Kuban Shield maker?

[John T]

I like the look of this shield, it is magnetic. The wool appears to have been trimmed.

Can anybody tell me the maker?

Thanks, John

[Antonio Scapini]

Hi John the shield is an original JFS.

[John T]

HI Antonio,

Thank you!

John

[kraut72]

original Kuban but for me just unknow maker,JFS one possible maker without fact...

[Antonio Scapini]

If found some of these shields with maker marks is not a proof, let me know what is a proof for you.

Why do you call for example "Juncker" the BKA? No one was ever found marked and we have no solid proof to know if it is Juncker or not. But you call the BKA "Juncker", why?

For this shield we have some marked JFS, and this is surely a better proof than your words.

[kraut72]

this your sterotyp JFS, not more...

for me unknown

[Antonio Scapini]

If it is my stereotyp I have 2 questions for you, please answer:

1) Why do you call "JFS" the Krim shield of the "JFS" type? I think because you (and we all) have seen some marked. Am I correct?

2) Please, tell us which of the following shields are Kuban or Krim. If the JFS Kuban is my stereotyp you should recognize all the kuban shields with no problems and in few seconds!


Just to talk: if I'm not mistaken Pascal recognized this pattern as "possible JFS" years ago, he knows what he said, in fact some years later some Kuban shields marked JFS surfaced...

[Antonio Scapini]

"Attributed" to JFS could be the correct way.
Surely we cannot be 100% sure of it, as we cannot be 100% sure for the Souval Krim, the Rettenmaier... We should say: "it is attributed to", not only for some shields, but also for the BKA, for some ISA, for some Flak, and so on...

BTW, the Kuban is the 1 left down.

[kraut72]

Upper row 1,2,3,5,6 Krim

Under row 4 Kuban replaced backpaper

[Antonio Scapini]

BTW, the Kuban is the 1 left down.

Upper row 1,2,3,5,6 Krim

Under row 4 Kuban replaced backpaper

You are really a genuis Kraut!

[kraut72]

this only for you not unambiguous?

Krim with a short thick hook

Kuban thin long hook

that's it

[Trade31]

Kuban shield established in autumn 1943. Kuban bridgehead after Stalingrad. JFS 42 written on it can not be

[Antonio Scapini]

Kuban shield established in autumn 1943. Kuban bridgehead after Stalingrad. JFS 42 written on it can not be

Where is the problem?

Some ISA marked "SHuKo 41" were surely awarded in 1942 or 1943.
Some Krim shields marked "JFS 42" were surely awarded in 1943.
...and we can go on and on.
Following your logic is impossible.
Following german rules and LDO rules during the war it was normal.

Please let us know why "42" should be considered the year.
Have you some solid proofs to support the "42" on the JFS mark or the "41" on SHuCo mark were the years? I think if you have some solid proofs to show a lot of collectors are interested to see them, including me.

[Bruce Simcox]

Hi Guys......

......

Surely we cannot be 100% sure of it, as we cannot be 100% sure for the Souval Krim, the Rettenmaier... We should say: "it is attributed to", not only for some shields, but also for the BKA, for some ISA, for some Flak, and so on..

Yes, this is the correct method of describing badges, awards, shields, etc., if they are unmarked. We just don't know for sure. It is much better to use the term 'attributed'.

Any person can choose to believe what he wants to, in any case.