Very good side for several list of makers marks

[Paratrooper]

Hi!

I want to show you a Link to good side for identifying makers by the marks. You can find all lists of mm from the Hindenburg Cross up to the LDO code list. This side helped my very often.

Here are the direct links to the lists.

• Link to Hindenburg cross maker marks
• Link to ic 1914 maker marks
• Link to names of other manufacturers of awards
• Link to makers Logos
• Link to Pr******228;sidialkanzlei makers marks
• Link to LDO makers marks

The main side:

Regards
Andreas

[Dietrich Maerz]

Andreas,

I have to make a comment:

There is no way IMHO that Otto Schickle got a PKZ number (#133) that late (assuming the numbers were fairly sequential) after having been stripped the LDO-number in 1941. They never got one at all.

I don't know were this list is coming from but I have (serious) reservations. The more so since there is no officially published list (with numbers) in neither the "Schwert und Spaten" nor the "Uniformenmarkt".

But I do know that some earlier authors came somehoe up with a list and passing thru time this list became gospel...

Most of the asigned numbers are correct, but Schickle for sure is not - and there might be quite a few more that are wrong.

Dietrich

[Paratrooper]

[..]and there might be quite a few more that are wrong.

Dietrich,

I agree with you in the case of Schickle. Thats the first and only error till now.
Because of that i not agree with you that there might be quite a few more. That is only an assumption. One error cannot make a list bad.

It is the most used list by collectors in Germany and all of them are very content with it including me.

Regards
Andreas

[Dietrich Maerz]

Thats the first and only error till now.

That's exactly what I mean! And that's why I said "there might be a few more"

How about # 38 AGMuK? There are quite some collectors who are raising questions about this one.

And when it is the most used list by collectors in Germany (which I am a part of ...) why is the mistake not corrected? And who is the 'real' # 133?
It could be one of the other numbers and then you have already 2 mistakes ....

I'm just saying that this list is not 100% correct and I would really like to have the raw original data from where this list is originating from.