Is Schickle really L/15 ??

[Dietrich Maerz]

Last

[Dietrich Maerz]

I like to quote myself from earlier in this thread:

"....

In this case case as it stand right now it looks to me like this:

- an advertisement with no date and source
- an add-on leaflet with no date and source
- a loose connection of the add-on with Schickle
- a puzzling poem with a scribbled L 15 that makes no sense at all

Based on that we now say that Schickle was not L/15 and that Lauer made the L/15 marked Knights Crosses?

I don't mind at all whether Lauer is L/15 or not - but that is not how I was taught academically approach.

Why don't we just leave it like that and wait for more and firmer evidence?"

I am very glad that this evidence came up otherwise the confusion would have continued. I have no idea about all the "other" medals out there with L/15 but I was always convinced that the evidence (documents, pictures and physical examination of the pieces) was sufficient to connect the flat ring Knights Cross to Schickle.

Dietrich

[Sal Williams]

Nice find Dietrich!!!

[Hans N]

Hi Dietrich,
Thanks for posting the other pages as well
An extraordinary finding, i which more findings like yours would be found to answer the loose ends the collecting community suffers from.

[Dietrich Maerz]

But there are other examples, too!

I am a very adamant 'document' guy meaning that I want to prove as much as possible with contemporary and original documents. And with that I can prove that there should not (and the really adamant researchers would say "were not") be any German Cross in Silver in the cloth version. Clearly documented and every books states that again (most likely quoting the one before ...).

But there are absolutely genuine German Crosses in Silver on different cloth backing! Made in the factory - not 'privately made" as it is stated in the most recent publications (again!.). This one is proven by the unique manufacturing methods which I will show in my book - kind of 'textile flaw' tracing!

One needs to be open - but skeptical and logical. And scientific and not emotional.

[streptile]

Sorry for the thread necromancy here, but I've just read through this thread and found it interesting. I wonder, though: L15 (not L/15) is now accepted as F. Orth by many. How was that determined?

EDIT TO ADD: Found my own answer here, for anyone interested.

[Andreas Klein]

Hello,

i wouldn't care to much in the "answer" because it sounds like something "must" be explained to be accepted.

Orth was L/14 and used the marking massive on it's awards. Together with his other logo "f.o." the link between Orth and L/14 can be verified. Look at the IAB for example.

There is no logical reason why this firm should have used "L15" too (at the same time they were still using L/14).

Between the LDO code and the PKZ code there is often no visible context:

Zimmermann got PK code 20 but they got LDO code "L/52". No one knows why but it shows that to say L15 was near to PK code 15 needs alot of fantasy.

[streptile]

Bringing this old thread up again with a new question. I read this elsewhere in the forum:

Otto Schickle produced a wide array of medals and badges in Pforzheim. The firm's TR era LDO mark was L/15. The RZM metal insignia code was M1/75. Its Prasidialkanzlei Number was 133.

(source)

I did not realize Otto Schickle's PKZ number was known. Have I missed something, or have we all?

Is Schickle '133'?

Thanks for any help.

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Trevor,

i don't know where the informations about Schickle's PK number is from and i can't confirm the number.

[Dietrich Maerz]

The notion that "133" is Schickle's PKZ number is absolutely wrong. Schickle never got a PKZ number for several reasons. One being timing.

[streptile]

The notion that "133" is Schickle's PKZ number is absolutely wrong. Schickle never got a PKZ number for several reasons. One being timing.

Thank you for the clarification, Dietrich.

[regular122]

Will always defer to you TR experts on the LDO and PKZ. The source for my original post on the Schickle PlM were as follows:

On the LDO L/15 = See Iron Time page 528

On the PKZ # 133 = Nick (Chairman) at GMIC

See http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=625

See post #11. It has since been edited to refer 133 as unknown again but see post #13 where the makers of several were called into question some 2 years later. At the time of my post, 133 was listed as Otto Schickle.

When I made my Schickle post in the Godet PlM thread, it was even before all this discussion on L/15 but Dietrich did a fine job establishing that. Nice to know. Nick had his reasons for connecting 133 to Schickle. As I am no TR expert, I used him as the source. Gordon makes mention that the firm got into hot water causing it to lose a license. I don't know how that played out with Schickle at all.

I'll defer to the TR experts and would welcome any help on shedding additional light on Schickle as it is the subject of much discussion in the PlM world. Thanks, Steve

[Dietrich Maerz]

There is really not light to shed on Schickle. He got the LDO-number in March 1941 and went out of the order and medal business in June 1941. Case closed.

[streptile]

There is really not light to shed on Schickle. He got the LDO-number in March 1941 and went out of the order and medal business in June 1941. Case closed.

So Schickle was in business four months?

Thank you, Steve, for weighing in here. Schickle's various code assignations were long the subject of debate. Dietrich brought some actual period documents to light some time ago that prove he had LDO code L/15 (which was then seemingly usurped and reimagined as L15 by Friedrich Orth some time later). But his PKZ number has never been known, if indeed he ever had one. As far as I know...

[regular122]

Dietrich,

Gordon suggested that the loss of license may have been temporary for Schickle. Was there ever any indication it continued to do business (e.g. manufacture) after June 1941? Thanks, Steve