Announcement

**Montgomery Burns** · 08-17-2008, 12:33 PM

aim just reading and learning here,,,,
and some thing came to my mind

seen this story is so uncleare an full off doubts
i was thinking back to a comment i hade from a longthime collector.
.
he said,,,, that the perfekt copy is alwredy here ,,fore jears .
without us identifying it becouse we think its a original.
he was convinced off this to be throu.
jou may beleve it orwe not ,, but,,

sind then aim looking fore settings that makes it posible fore copyers to lounch such a production,,,

wood it be the mark fore the perfeckt copy ,,

the copy secretely known to be around and un identified...fore a long thime

??????????

L/15?????
L15????
the differences needet between good and bad ????
a lot unknown ???

maybe a stupid comment,,, but just ,,,,, i was wondering.

regards kay

**ben bijker** · 08-17-2008, 01:15 PM

Maybe this is way -off, but where's the artistic liberty?
You can compare bages and crosses to the catalogue all you want but what if the drawings in the catalogues were blueprints for the originals?

If they wanted to show the originals, why not make pictures from the originals?
It's cheaper and faster then have them all drawn...

Best regards,
Ben

**Winston** · 08-17-2008, 03:57 PM

Just an observation that had me wonder........you say that Schickle was liquidated in the 40ies....given the chance they made the 1939KC pre this date regardless of a possible award date I do not grasp the idea how they could have made 1957 versions?

**ben bijker** · 08-18-2008, 12:32 AM

Maybe I didn't understand it correctly, but Schickle lost his LDO license in the early war years.
Which doesn't mean they company was closed.

Obviously they kept the dies and started to produce again after the was.

Best regards,
Ben

**Andreas Klein** · 08-18-2008, 02:34 AM

Hello Ben,

i hope i can explain it in english so that it is understandable:

At first noone can prove that Schickle got any LDO or PKZ licence - alot of people belive in it - nothing more.

In July 1941 Schickle didn't loose a licence. The firm was closed and the LDO allowed the "Handelskammer" of the city of Pforzheim to sell their remaining stocks on awards and imo tools and unfinished badges on the open market which included imo other makers aswell.

Schickle left the city of Pforzheim and vanished. On our research we were in contact with another firm namend "Otto Schickle". This firm never produced awards or anything else; they produced coats. This firm got in trouble with the german law directly after the war because everyone thought they were the awards "Otto Schickle" and it seems that many many people including the german tax office had still some outstanding accounts with our awards Schickle. So the coats Schickle had to prove in some court hearings that he isn't the awards Schickle from the wartime.

This clearly proves imo that Schickle went out of business in Juni/July 1941 and never came back. I don't think that he ever produced 57 awards because he did everything to hide his traces.

We were last month in Gablonz to do some research on the AGMuK and we had the luck to check araound 100 - 150 balance sheets of the wartime and belive me the german bureaucracy including the tax office worked perfectly until the end. It was imo impossible for Schickle to come back without getting tracked by the tax office. Remember everything of this firm was sold in July 1941 and to produce a 57 award he had to start by zero ... finding a workplace, bying tools, employ new craftsman and so on.

**Montgomery Burns** · 08-18-2008, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by ak72 View Post

Hello Ben,

i hope i can explain it in english so that it is understandable:

At first noone can prove that Schickle got any LDO or PKZ licence - alot of people belive in it - nothing more.

In July 1941 Schickle didn't loose a licence. The firm was closed and the LDO allowed the "Handelskammer" of the city of Pforzheim to sell their remaining stocks on awards and imo tools and unfinished badges on the open market which included imo other makers aswell.

Schickle left the city of Pforzheim and vanished. On our research we were in contact with another firm namend "Otto Schickle". This firm never produced awards or anything else; they produced coats. This firm got in trouble with the german law directly after the war because everyone thought they were the awards "Otto Schickle" and it seems that many many people including the german tax office had still some outstanding accounts with our awards Schickle. So the coats Schickle had to prove in some court hearings that he isn't the awards Schickle from the wartime.

This clearly proves imo that Schickle went out of business in Juni/July 1941 and never came back. I don't think that he ever produced 57 awards because he did everything to hide his traces.

We were last month in Gablonz to do some research on the AGMuK and we had the luck to check araound 100 - 150 balance sheets of the wartime and belive me the german bureaucracy including the tax office worked perfectly until the end. It was imo impossible for Schickle to come back without getting tracked by the tax office. Remember everything of this firm was sold in July 1941 and to produce a 57 award he had to start by zero ... finding a workplace, bying tools, employ new craftsman and so on.

hold on there,,,,,

At first noone can prove that Schickle got any LDO or PKZ licence

The firm was closed and the LDO allowed the Handelskammer.....yes??

what hade LDO to do then with schickle ????
iff schikle hade no licence ????

what about these thouts

so they where ilegal producing ek's and other stuff,,,((1939))

get in trouble with the law,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,((194 0))

fled fore the law and taxes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,((19 41))

if other story's to be throu came bachk in bisnes,,,,,,,,((1945))

produced secretly until ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,((1957))

posible ,,iff the direktor buy's a bankrupt awards firm starting over with a new name
and ofcourse new molds and workers and so on available in his new firm

and explaines the L15 (maybe),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,((catch to his past))

classic corrupt bisnes story,,,repeted a milion thimes until now ,,,2008

orwe a juwisch war story,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

explaining wy he didnt get his licence and so on...

ennyway schikle produced nothing else then ilegal ek's and items all the way throu his carreer,,,,

upiniuns please
regards kay

**Montgomery Burns** · 08-18-2008, 05:14 AM

do's someone know if schickle is somehow a juwisch family name ???
orwe relaited to juwisch family ???

**BassD** · 08-18-2008, 05:37 AM

Hi Kay,

maybe i can bring a little light into the darkness

Schickle was one of the founder member of the LDO. That is one reason why i am thinking that Schickle has a LDO Number. (but not the L/15, why i wrote on the beginning of this thread)

If you look at the original Schickle catalog form June 1940 you will see that Schickle exactly know who has the permission to produce awards, who can buy awards etc. So i am sure that Schickle not produce any awards without permission from the PK or the LDO.

Gruß

Basti

**Montgomery Burns** · 08-18-2008, 05:46 AM

so who's wright,,,,

picture off this catalog maybe ????
aim interested ...

**Montgomery Burns** · 08-18-2008, 05:58 AM

this is fun learning ,,i must say

importand to see two opposite upiniuns here in one thread

evidance wil schow up i ges,, at some point

regards kay

**Dietrich Maerz** · 08-18-2008, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by BassD View Post

If you look at the original Schickle catalog form June 1940 you will see that Schickle exactly know who has the permission to produce awards, who can buy awards etc. So i am sure that Schickle not produce any awards without permission from the PK or the LDO.

That argument is not quite correct. Whoever L/15 was, this company was producing RKs before the introduction of the LDO-numbering system. And before that quality institution started to work in earnest a lot of companies did what they wanted, too. The worst offender really was Juncker with a non-silver, zinc core Knights Cross! Followed by the 3/4 ring cross - awarded to Mölders (among others)

And if you say that Schickle knew exactly what was required that that could be a strong argument for the L/15 connection! Because the L/15 RK is the ONLY one where the LDO stamp is located where it was supposed to be - on the ring of the cross.

**BassD** · 08-18-2008, 09:09 AM

Not sure if i understand you right

If you look at the catalog from June 1940 you will see the footnotes whith tips what is allowed and what not. Also in the extra sheet with the price list. Nobody makes such right footnotes and extra sheets with tips when he not know what is allowed and what not. If he didn't know what is allowed, he make no footnotes or wrong footnotes. And this catalog is from for the foundation of the LDO. So do you think Schickle knows what ist allowed and what not, make footnotes on his catalog but produce without permission of the Präsidialkanzlei or produce awards that are not offical?

What ist that for an strong evidence for Schickle that the L/15 is located where i´t is suppose? Every company has the order to stamp the markermark like the LDO/PK say. A lot of companies do that in this way, a few not. But this can not be an argument for Schickle - L/15. Also i can say Lauer make the markermark in the wright way or another company.

**Dietrich Maerz** · 08-18-2008, 10:32 AM

In the 1940 catalog there might very well be footnotes about what is allowed and what not. However, the company who did the L/15 Knights Cross (and as of today for me that is still Schickle) did NOT stick to the regulations. Neither before the official foundation nor after the official foundation and possible writing down down of whatever rules. The frame was NOT made of Silver. Even after the introduction of the LDO. But don't forget, the LDO-number came from the LDO - the permission to give a number to any supplier was always coming from the PKZ. So Schickle got the permission top produce RKs from Dr. Doehle.

On the field of the RKs Schickle L/15 is the ONLY company who stamped the RK according to the LDO-regulations. That is all I am saying and I said so because you pointed out how well Schickle knew the rules.

I truly hoenstly believe that finding evidence that the L/15 is made by Lauer (as you say) would be to check out Lauer. There must be a trace if that was so.

Did you already ask Niemann?

**Andreas Klein** · 08-18-2008, 10:47 AM

Well, i think we are focusing to much on the KC.

If the L/15 mark on the KC should be a pro Schickle point than i would like to ask were are the L/15 marked PAB, GAB and IAB which can bee seen on the sample photo which the people atttribute to Schickle?

The ad from Lauer is a fact and why is it impossible that they made a correct stamp on their cross ...

Btw on every document in the KC book which is shown as proof that Schickle made a KC there is Lauer aswell on the same document, so everything what is written under the name of Schickle counts one to one for Lauer too with one difference: the ad from Lauer.

**ben bijker** · 08-18-2008, 11:19 AM

Andreas, there is nothing wrong with your english, and the explanation is very clear.

Now I know the complete story, and yes, Schickle is usually called Otto Schickle, which obviously is not good.

Knowing that it is indeed hard to believe that Schickle was L/15....

Very confusing...

Best regards,
Ben

Announcement

Is Schickle really L/15 ??

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread