Announcement

**Dietrich Maerz** · 08-25-2008, 09:53 AM

Andreas,

just because we don't know what else it could be doesn't mean that is not something else. I am not saying it is, though. How are the other wound badges marked? Any 1942??

if you ask for my personal opinion i would say these are finished stocks which didn't get markings and subcontracts.

That would not work in the case of the DK which was instituted well after March 1941 and therefore they couldn't have been any unused stock. The same applies with the L-marked pieces, especially Zimmermann and Juncker.

Sure, this topic is very complex and I am also convinced that time wise the appearance or introduction of the PKZ number was different for each medal. What I mean is this: if the PKZ had a huge stock of RKs there was no need to order for maybe 1 year or so. The L/12 are a good example - a lot came to the PKZ after the prohibition of private sales and were awarded well till the end of 1943.

Meanwhile they were going through Wound Badges like a hot knife through butter and the PKZ numbers show up a lot earlier. Sure is that the PKZ shows up on the DKs quite a lot earlier than on the RKs.

Dietrich

**Don D.** · 08-25-2008, 10:02 AM

FLL marked their PABs with FLL 43.

**Dietrich Maerz** · 08-25-2008, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Don Doering View Post

FLL marked their PABs with FLL 43.

All of them?

**Andreas Klein** · 08-25-2008, 10:30 AM

Dietrich,

60 years after the war you can question everything but if we take into account that we also know date markings on the IAB or GAB (GB 42, WR 42 and SHuCo 41) than it's plausible. So i would ask for the evidence that this isn't a date marking.

Other WB have - due to what i've seen for the book - no date marking but we will show a timeline between certain badge design and third party dated documents from the makers.

I don't know if we can find PKZ rules for every award line but for the WB sector i'm sure that we have the PKZ around 1941/1942. A big mystery are subcontractors and how they fit in any maker markings regulation and all i know at the moment is that they exists.

**BassD** · 08-25-2008, 10:44 AM

There are other firms who marked their awarsds similar

Walter Redo on IAB with W.R. 42
Sohni, Heubach & Co with ShuCo 41

So when you have doubts about the 42, than you must also have doubts about K&Q (stand this realy for Klein & Quenzer?) and for the 65 (is this realy the PK number?

So what is the "...kleinste gemeinsame Nenner" (don't know how i can translate this in english with the same meaning) that we all can agree?

**Don D.** · 08-25-2008, 10:57 AM

Smallest common denominator?

**Dietrich Maerz** · 08-25-2008, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by BassD View Post

There are other firms who marked their awarsds similar
So when you have doubts about the 42, than you must also have doubts about K&Q (stand this realy for Klein & Quenzer?) and for the 65 (is this realy the PK number?

So what is the "...kleinste gemeinsame Nenner" (don't know how i can translate this in english with the same meaning) that we all can agree?

I didn't say I have doubts and I don't think that any time somebody starts to discuss something everything else needs to be thrown into the pot either.... this is not very scientific. There is no doubt about K&Q and also none about "65" - and you knao that. Just because two things are good the third doesn't need to be!

[quote] Other WB have - due to what i've seen for the book - no date marking but we will show a timeline between certain badge design and third party dated documents from the makers. {/quote}

That sounds different now and is circumstantial evidence (which is not necessarily bad). If it is good evidence it is as good as a year number.

Walter Redo on IAB with W.R. 42
Sohni, Heubach & Co with ShuCo 41

I personally think that the numbers reflect the year. However, a "42" marked badge with a PKZ number as part of the die (not stamped) could also mean that the number was engraved one or two years later.

So what is the "...kleinste gemeinsame Nenner" (don't know how i can translate this in english with the same meaning) that we all can agree?

I don't think it is or should be a question of "agreement". I certainly would agree to a PKZ number in existence in 1938 (as some think ...) if the unshakable evidence is brought forward. It is not a question of "what is the majority thinking" - it is a question what really happened. For me at this point in time it is clear that the PKZ number was certainly in place before end 43/beginning of 44 as the evidence based only on RK suggests. The evidence for the DK comes out differently and points to some time in late 42. But the DK evidence also suggests that it was not in place in March 1941 and shortly thereafter.

So somewhere between these two dates with he tendency into late 42 (for me).

**BassD** · 08-25-2008, 01:07 PM

Würde die Diskussion gerne auch noch ein einem deutschen Forum führen, wäre etwas einfacher für mich . Was mich ein wenig befremded ist die Art der Argumentation bzw. wie bestimmte Dinge in Zweifel gezogen werden. Sowohl hier als auch bei der Schickle Diskussion. Andreas zeigt ein VWA mit 3 unterschiedlichen Markierungen. Die Herstellermarkierung und die PK Markierung werden nicht in Zweifel gezogen. Aber wenn es um die womögliche Datumsmarkierung geht, dann der Einwand:

And where is the proof that the "42" is the year and not a die number, department number or other identifier? I am not saying it is not but I am also not saying it is.

... dann stellst Du die 42 ersteinmal in Frage während Du das für die anderen Markierungen nicht tust. Du machst das zwar nicht direkt aber indirekt, aber das ist wie als wenn man sich waschen will ohne nass zu werden. Das kann so nicht funktionieren. Knallhart gefragt könntest Du mir keinen harten Beweis dafür liefern das K&Q für Klein & Quenzer steht oder die 65 die Präsidialkanzleinummer zeigt. Umgekehrt wird die 42 für die Jahreszahl aber in Frage gestellt. Stelle ich die 42 in Frage muss ich das auch mit den anderen Markierungen tun. Oder wir verständigen uns darauf das K&Q die Abkürzung von Klein & Quenzer ist und die 65 wohl für die PK Nummer stehen wird und die 42 für die Jahreszahl. Dann hätten wir eine gemeinsame Grundlage um andere Aspekte zu betrachen, zu diskutieren etc. Das ist es was ich mit dem kleisten gemeinsamen Nenner meine. Es geht nicht darum was die Mehrheit denkt. Es geht mir darum eine Grundlage zu schaffen auf der wir ohne Zweifel diskutieren können mit Annahmen die keiner in Zweifel stellt. Und das kann nicht funktionieren wenn ich mir von drei Markierungen eine als zweifelhaft raussuche, aber die anderen beiden genau so wenig belegen kann bzw. mit der gleichen von Dir vorgebrachten Argumentation in Frage stellen könnte.

Du schreibst ja selbst das Du auch glaubst das die 41 bei ShuCo das Jahr wiederspiegelt. Warum sollte das dann bei dem VWA anders sein? Wo liegen da die Zweifel für Dich? Oder umgekehrt gefragt, warum glaubst auch Du das die 41 bei ShuCo für die Jahreszahl steht?

Das die Zahl 42 nicht eingeraviert oder eingeschlagen wurde sondern Bestandteil der Form ist macht die Zuordnung zwischen PK Nummer und (Jahres?)zahl ersteinmal fest. Und lässt wenig Spielraum für Diskussionen wie Monate oder Jahre später eingeschlagen.

Auf die Zuordnung von der Andreas schreibt will ich gar nicht weiter eingehen, das wäre dann nur noch ein weiterer Beleg für die Einführung der PK Nummer zu einem bestimmten Datum.

Ich würde diese ganze Diskussion lieber mal bei einem Bier oder sonst wo von Angesicht zu Angesicht führen. Das würde vieles einfacher machen. Vielleicht bist Du ja dieses Jahr in Kassel. Würde mich jedenfalls freuen.

**Dietrich Maerz** · 08-25-2008, 02:00 PM

Basti,

there is no need to react like that. You ask why I question the "42" and not the "65" and not the "K&Q"? I think it would be very childish to question K&Q and 65 but I think that in the context of this thread a question regarding the "42" is legitimate.

You say that it would be better to discuss this in a German forum. That would be better for you I admit, but your english is very good and I think we reach here a lot more people who can contribute something.

If you think that it should be like this: You post the badge and nobody is questioning anything at all then this is the wrong forum.

You say that I said I believe it to be the year number with the other badges but not with the K&Q. That is no quite true! I believe that it is the case in both cases but I would like to know for sure. It has happened before that a die was created in (lets say) 1942 and got the number 42 engraved and other features were introduced later. Can you guarantee - based on one badge - that on this badge the number 65 was engraved in 1942? I thought there were other badges but there aren't so far.

You can do and think and conclude what ever you think is correct. But you must allow others to question the conclusion. Andreas said that he thinks that the PKZ number was introduced basically at the same date as the LDO-numbers which is March 41. I ask why the clearly early examples of an order, introduced in September 41, dont have the PKZ number and it is left open. And there are still a lot of loose ends with the L15.

Coming back to the L15. There was a HUGE discussion about the Legion Condor Tank badge which clearly could be identified with the catalog. Now this badge is Lauer? And who signed the strange poem? Schickle? or Lauer? Or does the L15 in this instance mean something completely different?

And believe me - it is far better to discuss those topics now rather then after the book comes out ....

Dietrich

**Sal Williams** · 08-25-2008, 02:03 PM

Basti, your english is definitly understandable, but I can not understand German that well. I lose the converstaion if you post in German

I would think that if there are other K&Q wound badges with other numbers then it is not a year. I would think if the "65" was added to the die later then there should be some of these wound badges that say "K&Q 42" or just "42". If you only see "K&Q, 65, 42" I would say that the letters and numbers were all engraved at the same time into the die.

**BassD** · 08-25-2008, 03:07 PM

so after write 20 minutes an answer, i push "submit reply" an get an database error.

Sorry but i don't write the hole text again. I will try short version

1. Dietrich, i think you know me long enough that we both have the same intention

2. I think we discuss around and around with no target because the points of starting the discussion are different. If we not start with the same basic all sides can accept it make no sense to discuss.

sorry for the short answer. On the first text i wrote to point 2 more than this few sentences. It is only a short summary

**Andreas Klein** · 08-26-2008, 01:36 AM

Hello Dietrich,

i can only agree a beer in Kassel would make thinks easier.

We start to compare apple with pears ... in the current published IAB book i can read that the 41 on SHuCo and the 42 of WR are the production dates - things which are accepted since years. Now when it comes to K&Q the number on the badge is everything but not a date ....

Why?

If you question things which you support on other makers than please show a evidence why the 42 on K&Q badges is not a date.

**Dietrich Maerz** · 08-26-2008, 07:04 AM

Andreas,

I agree that it is better to discuss this in German. There is a language problem. I never said I don't think it is the date - I even said that I think it is the date. I only was asking for prove that the die with that date was not changed later on to add the 65.

Dietrich

**Andreas Klein** · 08-26-2008, 07:14 AM

Dietrich,

is there a serious reason to enter the date 1942 in a die which you produce in the year 1943, 1944 or 1945?

Imo that's illogical and if we start to accept only things which are proven than we must start at the beginning with "Adam and Eve" and we have to "prove" that K&Q is really Klein&Quenzer and not another one. That was Basti wanted to say.

Sometimes we collectors are really funny people ... we accept "makers" only because of a used setup and than we question such things and are looking for a proof.

**BassD** · 08-26-2008, 07:43 AM

sorry for offtopic

@ Dietrich

are you in Kassel this year? Maybe we can discuss there a little bit.

And yes sometimes is it a language problem for me. Andreas has wrote what i want to say and maybe i understand sometimes you wrong.

Think we are not far away with our thinking about the PKZ timeline.

So hope to see you in Kassel

Gruß

Basti

Announcement

PKZ Timeline

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread