S&L Showroom circa 1940/1?

[Dietrich Maerz]

What do you you mean by "one and the same?" The same example? Or the same page in the catalog?

[Leroy]

I mean are they the same catalog and are we just guessing as to the date of publication, with some saying 1940 and some saying 1941?

[Dietrich Maerz]

If it is the same catalog (meaning the same example, i.e. mine) I have no idea why it rests now at GCA without my permission. But that is a different issue.
If it is the same catalog then there is no guessing. It was printed after 1. March 1941 as it announces the LDO number "L 16". How that can be in 1940 is beyond me.

[Leroy]

Thanks for that clarification.

In reading your book, you indicate a void between August, 1940 and March, 1941, and that the LDO numbering system went into effect on March 1, 1941. Is there some document which lists an "effective date" or is the March date the date something showed up in public print for the first time?

Again, just trying to clarify the date of the last known S&L catalog. One would think that a manufacturer would like to have its catalog for a certain year in print as early as possible in that year.

Regards,
Leroy

P.S. I don't think the GCA catalog came from you, but rather from another member there. These things are around, although scarce.

[Zepenthusiast]

As a relative newcomer to the WAF and one who largely haunts the Imperial forum, this is a very enjoyable discussion, with the involvement of members evincing depth of knowledge about the TR era. Never know where an eBay posting will lead!

For JC Gray: Does Doehle's book include a photographed PlM? If so, possible to post the image here? Would be curious as to the type chosen.

Close study of the enlarged PlM "detail" shot posted by Jaeger7 could not be a Schickle variant. It's of Wagner type: doesn't have a pie slice and the tail feathers are too broad.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Is there some document which lists an "effective date" or is the March date the date something showed up in public print for the first time?

The March 1. date was the official date the numbering system went into effect. This is documented in the Uniformenmarkt and with other documents, such as the letter from Schickle to his customers.

[Leroy]

Thank you, Dietrich. So the catalog on GCA may be a 1940 catalog or it may be the same version you have, which because of the "L 16" mentioned in yours (which does not show up in the pages published there)would place it, probably, in the first quarter of 1941 (which makes sense).

In any case, a pre-Oakleaves and Swords, pre-German Cross, pre-other awards, catalog, is the last known S&L catalog.

Schickle "bit the dust" in mid-1941. I am still thinkling about that CLTB and PLM.....

[Leroy]

For JC Gray: Does Doehle's book include a photographed PlM? If so, possible to post the image here? Would be curious as to the type chosen.

Don't know where (the very helpful)Mr. Gray is, but the Doehle book is limited to TR-era pieces.

[Les]

The claim everything in the cases was made by Schickle runs counter to some "stubborn facts" that suggest otherwise. The idea that one manufacturer would use and or sell another firms product runs counter to evidence to the contrary. I'll get to that in a moment.

In the first photo Jaeger posted, the case closest to the corner has a very large number of Imperial era aviation badges, while the 1939 and 1941 catalogs show only two large Prussian (pilot and observer) badges, and two minis.

Did S&L manufacturer and maker mark LCTB badges? There are more than a few who would say they did not.

For most of the forum members, PlMs seem difficult to get a grip on. In reality, they are far less complicated then people think. During WWI, Wagner and Friedlander appear to have had a close relationship, with one firm subcontracting or making EK's for the other. That's based on examination of die strikes, and as Dietrich will tell you, the die don't lie. WWI era PlMs are often attributed to three makers: Godet, Wagner and Friedlander. In reality, Friedlander was not a manufacturer at all. The die strikes on Friedlander and Wagner pieces are close to identical and share identical die flaws. Friedlander acquired either blanks or finished pieces from Wagner, and marked them "FR" and sold them as "FR" marked products.

The PlM made and sold by S&L after WWII has several clearly definable characteristics. The outline or silhouette of the eagles is distinctive enough that details of the cross (letters, crown, etc) are not needed to determine if a piece was made by S&L or someone else. I've said this earlier in this thread, and will repeat this:

****** The PlM in the case has different eagles than the S&L pieces sold after the war. ******** The tail feathers are much wider and form a more distinctive "square" at the center junction than any known "S&L" pieces. The head and wing shapes are also subtly different, which means the PlM in the photo bears more resemblance to a Wagner type PlM than an "S&L." It's certainly not a "Schickle" or "Godet" either.

It has already been pointed out, no PlM is shown in either the 1939 or 1941 catalog. If S&L made one after 1941, LDO regulations would have required the firm mark the piece with their code. No genuine beasties like that have ever been documented.

The PlM is one problem with everything on the board being made by S&L. Then there's the matter of the LCTB. Who made that? It certainly doesn't show up in the 1939 or 1941 catalogs.

Let's think about what S&L is actually known to have made and can be documented.

For a moment, let's speculate. (So far, there's been plenty of that, so what's a little more going to hurt?) It's been suggested the display is part of a trade fair. That would make sense in some ways. The lack of glass covering the display if it was long term would require upkeep and dusting. For a short term display, it wouldn't be a problem.

Now, let's go one step further. The people putting on the fair offer you space.. You accept, but what do you do if you don't have enough material to fill all the available space? You use duplicates as filler, perhaps borrow from other firms you may have a close business/family/social relationship with, and try to fill up the empty spots.

Did S&L use duplicates to fill up space? Look closely in the case with the PlM. There is a Turkish War Medal in there to the right hand side. Now look in the other photo and the case in the second compartment shows another Turkish War Medal (both are first class breast badges). If they were variants, why not put them side by side instead of two different cases?

Still sceptical? What about all those Imperial aviation badges? Why some many when the catalogs only have the most basic types...a Prussian pilot and Prussian obsever badges?

One word: filler.

Dietrich if memory serves me correctly (correct me if I'm wrong) has said that the Ludenscheid medal making community was exactly that...a community. It was relatively close, with family firms sharing close social ties, inviting each other to family weddings, and I think he said there were also families intermarrying.

What we assume might be competition among firms, might not be the case. If the firms are related socially, and share some family ties, the firms may be closer to a cartel of firms or businesses with related interests.

If you're a jeweler and a high ranking officer walks in, you don't want to tell him you don't have, or can't get what he wants. What is there to prevent a jeweler from having a small number of consignment pieces from another firm (or member of the cartel) that he can sell, and -both- firms gets something out of the deal? Things such as price-fixing, wage-labor and related issues can be the result of firms/cartels working with each other "for the common good."

The relationship of Wagner and Friedlander from the Imperial era, with one firm making or subcontracting certain medals for the other is a demonstrable fact.

Not likely? Ask Dietrich about how the automotive industry subcontracts components, and can come to have an understanding on limited basis with other firms.

[Dietrich Maerz]

I don't hink it was me mentioning close ties but I would not say it wasn't the case. There are examples of companies buying from the same source and there are examples of companies buying from each other (Godet from Zimmermann for the RK, Klein from Zimmermann for the DK). For me having something on display - whether at a trade show or at "home" does not mean that one produces it necessarily. It only say "it is available".

[Chris Boonzaier]

Could this be a selection in the S and L "Museum"?

ie. badges they had made up untill 1940, including stuff they were no longer making in 1939..ergo it is not in the catalog?

Some companies have their stuff on display, even stuff no longer in production.

Did S and L make special orders? i.e. no great demand for PLM, so it was not carried in the regular catalog of stuff in stock... but they could be made on special order. Just like the 57 RK is not in their present offering, but is made to special order.....

just some thoughts

[Leroy]

Very interesting comments, Les. (And thanks, by the way, for starting this thread, which appears to have expanded a bit!)

There were certainly close business and social contacts between the many Ludenscheid firms.(I believe that has been noted not so much, as he said, by Dietrich, but by people over at GCA who interviewed former directors of the Assmann firm.) I can see S&L showing, in its own exhibit in a place like Berlin, pieces from other firms there with which it had such a relationship. I fail to see the utility, however, of using your display in the capital as a vehicle for promoting items from many other firms, spread out across the country, when those same firms could do the same for themselves, UNLESS it was displaying items for companies it retailed for who did not have their own retail operations or items it made for other companies but did not include in its own catalog. It would be very useful to see the articles from Uniformmarkt, etc. which tell us more about the purpose of this exhibit. Perhaps it WAS a "bring everything you sell, whether you make it or not" exhibit.

A question for you about the PLM. You indicate that this has no relationship to a Schickle (and I would certainly defer to you in the entire PLM area), but appears more like a Wagner. Was Wagner still making these in 1940?

I think some questions which need to be asked (even if they are speculative) are what did S&L make for others which did not appear in its own direct catalog?; do we know for a fact that Schickle actually made the LCTB or PLM it sold?; do we know at this point who really made what for who?

I find these connections very interesting. We have a gigantic puzzle on our hands. Some of it is easy to join together. Other parts, however, are not so simple or straightforward. I have no problem at all exploring a thousand different posssibilities (some of them admittedly "out there") if, at the end of the day, we find just ONE new piece of information, however small, we did not have before.

P.S. Just saw Chris' post - the same thoughts have occured to me, as well.

[Les]

Very interesting comments, Les. (And thanks, by the way, for starting this thread, which appears to have expanded a bit!)

<snip>

A question for you about the PLM. You indicate that this has no relationship to a Schickle (and I would certainly defer to you in the entire PLM area), but appears more like a Wagner. Was Wagner still making these in 1940?

<snip>

P.S. Just saw Chris' post - the same thoughts have occured to me, as well.

This thread took on a life and direction none of us saw coming, and is providing considerable food for thought.

Leroy, I'll try to answer your questions regarding the PlM related aspects, and let others who know more about the interwars and TR era aspects tackle the rest.

The dies Wagner used to make the late war silver gilt pieces show deterioration, wear, and actual die flaws that got worse as the war went on. At the very end of the war, the stampings show signs of hand-chasing due to loss of stamped details of the eagles' chest feathers. Wagner appears to have used the same badly worn dies into the early and possibly mid-1920's. After that, Wagner does not appear to have made a newly designed PlM, and more or less dropped out of that particular market.

Could the PlM on display be an archived copy as Chris suggests? It is a definite possibility.

Schickle sold PlMs, although who actually made them is a matter of controversy. We do know that the Schickel firm ran into problems with LDO in 1941, and had their license revoked.

What we can do is rule out what the piece on the board doesn't look like, and then try to look at what is left and go from there.

Where there other firms that made or sold PlMs? That's not a subject I want to get into as it's a series of threads on their own, and would/will divert from the direction this thread is going in now...looking at these photos and what we're piecing together from everyone discussing them.</snip></snip>

[Brian S]

Les, I noticed this also and was going to comment;

"****** The PlM in the case has different eagles than the S&L pieces sold after the war. ******** The tail feathers are much wider and form a more distinctive "square" at the center junction than any known "S&L" pieces. The head and wing shapes are also subtly different, which means the PlM in the photo bears more resemblance to a Wagner type PlM than an "S&L." It's certainly not a "Schickle" or "Godet" either."

It is not what we know as an S&L PlM.

[Robin Lumsden]

........I think these photos date from 1940.

I am glad someone agrees!

Just looking at the awards displayed there, it HAS to be 1940 IMHO.