Gablonz EKs

[Stepdale]

Hello,
I collect medals and badges from Gablonz makers and have a list I go by for things I'm still looking for. In the forum's cross section is a thread with an official list of EK2 makers - http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ad.php?t=19336. This list identifies the following Gablonz makers:

39 Rudolf Berge Gablonz a.d.N.
49 Josef Feix Sohne Gablonz a.d.N.
61 Rudolf A. Karneth & Sohne Gablonz a.N.
63 Franz Klast & Sohne Gablonz a.N. (should be Klamt, not Klast)
78 Gustav Miksch Gablonz/N.
83 Emll Peukert Gablonz a.N.
85 Julius Pletsch Gablonz/N. (should be Pietsch, not Pletsch)
89 Rudolf Richter Schlag 244 b. Gablonz
92 Josef Rucker & Sohn Gablonz a.d.N.
93 Richard Simm & Sohne Gablonz a.d.N.
95 Adolf Scholze Grunwald a.d.N. (formerly a suburb, now a part of Gablonz)
101 Rudolf Tam Gablonz a.d.N. (should be Tham)
103 Aug. G. Tam Gablonz a.d.N. (should be Tham)
109 Walter & Hentein Gablonz a.d.N. (should be Henlein)
131 Heinrich Wander Gablonz

From this list, the only EK2s I have ever found or seen are those marked 93 for RS&S and unmarked ones identified by their envelopes to 109 Walter & Henlein. My question is, are the others on this list only identified from an official document, or have some of these crosses been found unmarked or unmarked but id'd to these makers, or are there simply enough unknown maker EKs out there that could be attributed to these makers but not yet linked to them?

Thank you,
Dale

[Dansson]

Of all those manufacturers,
93 and 109 (always unmarked) were the only that made EK2.

best regards,
Daniel

[Stepdale]

Not to be argumentative, but then where did the list come from? I also find it hard to believe that Gablonz, where the "Gablonzer method" for EK manufacturering was developed, only had two makers of the EK in a city with numerous makers manufactured a wide assortment of other medals.
Dale

[Dansson]

All EK2 statistics, investigations, period documents and all other methods used to find out this by the researchers on this forum.

I would say what I claim has a very reliable source, and this is what so far has been proved about these Gablonz makers.
Some of the researchers and other members with huge knowledge can be more specific.

Best regards,
Daniel

[Hank C.]

Hello,
I collect medals and badges from Gablonz makers and have a list I go by for things I'm still looking for. In the forum's cross section is a thread with an official list of EK2 makers - http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ad.php?t=19336. This list identifies the following Gablonz makers:

39 Rudolf Berge Gablonz a.d.N.
49 Josef Feix Sohne Gablonz a.d.N.
61 Rudolf A. Karneth & Sohne Gablonz a.N.
63 Franz Klast & Sohne Gablonz a.N. (should be Klamt, not Klast)
78 Gustav Miksch Gablonz/N.
83 Emll Peukert Gablonz a.N.
85 Julius Pletsch Gablonz/N. (should be Pietsch, not Pletsch)
89 Rudolf Richter Schlag 244 b. Gablonz
92 Josef Rucker & Sohn Gablonz a.d.N.
93 Richard Simm & Sohne Gablonz a.d.N.
95 Adolf Scholze Grunwald a.d.N. (formerly a suburb, now a part of Gablonz)
101 Rudolf Tam Gablonz a.d.N. (should be Tham)
103 Aug. G. Tam Gablonz a.d.N. (should be Tham)
109 Walter & Hentein Gablonz a.d.N. (should be Henlein)
131 Heinrich Wander Gablonz

From this list, the only EK2s I have ever found or seen are those marked 93 for RS&S and unmarked ones identified by their envelopes to 109 Walter & Henlein. My question is, are the others on this list only identified from an official document, or have some of these crosses been found unmarked or unmarked but id'd to these makers, or are there simply enough unknown maker EKs out there that could be attributed to these makers but not yet linked to them?

Thank you,
Dale

Not being familiar with all of them, maybe you could break things down by what you've found. For instance, 109 and 93 made EK's. Perhaps 101 & 103 only made KVK's, 95 and 92 pilot badges, etc. Not all the makers would make all the medals, I'm thinking, they'd specialize so they weren't all competing for contracts for the same items.

Do you happen to have a list of what items you've found from the various makers?

best
Hank

[Stepdale]

Thanks Daniel! I suspect that many of these makers did make EKs, only as part of the AGMuK. It was the AGMuK that developed the Gablonz method. Unfortunately we don't have a complete list of the members, but from Ostmedaille and BWBs in MuK envelopes we can be fairly sure that Klamt and Berge were members.

[streptile]

are there simply enough unknown maker EKs out there that could be attributed to these makers but not yet linked to them?

I strongly suspect this is true of at least some of the makers on that list.

One test is: has anyone ever seen Packets named to any of the above? I will have to check my list when I'm home but none rings a bell.

[Stepdale]

Trevor,
I've never seen EK packets for any of these makers other than Walter & Henlein. I have seen ones for JFS but they have always been deemed fakes.

Hank,
I missed your post and hence your question. Here is what I have for the medals (not badges) these makers made (only military medals as i don't collect political ones):

39 Rudolf Berge Gablonz a.d.N. - KVK2, Ost, 1 OKT
49 Josef Feix Sohne Gablonz a.d.N.- KVMs
61 Rudolf A. Karneth & Sohne Gablonz a.N.- KVK2, Ost, possibly 1 OKT
63 Franz Klast & Sohne Gablonz a.N. (should be Klamt, not Klast) - KVK2, KVM, Ost
78 Gustav Miksch Gablonz/N. - KVK2 w/o swords
83 Emll Peukert Gablonz a.N. - KVK2, Ost
85 Julius Pletsch Gablonz/N. (should be Pietsch, not Pletsch) - KVK2, Ost
89 Rudolf Richter Schlag 244 b. Gablonz - KVK2
92 Josef Rucker & Sohn Gablonz a.d.N. - KVK2, Ost, 1 OKT
93 Richard Simm & Sohne Gablonz a.d.N. - EK2, KVK2, KVM, Ost
95 Adolf Scholze Grunwald a.d.N. (formerly a suburb, now a part of Gablonz) - no medals, only badges
101 Rudolf Tam Gablonz a.d.N. (should be Tham) - KVK2, KVM
103 Aug. G. Tam Gablonz a.d.N. (should be Tham) - KVK2 w/o swords
109 Walter & Hentein Gablonz a.d.N. (should be Henlein) - EK2, KVK2, KVM, Ost, 1 OKT
131 Heinrich Wander Gablonz - BWB is all I've ever seen from this maker

There are other Gablonz makers that made medals, but I've only listed the ones that were on the EK2 maker list. Many of these also made badges, but I didn't add them to save space. I guess the list posted in the reference thread by Rich G has a source, but I don't know what. Unfortunately my reference books are still in storage so i can't look at them to see if they have an official list.

[Dansson]

Hello,

Here is the "confirmed"/official list of EK makers made by Trevor.
Who knows what the future will bring with it, but in my opinion without proof everything are just ideas and theories until something that could possibly confirm it has showed up.

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=554105

Best regrads,
Daniel

[Stepdale]

Well, it looks like there's not a lot out there to show who in Gablonz besides RS&S and W&H made EK2s. I still think there were many other Gablonz makers making them, either individually or as part of the AGMuK. I'll shoot a PM to Rich to see where he got his list.

In the meantime, here's the opening paragraph to a 1942 article announcing the Gablonzer technique. Unfortunately it only says a member of the AGMuK developed the technique and doesn't identify which one. Sorry for the poor quality, I took the photo many years ago with an old camera in a dark library in Gablonz.
Dale

[Dansson]

Interesting picture you have shared with us, thank you!
Well, I think it is possible that some Gablonz maker made cores, frames and supplied it to other manufacturers that could assemble them into crosses. For example it could be the so called "S&L" core and frame (or an other commonly found core/frame) that can be found on many makers that originates from Gablonz.
The reason what makes me think it is like this is because if this article is from 1942, it would mean that the company would have manufactured crosses for a very short time if no maker marked are found.

My conclusions:

1) The maker that remains unknown only made cores or frames. I would guess more cores, because all Gablonz made EK has a S&L core (I won't give my word on this, I remember it to be like this only).
This would indicate that either S&L also had a factory in Gablonz or it is not S&L who has produced these cores as thought.

2)
It is an unknown Gablonz maker or Walter & Henlein,
due the crosses should be found at least as unmarked because the year is 1942. Conclusions from this is that they either sold the idea or the liscense to produce like this to other companies. Because they sold it forward they would get money from the idea souch they would not need to themselves produce EK, and could concentrate on other items with a increasing budget.


Just some thoughts/theories in my head...

Best regrads,
Daniel

[Stepdale]

Daniel,
You may be correct with number 2 as the article goes on to explain that the frame pressing technique is the property of the AGMuK. My German isn't quite good enough to translate it all, but I've posted the last part below. for others to tell me if it says that others will have to pay the AGMuK to use it.

I also got a reply from Rich that he can't remember exactly where the list he posted in the reference thread came from. I searched the web for a list and found a few, but many of them didn't match each other, so I don't know if an official list exists or not.
Dale

[Douglas 5]

Interesting you should post this version Dale - going by the content it may be a later article/report version .... assuming the top part and bottom part are from the same printing .
Do you have all of it as a piece in the middle is missing ? There actually is a lot more to this article .
The top part is a top left page section and the last portion posted is from the bottom right corner of a page .
If I remember correctly the production images are in a horizontal lay out in this article .
The reason I ask is that the article contradicts itself in some way - if both segments are from the same report ?
" End April 1942 genügten die Anlieferungen an Eisernen Kreuzen bei weitem nicht den Anforderungen, die Herstellung stand hinter dem gefordeten Bedarf stark zurück ."
" At the end of April 1942 they were by far not getting enough Iron Cross shipments in they needed, production lag strongly behind the requested demand ."

Now in the lower part : ............

" Zur Zeit liegt für die an Eisernen Kreuzen erteilte Aufträge überall zugeschnittenes Material vor und die Vorratswirtschaft an Eisernen Kreuzen is so ausgibig ,
daß im Augenblick kaum eine Möglichkeit besteht , sich der neuen Arbeitstechnik im ausreichenden Maße zu bedienen . "
" Right now exist - for those who are fulfilling Iron Cross orders - everywhere precut material and the back up of Iron Crosses is quit sufficient ,
that at the moment there is hardly any possibility to properly take advantage of the new production method . "

Was there a demand or not . Hence the question - are the 2 segments from the same report ??
We know that production was lagging behind and not fulfilling demand .

In addition :
The last translation of the last posted segment does give us an insight of the 'why this method' did not succeed in any great way .
" Pre-doomed" if the large companies had a lot of cutting strips and backup crosses . Retooling and a new set up just for small quantities was not economical .
And for small companies most likely too great of a cost as initial start up requiring die stamping machines ....and easier to obtain and stick with already made frames .

To a question Dansson had . The Gablonz method was a different and " other process " of making iron crosses which was approved by the PKZ
(which obviously already had to exist by that time - end of April or even before ?? I would think the idea would have been approved by the PKZ in principle first
before the Gablonz-Group would have gone so far as to actually make tooling and produce finished samples - which took about 3 months ) .
The other question is ... ' What or who's ' dies did they use ???? Well for setup purpose and trial strikes you need dies .
W&H were pretty much 'next door' and a good probability supplied dies for set up/trial production .
As it says - a method only that any company could use - indirectly indicates - each company had to use their own dies - and the Gablonz Group did not supply specific finished frame dies .
There for the Gablonz Group did not need or get a PKZ number !! The manufacturer is licenced - not the method . Even if the Gablonz had made crosses with 'clients' dies in any quantities
.... they were summited by the client under their own PKZ number .
It is my understanding talking with others that they made trial samples for potential clients . Who they were and how many crosses this Gablonz Group made remains unknown .
An area of awards I have very , very limited knowledge about : are some CCC that have the marking Ausf( Ausführung) A.G.MuK -- as Ausführung can also mean method .
In context as here -- struck on solid strips or using coiled wire ???? Just a wild thought that came to mind .( Probably both would look the same ?

Finally in regards to the method -- being sold or not ?
It says that the setup and the method is property of the A.G.MuK Gablonz Co-op which cannot be distributed by any one else - only by themselves !
But is OK with supplying the new support material and production knowledge/results .

Douglas

[Dansson]

Thank you Douglas!
You made once again a great and very good post!

Best regards,
Daniel

[Stepdale]

It's all from one article in a Goldsmith magazine from 1942, though I'm not exactly sure what month (edition 47 of 48, so probably late in the year). Here it is in its entirety - my German isn't good enough to get it all, though I think the middle part mainly talks about the details of the technique.
Dale