PKZ Timeline

[Dietrich Maerz]

Andreas raises an interesting point about Hartmann buying an RK in Vienna in 1944, in that how could he have considering private trade was already forbidden at that time?

Richard,

we can chew through that again and again! But I can tell you already right now there are only a limited numbers of outcomes from which we can choose right now:

- the owner was lying to me and made up the letter and the envelope from Hartmann's fiancee.
- Hartmann was faking the letter and got the cross from somewhere else and was lying to the current owner.
- the shop owner had a cross (which he was allowed to have) and sold it (or gave it) to Harmann as reported.

What impact any of theses outcomes might have on an PKZ-number discussion eludes me. That the shop owner got the cross in 1942 and kept it till Hartmann came? Possible! A good argument? I don't think so. Display items were never forbidden and the shop owner could very well have bought that cross a week earlier for exactly that purpose. The possession was not forbidden it was even encouraged as the many Window display articles in the Uniformenmarkt show us.

But here is another, maybe more interesting thing:

Recently I saw an expertise for a K&Q Cross marked "65" with the 'typical small die flaws of a war time production by this maker." Awarded in August 1942. If that is really the awarded cross then this might support the assumption that the PKZ numbers were in use in mid 1942. It goes against the cross of von Ravenstein which is not PKZ marked. But that could have been earlier stock.

However, this throws out the whole story of K&Q being a late war addition because of the crunch with Juncker. It is not that easy.

[Bob Hritz]

I think the lack of quantity, of awards of the Knight's Cross, made it possible that supplies were sufficient to give out non-PK marked crosses until well after the PK numbering system was ordered. With roughly 7000, the production runs would not have to have to have been more than 500 to 1000 pieces, by any particular approved maker, until a re-order. With the PK marked pieces, they could well have been made earlier and just awarded later, depending on the supply and inventory system.

I do believe that the PK was in effect in 1942, but it does take time to use up current supplies and to mark pieces (or not to bother marking existing inventory) when new production runs were made.

Unless we are certain of the inventory system, LIFO or FIFO, of both the makers and the PK, we will not have a positive answer on a clear timeline.

I would rather rely on factual dated orders than upon speculation, of which I am guilty, in this post.

Bob Hritz

[Dietrich Maerz]

I think the lack of quantity, of awards of the Knight's Cross, made it possible that supplies were sufficient to give out non-PK marked crosses until well after the PK numbering system was ordered. With roughly 7000, the production runs would not have to have to have been more than 500 to 1000 pieces, by any particular approved maker, until a re-order. With the PK marked pieces, they could well have been made earlier and just awarded later, depending on the supply and inventory system.

I think that was the case. L/12s were awarded very late and also the flawed S&Ls. Both non-PKZ marked.
The DK evidence suggest a date in 1942, though. More were given out and the PKZ numbers show up earlier. In the case of the EKs or even WB the system was even more consuming, the key for the actual date might really come from those badges!

[Rich G]

Richard,

we can chew through that again and again! But I can tell you already right now there are only a limited numbers of outcomes from which we can choose right now:

- the owner was lying to me and made up the letter and the envelope from Hartmann's fiancee.
- Hartmann was faking the letter and got the cross from somewhere else and was lying to the current owner.
- the shop owner had a cross (which he was allowed to have) and sold it (or gave it) to Harmann as reported.

What impact any of theses outcomes might have on an PKZ-number discussion eludes me. That the shop owner got the cross in 1942 and kept it till Hartmann came? Possible! A good argument? I don't think so. Display items were never forbidden and the shop owner could very well have bought that cross a week earlier for exactly that purpose. The possession was not forbidden it was even encouraged as the many Window display articles in the Uniformenmarkt show us.

Dietrich,

Don't worry about that, it was just a side-line that caught my attention (I didn't read it in another thread if it has already been brought up - some of the RK threads just get so long I stop reading!)

I think the RK and PKZ numbering is just just too difficult to nail down given the relatively small numbers produced compared to say black wound badges.

I think the DK would be a better example to study (which I'm sure you have) but the priority here is not to make this an RK/DK thread but to nail down when exactly the PKZ numbering commenced and how it's introduction was managed.

Rich

[Dietrich Maerz]

I think the DK would be a better example to study (which I'm sure you have) but the priority here is not to make this an RK/DK thread but to nail down when exactly the PKZ numbering commenced and how it's introduction was managed.

That is absolutely correct!! Maybe you (or whoever) should open the same type of thread in the badges section. Unfortunately this is the "Crosses" and we (or at least me) are a little one-sided and tunnel-visioned - unfortunately!

Dietrich

[Sal Williams]

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.

Can anyone answer about the markings found on other WB of this design? Always unmarked or marked with all 3 marks?

[Dietrich Maerz]

This is interesting:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ighlight=K%26Q

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ighlight=K%26Q

The 65 jumps all over the place and the 42 is gone. If it is the same die which I didn't try to verify.

[Sal Williams]

That is pretty interesting, Perhaps due to how many WBes were required they had more than 1 die. Some of those have a "65" where the "42" is on the one in this thread so that must be the case, no?

[Andreas Klein]

That is pretty interesting, Perhaps due to how many WBes were required they had more than 1 die. Some of those have a "65" where the "42" is on the one in this thread so that must be the case, no?

Klein & Quenzer had around 5 different dies if we adopt that a different position of the maker mark is caused by another die - which is imo correct.

But not all of these dies weren't used paralell ... some of them were uses one after the other.

[Andreas Klein]

Just an addon because i think here is one of the biggest mistakes:

It seems to me that collectors believe that the makers could buy their material like tombak or zink on the open market and therefore a PKZ stamped WB out of brass could be made in the year 1944.

That's wrong ... beside the PKZ there was the "Reichsbeschaffungsamt" which was responsible for the share-out of war impotant material. The "Reichsbeschaffungsamt" had a higher authority as the PKZ!!!

In the year 1942 the Reichsbeschaffungsamt decided that brass is war important and not allowed (!) to produce the silver WB with it. Such things give us a clear timeline that PKZ marked silver WB out of brass are poduced and maker marked before 1942.

Btw the sames goes to the L/15 thread aswell ... a clear order that from a certain date a specific award like the war merit cross has to be produced out of zinc is a clear date stamp.

Here is a document to the cloth WB which shows how the war and the authority of other ministries affected the awards production:

1.) note
concerns woundbadge

Major Fink - Heerespersonalamt - tells by phone that because of a shortage of woundbadges the Wehrmachtsbeschaffungsamt was been told to produce woundbadges made of cloth to be sewed on the uniform.
These are not meant to be final items but only a temporary help.The concerned wounded soldiers recieve a preliminary document (of ownership) which has to be returned after recieving the metal-badge and the final document (of ownership).
Major Fink asks if there are any concerns towards that procedure.

I negated that and added: Because of the failed actions of the Rüstungsministerium the production of medals was partly stoped. Because of that a shortage of woundbadges occured. After quite a few exigent interventions of the Präsidialamt the Rüstungsamt stoped the sanctions and after that the shortage has been resolved. So there will be enough woundbadges again shortly.

2.) Mr AR.Schneider
with request for consultation concerning the supply of woundbadges for the Wehrmacht.

[Sal Williams]

Thanks Andreas for the info and the translation! Very interesting.