinschaft Schmuckhandwerker Pforzheim
10 Foerster & Barth Pforzheim
11 Grossmann & Co. Wien
12 Frank & Reif Stuttgart-Zuffenhausen
13 Gustav Brehmer Markneukirchen/Sa
14 L. Chr. Lauer Nürnberg-W
15 Friedrich Orth Wien
16 Alois Rettenmaler Schwäblsch-Gmund
17 (Unknown)
18 Karl Wurster K.G. Markneukirchen/Sa
19 E. Ferd Weidmann Frankfurt/Main
20 C.F. Zimmermann Pforzheim
21 Gebr. Godet & Co. Berlin
22 Boerger & Co. Berlin
23 Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Heereshedarf darf In der Graveur-u. Ziseleurinnung
24 Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Hanauer Plaket-ten-hersteller
25
Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Graveur-Gold-
und Silberschmiede-Innungen
Hanau
26 B. H. Mayer's Kunst-prageanstalt Pforzheim
27 Anton Schenkl's Nachf. Wien
28 Eugen Schmidthaussier Pforzheim
29 Hauptmünzamt Berlin
30 Hauptmünzamt Wien
31 Hans Gnad Wien
32 W. Hobachter Wien
33 Friedrich Linden Lüdenscheld
34 Willy Annetsberger München
35 F.W. Assmann & Sohn Lüdenscheld
36 Bury & Leonhard Hanau a. M
37 Ad. Baumeister Ludenscheld
38 (Unknown)
39 Rudolf Berge Gablonz a.d.N.
40 Berg & Nolte Lüdenscheld
41 Geb. Bender Oberstein/Nahe
42 Biedermann & Co. Oberkassel b/Bonn
43 Julius Bauer Sohne Zella Mehlisi/Thur.
44 Jakob Bengel Idar/Oberdonau
45 Franz Jungwirth Wien
46 Hans Doppler Wels/Oberdonau
47 Erhard & Söhne A.G. Schwabisch Gmund
48 Richard Feix Gablonz a.d.N.
49 Josef Feix Sohne Gablonz a.d.N.
50 Karl Gschiermeister Wien
51 Eduard Goriach & Söhne Gablonz/N.
52 Gottlieb & Wagner Ldar/Oberstein
53 Glaser & Sohne Dresden
54 (Unknown)
55 J.E. Hammer & Söhne Geringswalde
56 Robert Hauschild Pforzheim
57 Karl Hensler Pforzheim
58 Artur Jakel & Co. Gablonz/N.
59 Louis Keller Oberstein
60 Katz & Deyhle Pforzheim
61 Rudolf A. Karneth & Söhne Gablonz a.N.
62 Kerbach & Oesterhelt Dresden
63 Franz Klast & Söhne Gablonz a.N.
64 Gottl. Fr. Keck & Sohn Pforzheim
65 Klein & Quenzer A.G. Idar/Oberstein
66 Freidrich Keller Oberstein
67 H. Krelsel Gablonz a.N.
68 Alfred Knobloch Gablonz a.N.
69 Alols Klammer Innsbruck
70 Lind & Meyrer Oberstein a.d.N.
71 Rudolf Leukert Oberstein a.d.N.
72 Franz Lipp Pforzheim
73 Frank Manert Gablonz a.N.
74 Carl Maurer Sohn Oberstein/Nahe
75 (Unknown)
76 Ernst L. Muller Pforzheim
77 Bayer. Hauptmünzamt München
78 Gustav Miksch Gablonz/N.
79 (Unknown)
80 G.H. Osang Dresden
81 Overhoff & Cle Lüdenscheid
82 Augustin Prager Gablonz a.N.
83 Emll Peukert Gablonz a.N.
84 Carl Poellath Schrobenhausen
85 Julius Pletsch Gablonz/N.
86 Paulmann & Crone Ludenscheid
87 Roman Palme Gablonz a.N.
88 Werner Redo Saarlautern
89 Rudolf Richter Schlag 244 b. Gablonz
90 Aug. F. Richter K.G. Hamburg
91 Josef Rossler & Co. Gablonz a.d.N.
92 Josef Rucker & Sohn Gablonz a.d.N.
93 Richard Simm & Sohne Gablonz a.d.N.
94 Adolf Scholze Grьnwald a.d.Neckar
98 Rudolf Souval Wien
99 Schwertner & Cle. Eggenberg
100 Rudolf Wachtler & Lange Mittweida
101 Rudolf Tam Gablonz a.d.N.
102 Philipp Turks Ww. Wien
103 Aug. G. Tam Gablonz a.d.N.
104 Hein. Ulbricht's Ww. Kaufing b/Schwanenstadt
105 Heinrich Vogt Pforzheim
106 Bruder Schneider A.G. Wien
107 Carl Wild Hamburg
108 Arno Wallpach Salzburg
109 Walter & Hentein Gablonz a.d.N.
110 Otto Zappe Gablonz a.d.N.
111 Ziemer & Söhne Oberstein
112 Argentor Werke Rust & Hetzel Wien
113 Hermann Aurich Dresden
114 Ludwig Bertsch Karlsruhe
115 (Unknown)
116 Frunke & Brunninghaus Lüdenscheld
117 Hugo Lang Wiesenthal a.N.
118 August Menzs & Sohn Wien
119 (Unknown)
120 Franz Petzl Wien
121 (Unknown)
122 JJ. Stahl Strassburg
123 Beck, Hassinger & Co. Strassburg
124 Rudolf Schanes Wien
125 Eugen Gauss Pforzheim
126 Eduard Hahn Oberstein/Nahe
127 Moritz Hausch A.G. Pforzheim
128 S. Jablonski G.m.b.H. Posen
129 Fritz Kohm Pforzheim
130 Wilh. Schroder & Co. Ludenscheld
131 Heinrich Wander Gablonz
132 Franz Reischauer Oberstein
133 (Unknown)
134 Otto Klein & Co. Hanau
135 Julius Moser sen Oberstein
136 J.Wagner & Sohn Berlin
137 J.H. Werner Berlin
138 Julius Maurer Oberstein
139 Hymmen & Co. Ludenscheid
140 Schauerte & Hohfeld Ludenscheid
141 Sohni, Heubach & Co Oberstein
142 A.D. Schwerdt Stuttgart
LDO
LDO numbers of licensed firms
LDO No
Firm Firm Location
L/10 Deschler & Sohn, München 9 Wirthstrasse 9
L/11 Wilhelm Deumer Ludenscheid, Postfach 161
L/12 C.E. Junker, Berlin SW 68, Alte Jakobstr. 13
L/13 Paul Meybauer Berlin SW 68, Alte Jakobstr. 13
L/14 Friedrich Orth Wien VI/56 Schmalzhofgasse 18
L/15 Otto Schickle Pforzheim
L/16 Steinhauer & Lück Ludenscheid
L/17 Hermann Wernstein, Jena Lobstedt
L/18 D.H. Mayer's, Hofkunstprgeanstalt Pforzheim
L/19 Ferkinand Hoffstatter Bonn/Rhein Postfach 161
L/21 Foerster & Barth Pforzheim Tunnelstr. 71
L/22 Rudolf Souval Wein VII/62 Strasse Der Julikampfer 23
L/23 Julius Maurer Oberstein/Nahe
L/24 Fritz Zimmermann, Stuttgart-W. Silberburgstr. 58a
L/25 A.E. Kochert Wein 1 Neuer Markt 15
L/52 C.F. Zimmermann Pforzheim Dr. Fritz-Todt-Str. 55
L/53 Hymmen & Co. Lüdenscheid
L/55 Wachtler & Lange Rudolf Mittwaida/Sa.
L/57 Boerger & Co., Berlin SO 16 Adalbertstr. 42
LDO numbers of partially licensed firms
LDO No
Firm Firm Location
L/26 Klein & Quenzer Oberstein/Nahe
L/50 Gebr. Godet & Co. Berlin W8 Jagerstr. 19
L/51 E. Ferd. Wiedmann Frankfurt-M. S-10 Schifferstr. 52-54
L/53 Hymmen & Co. Lüdenscheid Karlstr.
L/54 Schauerte & Hohfeld Lüdenscheid
L/56 Funcke & Bruninghaus
L/58 Rudolf Souval Vienna
L/59 Alois Rettenmaier Schwäbisch-Gmund Parlerstr. 27
L/60 Gustav Brehmer Markneukirchen/SA (GB)
L/61 Friedrich Linden Lüdenscheild (FLL)
L/62 Werner Redo Saarlautern
L/63 G.H. Osang Dresden, A-1 Neue Gasse 30
L/64 F.A. Assmann & Sohne Lüdenscheid (A)
L/65 Dr. Franke & Co. Lüdenscheid
L/66 A.D. Schwerdt Stuttgart-S, Splittlerstr. 36Comment
-
Hi Gentry,Originally posted by Leroy View Post
Well, there's the issue. It's just a different standard. To convict a man in a courtroom the standard has to be 100% proof, because the stakes are high to the individual whose rights are being protected to the last (although I'm sure mistakes are made there too). But observational sciences were never meant to be held to the same standard or else entire fields of study simply wouldn't exist. You don't simply "throw the theories out of the courtroom" because they're unproven.
In the case of the introduction of PK numbers, the documentation falls short -- no conviction -- so instead Dietrich has provided some excellent and systemic observations to support a theory. Nothing wrong with that. It's still not proof, but so far it's a more cogent presentation than the theory that the PK numbers were invented at the same time as the LDO numbers, for which as far as I can see no one has yet provided any observational evidence.
All we can do is weigh the arguments as they're presented and move forward. If Dietrich's observations find that PK numbers started appearing on the higher orders in late 1942 or early 1943 then it suggests (not proves) that either that's when PK numbers were introduced or perhaps when they were mandated for those awards. And I agree with the logic of his speculation that the double-marked LDO and PK number EK1s suggest the PK number was mandated for those awards, or else why bother to make the double effort.
Best regards,
---NormComment
-
Tom,
I give up! The theories you bring forward are all possible under the assumption that you leave out other observations, like the Diamonds L/50 (later 21), like the transition between the two manufacturing regulations, the tons of L/12 RKs,
Sure, maybe only Grossmann with the "11" did it right and all the other manufacturers did it wrong or were not told or whatever.
Let's put it this way: everything you need for your theory can be constructed because I can't prove that you are wrong. So yes, the PKZ numbers could have been in existence already in 1933, but they were not used. Possible, but extremely improbable for me, can't recxoncile it with my knowledge.
Why don't we continue with the thread under your assumption of the use of the PKZ numbers (i.e. in March 1941) and see where it takes the membership.
Dietrich
PS: There is a "4" marked Spanish Cross.... so why did S&L stop marking their products? IF you believe that the number was in existence in 1939, for which that should be clear evidence, or not?Comment
-
This is an excellent question about which I've wondered as well with no good answer. Where did our PK list come from? Surely there had to be an original document somewhere back in time in the hobby?Originally posted by Leroy View Post
Best regards,
---NormComment
-
Well, you know, Engineers and Doctors are the folks we have the most fun with.......
The analogies I put forth are not trite, nor do I,on the other hand, regard the arguments you make as insubstantial at all. It is hard for me to believe, however, that anyone could think that anything put forth here actually proves, or disproves, the time of creation of the PKZ numbers, which is the soul of this discussion. It may well circumstantially indicate to some extent (not prove) when a mark was required to be applied to a particular item, but it would never establish any time of creation. Your arguments "talk around the question presented".Comment
-
That really is a very good question and as much as I have searched, I did not find anything so far.Originally posted by Leroy View Post
But the "collector-compiled" or "observational" description of the list might not be correct, there might very well be an original list. And eve if it IS collectro-compiled as you assume, it is a damn' good piece of work, since it seems to be correct.
Bowen shows the first complete list I know of in his "The Iron Cross" and he attributes it to Nimmergut. One can say about Nimmergut whatever one wants regarding the gullibility of what is original or not, he has compiled and published a huge amount of valuable information. I don't want to mis his "Bibliographie zur Deutschen Phaleristik" for one minute. And I don't think that he just made that list up. Unfortunately, Bowen does not give a refereence where he found it and when.Comment
-
Why don't you just telephone Nimmergut? I bet he would talk to you, despite all that has been said back and forth. I hear he also has Kleitmann's notes from conversations with Paul Preuss (including conversations about the zinc-cored S&L RK's
).
Comment
-
Hi Dietrich,Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post
First we would have to determine that the 4-marked S&L Spanish Crosses actually date to 1939; which to date there is no real evidence for. In all likelihood, these crosses seem to date to mid-to-late war with incorrect marking on the pin.
Under my scenario, all your observations can still be correct and the PK numbers were still issued to makers, but not really in use until the LDO numbers were instituted, so there was a way to differentiate. Sure it is speculative, but I see enough other circumstantial evidence as laid out in this thread combined with the unfortunate lack of documentation to question the date of "late 1942" in my opinion.
Continuing to ask questions and challenge our previous observations based on limited information at the time is healthy and the true sign of a good forum, I think you would agree. If this were to stop, then we really should shut down the forum.
Reading back through your DK book today, I think you have a very good sentence on page 68: "On the examples of the Order of the German Cross, however, the PKZ numbers appear quite some time earlier than the beginning of 1944 (which seems to be the number introduction date for the Knights Crosses). The indication right now, based on preliminary studies point to an introduction date of late 1942 for the German Cross."
I think this is an excellent way to handle this subject. It leaves the door open for future discoveries, and more importantly for other awards it might be different than the way the RK or DKs were numbered.
TomIf it doesn't have a hinge and catch, I'm not interested......well, maybe a littleNew Book - The German Close Combat Clasp of World War II
[/SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Available Now - tmdurante@gmail.com
Comment
-
Hi Tom,Originally posted by Thomas Durante View Post
I think I've missed something. What was the circumstantial evidence laid out in this thread to support the theory that the PK numbers were used already in early 1941?
Perhaps I just missed it somehow, so can it be summarized in a list similar to the observations that Dietrich presented for the DK in posts $144 and #168?
Best regards,
---NormComment
Comment