Announcement

**Thomas Durante** · 08-25-2013, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Jeff V View Post

Hi Tom, if Schickle was disbarred from mid 1941 and you think that the zinc badges are also Schickles, I did not realize the germans were producing zinc badges as early as early to mid 1941. What are your thoughts on this?
best wishes,
jeff

Hi Jeff,

I think this is a collector myth that needs to be clarified. Generally speaking, it is true that higher quality medals were used earlier in the war (Nickel Silver & Brass/Tombak) and that Zinc was used mid-to-late war. But like anything, there are exceptions to the rule. This is especially true in the time before the LDO was in place, which wasn't until March 1941. Before this time, it was a free-for all in the medal and badge making arena, and one of the main reasons why the LDO was put in place...to bring some order and consistency to the production and enforce standards. There should be no question that zinc was being used in early war.....it just wasn't as main streamed as it was later on.

As Norm mentions earlier, 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. Andreas may be correct, it could be December 1941. But just as easily it could be January 1941! We just don't know at this point.

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.

Another excellent example are the zinc-core Juncker RKs. These are unmarked, so most certainly before the time the LDO went into affect in March 1941. Dietrich shows a zinc-core RK that was allegedly awarded in October 1939, a month after the war started! You don't get much more "early wartime" than that.

Zinc has a bad name in our hobby, but really it is unjustified IMO. Zinc is a perfectly fine material to work with, if it is refined properly. It is abundant and is easy to work with at relatively low temperature, so its an ideal material. The problem is that later in the war, refinining went downhill and impurities were left in it (aka kriegsmetal). These impurities oxidize and results in bubbling finish and "zincpest".

Even with the "higher quality" metals, zinc was part of the mix. Both Nickel Silver and Tombak are alloys of copper and zinc, so its really not the boogeyman it seems to be in our hobby today.

Tom

**Andreas Klein** · 08-26-2013, 03:28 AM

I think this is a collector myth that needs to be clarified. Generally speaking, it is true that higher quality medals were used earlier in the war (Nickel Silver & Brass/Tombak) and that Zinc was used mid-to-late war. But like anything, there are exceptions to the rule.

This is especially true in the time before the LDO was in place, which wasn't until March 1941. Before this time, it was a free-for all in the medal and badge making arena, and one of the main reasons why the LDO was put in place...to bring some order and consistency to the production and enforce standards.

No Tom that's not correct they weren't free. To fulfill they production orders the makers got a "Materialbezugsschein" and with this "Materialbezugsschein" they got the material via sub contractors of the "Reichsstelle für Metalle".

So without a Materialbezugsschein for zinc in combination with a production order the maker couldn't get his hand on zinc.

They weren't free in the use of the material.

it was a free-for all in the medal and badge making arena and one of the main reasons why the LDO was put in place...

Not correct too .. before the LDO was founded all qualitiy controls were made by the Präsidialkanzlei itself including the permissions for the private market. Due to the ongoing war and more and more makers involved the Präsidialkanzlei outsourced the private market to the LDO --- that was the reason.

As Norm mentions earlier, 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. Andreas may be correct, it could be December 1941. But just as easily it could be January 1941! We just don't know at this point.

The answer can be found in the letters from Steinhauer & Lück to the die maker Wissmann. This letter is dated 1942 and Steinhauer & Lücks informs Wissmann that from now on the IAB has to be produced as massive version.

So ask youself what kind of timline for a massive SHuCo 41 badge is more realsitic ... late 1941 or early 1941. If the massive version of the IAB hadn't been a new information for makers and tool designers in 1942 Steinhauer & Lück hadn't mentioned this. Based on the used wording it seems more logical that the design changing was made late 1941 to early 1942.

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. Another excellent example are the zinc-core Juncker RKs. These are unmarked, so most certainly before the time the LDO went into affect in March 1941. Dietrich shows a zinc-core RK that was allegedly awarded in October 1939, a month after the war started! You don't get much more "early wartime" than that.

I highly recommend you to speak to Dietrich about the zinc cores used within the knights and iron cross ... this was illegall behaviour and forbidden and far away from common mass production practice. Beside the fact that ypu can't compare an iron cross core with a combat badge it can't be taken as evidence for your statement.

Zinc has a bad name in our hobby, but really it is unjustified IMO. Zinc is a perfectly fine material to work with, if it is refined properly. It is abundant and is easy to work with at relatively low temperature, so its an ideal material.

I highly recommend you to look into Uniformenmarkt .... Zinc for sure was usable but not that easy because the makers had to change the overall production process for that. The had to fight against buubles inside the zinc and with the finsihing of the badge.

Official documents dealing with the production changes are dated 1942 so they don't fit into the early timeline aswell.

Attached Files

Zink.jpg (112.2 KB, 379 views)

**Thomas Durante** · 08-26-2013, 05:43 AM

Hi Andreas,

Much of what I wrote came straight out of Dietrich's book, as well as the Uniform-markt. You are fine to have your opinion that "zinc could not have been used prior to 1942", however that is just not historically correct. Zinc was being used in 1939 to produce RKs, as well as EK1s and EK2s, that is a fact. It may have been illegal to do so, but it was done. Same with brass, it was used by several makers for EKs, even though it was illegal. Go look in Uniform-markt yourself, you can see several examples where the Prasidialkanzlei had to remind makers to use iron for the core. These reminders can be found well into 1943, almost 4 years after the institution of the EK! This is fact and cannot be disputed.

I can show you a document from 1944 that says all CCCs in silver were to be produced from Nickel Silver. This is a full year before the end of the war, yet not a single Nickel Silver CCC has ever been found. That means that all CCC producers that made their clasps out of zinc did it illegally.....but they still did it.

RKs were not allowed to be sold privately after October 1941, and yet we know of at least one instance where a recipient bought one from a private retailing in 1944....a full 3 years later.

Rules and regulations were not always followed, we can see many cases of this. Did you ever think that Schickle using zinc in their production of the EK2 illegally was the whole reason they were banned in the first place?

Tom

**Andreas Klein** · 08-26-2013, 06:31 AM

Hi Tom,

i spoke with Dietrich about the subject and i can only repeat it again:

The zinc/brass and whatever cores which can be found there was illegal behaviour and for sure not the common production rule ... and you can't transform it to combat awards production.

Did you ever think that Schickle using zinc in their production of the EK2 illegally was the whole reason they were banned in the first place?

Sure i thought about that and based on the fact the Otto Schickle was a founding member of the LDO i'm quite sure he and his firm followed the rules --- so the illegal use of production material wasn't the reason to ban him.

Simple read the attached letter from Otto Schickle to his customers and what he teaches them:

1. mother crosses:

Some people try to order the mother cross in a version which isn't allowed - therefore i (the firm of Otto Schickle) do not produce and sell them.

2. iron cross

People try to order the iron cross 1st class with disc as setup ... this is forbidden. The iron cross 1st class is only allowed with needle setup.

3. General

All stuff from me is based on the official regulations of the Präsidialkanzlei.

Tom, this is for sure not the behaviour of a firm which was producing just for fun with the false base material against the regulations.

Attached Files

Schickle3.jpg (122.4 KB, 374 views)

**Thomas Durante** · 08-26-2013, 07:58 AM

Hi Andreas,

I see what you are saying, however we can physically show a Schickle-marked EK2 with a zinc core. How can you say that Schickle was a strict follower of the rules when we have this zinc-based EK2 produced by them?

You and I are in 100% agreement, that zinc was not the common production rule early in the war. But the word "common" is the key element, because we know that some firms did indeed use zinc. It may have been uncommon, but we cannot deny that it was used.

If zinc was used for a prestigious and uncommon award like the Knights Cross, then I see no problem with believing that it was used for less prestigous and more commonly produced awards, like the IAB or GAB or EK2.

Tom

**Andreas Klein** · 08-26-2013, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by Thomas Durante View Post

You and I are in 100% agreement, that zinc was not the common production rule early in the war. But the word "common" is the key element, because we know that some firms did indeed use zinc. It may have been uncommon, but we cannot deny that it was used.

Agreed ... but it wasn't used in a mass production at a stage when tombak hoolow badges were the common practice - that's the difference between us.

If zinc was used for a prestigious and uncommon award like the Knights Cross, then I see no problem with believing that it was used for less prestigous and more commonly produced awards, like the IAB or GAB or EK2.

I would not use the word uncommon for the knight cross - it would say "rare". How man Schickle knight crosses are known ? Not that many ... so using zinc cores there can't be transformed to the mass production behaviour of Schickle.

Simply look at the L/15 marked badges from them ... i have never seen a mass product from Schickle like the wound badge which didn't follow the regulations. They fit all perfect the official orders.

And so far no one has ever seen or found a L/15 marked combat badge made from zinc. Why? I'm quite sure if Schickle had rolled out a mass production of a combat award from zinc someone of the collection world had found a marked version.

**Dietrich Maerz** · 08-26-2013, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Andreas Klein View Post

... How man Schickle knight crosses are known ? Not that many ... so using zinc cores there can't be transformed to the mass production behaviour of Schickle.

This sentence could lead to some wrong conclusions and that is why I want to correct something:

- all the Knights Crosses made by Schickle have an iron core.
- only Juncker used zinc as a core material for the RK in 1939 up to mid 1940
- the 3/4 Ring RK had a copper core
- all other manufacturers used an iron core

Dietrich

**Andreas Klein** · 08-26-2013, 09:10 AM

Thanks Dietrich for the informations

Have you some infos dealing with the iron crosses too?

Have we the 1st class with zinc core and a L/15 mark or only the 2nd class?

Is that version easy to find (coomon stuff) or ist it rare?

Thanks in advance!

**Dietrich Maerz** · 08-26-2013, 10:14 AM

Neither we (George and myself) have a non-iron core Schickle EK1 in our book "The Iron Cross 1. Class", nor has "your" author Frank Thater in his later work "Das Eiserne Kreuz 1. Klasse von 1939". There does not seem to exist one with a non-iron core.

**Norm F** · 08-26-2013, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Andreas Klein View Post

Official documents dealing with the production changes are dated 1942 so they don't fit into the early timeline aswell.

This is a very interesting document that Andreas has posted. I've seen it posted before but unfortunately no one seemed to know the publication source or the exact date of publication.

Here's the transcription and translation:

"Werkstoffumstellung von Orden und Ehrenzeichen auf Zink

Wir setzen hiermit die in Heft 2 begonnene Artikelfolge über technische Verbesserungen in der Ordensherstellung fort.

Es werden folgende Orden und Ehrenzeichen auf den Werkstoff Zink umgestellt:

Kriegsverdienstkreuz II. Klasse mit Schwertern
Kriegsverdienstkreuz II. Klasse ohne Schwerter
Kriegsverdienstkreuz I. Klasse mit Schwertern
Kriegsverdienstkreuz I. Klasse ohne Schwerter
Kriegsverdienstmedaille
Luftschutzehrenzeichen II. Stufe
Volkspflegemedaille
RAD. Dienst auszeichnung
Polizeidienstauszeichnung III. Stufe
Polizeidienstauszeichnung I. u. II. Stufe
Zollgrenzschutzehrenzeichen

Die Umstellung von Orden und Ehrenzeichen bedeutet an und für sich keine Schwierigkeit. Es ist zu empfehlen, Feinzink zu verwenden. Gegen die Verwendung von handelsüblichem Zink ist nichts einzuwenden, soweit dieser Werkstoff bei der Verarbeitung keine Blasen wirft.

Es empfiehlt sich immer, den Werkstoff Zink vor der Prägung vorzuwärmen. Für die Farbabtönung ist der satte galvanische Messingüberzug die Voraussetzung für die Haltbarkeit derselben.

Die Ringösen werden zweckmäßig bei den Zinkprägungen mit angepreßt. Das bedeutet für die bestehenden Präge- und Schnitt-werkzeuge eine kleine Abänderung, die aber keine allzu große Schwierigkeit bietet. Die Seitenbohrung bei freistehend angepreßten Ringösen ist leicht. Schwieriger ist die Seitenbohrung bei den Kriegverdienstkreuzen, wo die hochstehenden Spitzen des Kreuzoberschenkels die Seitenbohrung behindern. Aber auch diese Seitenbohrung bietet keine Schwierigkeit, wenn mann durch Anfertigung eines Bohrkalibers sich technisch selbst hilft."

Translation:

"Material change of Orders and Decorations in zinc

We present here the following article which began in volume 2 on technical improvements in medals production.

The following medals and decorations are changed to the material zinc:

War Merit Cross Second Class with Swords
War Merit Cross Second Class without swords
War Merit Cross First Class with Swords
War Merit Cross, First Class without swords
War Service Medal
Air Raid Defense Medal Level 2
Social Welfare Medal
RAD Service Award
Police Long Service Award Level III
Police Long Service Award Levels I and II
Customs Border Medal

The conversion of medals and decorations in and of itself is no problem. It is recommended to use fine zinc. There is no objection to the use of commercially available zinc, as long as this material does not bubble in processing.

It is always advisable to preheat the material before stamping zinc. For the color shading, a rich brass galvanic overcoating is a prerequisite for the durability of the same.

The ring loops are appropriately embossed with the zinc pressings. That means a small amendment to the existing stamping and cutting tools but offers no great difficulty. The side drilling in freestanding pressed ring holes is easy. More difficult is the side drilling in the War Merit Cross, where the upright peaks of the cross's limbs obstruct the side drilling. But this side drilling presents no difficulty if one helps himself technically by producing a drill guide."

It's worth noting:
1) We don't (yet) know the date or source - perhaps Andreas can help here?
2) It's a continuation of a previous article from "volume 2", the time and contents of which we also lack.
3) There's no mention of combat awards which theoretically could have been mandated earlier.
4) There's nothing to suggest zinc was forbidden earlier, only that zinc should be used moving forward.

Best regards,
---Norm

Attached Files

Zink.jpg (112.2 KB, 376 views)

**Andreas Klein** · 08-26-2013, 10:42 AM

Hi Norm,

at my files i have only the posted picture without any other information in the picture. I was told that this article was published in Mai 1942.

I will check in my printed documents if i can find more.

Thanks for your translation ... you have forgotten one interesting sentence which i write down in german and perhaps you can ad the englisch version of it:

"Es empfiehlt sich immer, den Werkstoff Zink vor der Prägung vorzuerwärmen. Für die Farbtönung ist der satte galvanische Messingüberzug die Voraussetzung für die Haltbarkeit desselben".

**Andreas Klein** · 08-26-2013, 11:32 AM

Hello Norm,

1) We don't (yet) know the date or source - perhaps Andreas can help here?

The source for this information was the publication:

"Deutsche Graveur Zeitung und Stempel-Zeitung"

from Mai 1942.

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

2) It's a continuation of a previous article from "volume 2", the time and contents of which we also lack.

I can't confirm it for 100% at the moment but it seems that this newspaper was published every 2 weeks so "volume 1" of this information wasn't published years before "volume 2" was published in Mai 1942.

Attached Files

**Andreas Klein** · 08-26-2013, 11:41 AM

3) There's no mention of combat awards which theoretically could have been mandated earlier.

Agreed ... but here we have other informations which are inline with this article and the timestamp mid 1942:

The official regulations for the silver wound badge were changend from tombak to zinc in mid 1942 too.

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

4) There's nothing to suggest zinc was forbidden earlier, only that zinc should be used moving forward.

Sure and agreed again ... but in the early days zinc wasn't used in the official regulations about the material. Only when the Reichsstelle für Metall declared tombak/brass as war imported and didn't rule it out anymore the overall changing in award making started.

**Norm F** · 08-26-2013, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Andreas Klein View Post

Thanks for your translation ... you have forgotten one interesting sentence which i write down in german and perhaps you can ad the englisch version of it:

"Es empfiehlt sich immer, den Werkstoff Zink vor der Prägung vorzuerwärmen. Für die Farbtönung ist der satte galvanische Messingüberzug die Voraussetzung für die Haltbarkeit desselben".

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

"It is always advisable to preheat the material before stamping zinc. For the color shading, a rich brass galvanic overcoating is a prerequisite for the durability of the same."

Great to see that description of what we see on some zinc badges - a coppery flash coating on the zinc prior to the application of the finish. Nicely evident on this Gablonz-made zinc Minesweeper but unfortunately a principle not followed by many.

Best regards,
---Norm

Attached Files

3.2.6_AS_unmarked_2nd_pattern_worn.jpg (196.4 KB, 372 views)

Announcement

Time period of introduction of zinc for Awards

Time period of introduction of zinc for Awards

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread