Demjansk maybe Junker

[Zheleznyi]

I have long wanted to share my observation.

In my opinion, the punching die is the only one, although the holes for the holes are different.
That says that platinum was produced most likely on the equipment of Junker.

How to you conspiracy theory?

[Zheleznyi]

These are the plates of these shields. Who can compare the dimensions to confirm or disprove the assumption?

[Zheleznyi]

But that's not all.
Here this type also uses such a plate and small piercers, as on Demyansk
Shield of zinc and iron - type 4
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=422331
Are there any opinions?

[Bruce Simcox]

Hi Железный

…...I think you may have gotten the plate photos mixed up with different shields.

The image of the plate with larger holes does not match either of the shields you show obverse images of.

[Zheleznyi]

The image of the plate with larger holes does not match either of the shields you show obverse images of.

Hello Bruce.
Unfortunately, you are wrong.

[Bruce Simcox]

Hi Железный

…...I disagree with your response. Your original posts(#1 and #2) need a better explanation..

[Zheleznyi]

What specifically you do not agree?

[Bruce Simcox]

Hi Железный

…...Let me explain it again.

In post number 1 you show us two different back plates. Ok.

In post number 2 you show us the obverse of two different shields. You also indicate(as far as I can tell) that the obverse images of the shields in post number 2 are the shields of the back plates in post number 1.

I say that the back plate on the left(large holes) in post number 1 cannot be the back plate for either shield in post number 2. The reason is obvious to me.

The images in post number 2(of the obverse of the different shields) do not show any of the damage to the cloth seen on the image of the back plate in post number 1 with large holes.

Do you not see what I mean?

[Zheleznyi]

In post number 2 you show us the obverse of two different shields. You also indicate(as far as I can tell) that the obverse images of the shields in post number 2 are the shields of the back plates in post number 1.

I meant not specifically these shields, but these types.
Here are the images of the shields, the rear plates of which are shown in the post 1. But this does not change anything and the question remains the same.

[Bruce Simcox]

Hi Железный

…...Thank you for making that clear.

I think you may be on to something. I do not have any Juncker shields, so I can not directly check.

Perhaps some of our other members can contribute?

KR

[Pascal H.]

Yes, the arrangement of the holes on the backing shield could indeed point towards the same maker.
However the Narvik shield show a particular indent which is missing on all the other backing plates in this thread.
There is also a strong suspision that the (zinc and magnetic) Narvik shield was made in the Schwaebisch Gmund area. The maker which was active in that area and which comes to mind is Alois Rettenmaier.

Kr
Pascal

[Zheleznyi]

Yes, the arrangement of the holes on the backing shield could indeed point towards the same maker.
However the Narvik shield show a particular indent which is missing on all the other backing plates in this thread.
There is also a strong suspision that the (zinc and magnetic) Narvik shield was made in the Schwaebisch Gmund area. The maker which was active in that area and which comes to mind is Alois Rettenmaier.

Kr
Pascal

Pascal, this sign can be acquired, due to the development of a stamp. A similar mark is on the back plate of Demyansk.

[Zheleznyi]

These are the back plates of Narvik Junker. On them we can see 2 and 3 marks. Many do not. This once again confirms that the defect is acquired.
The dimensions of the back plates on Narvik Junker and Demyansk coincide, as well as the distance between the holes.