Deschler Third Reich made Imperial EK2

[Sonderkommando]

Just picked this one up today and I was hoping to get a few opinions on it.
It's a Third Reich made Imperial EK2 which measures 45mm across and appears to have a zinc core. The centre has a very slight pebbled effect to it and note the round three on the reverse! The ring is marked "1" for Deschler and the frame has the beading characteristics of a Deschler as well as the Deschler nub for the ribbon loop.
I have compared the beading to other Deschler EK2's and it is a perfect match.
The EK came with a length of Third Reich Imperial EK2 ribbon which is non-glow, non-melt and is the correct dimensions.
Keeping in mind that the cross matches known original Deschler Third Reich EK2's, two questions come to mind.
1/ It has a round three, pebbled centre and a zinc core suggesting early manufacture (also rattling centre which is common to early EK's) so why is it marked with a PK number which wasn't in use until '44?
2/ Why is it marked with a PK number at all since it is an Imperial EK2 replacement cross? Why would the PK issue one as an official replacement?
I should add that it is three piece construction and the seams are very well joined.

Help

Regards,
Brett

[Sonderkommando]

pic 1

pic 1

[Sonderkommando]

pic 2

pic 2

[Paul Massucci]

...... two questions come to mind.
1/ It has a round three, pebbled centre and a zinc core suggesting early manufacture (also rattling centre which is common to early EK's) so why is it marked with a PK number which wasn't in use until '44?
2/ Why is it marked with a PK number at all since it is an Imperial EK2 replacement cross? Why would the PK issue one as an official replacement?
I should add that it is three piece construction and the seams are very well joined.

Help

Regards,
Brett

Brett,
Prasidialkanzlei Numbers were in use from the beginning of the war.
A possible explanation as to why the ring is marked can be that Deschler was already making 1939 EK II's and thier rings were stamped for these and they just simply used what was on hand when making the 1914 EK II

[Kecon]

Hi Brett

Paul's answer makes perfect sense to me. I might add, in regards to the
round three, that since Deschler was using the larger size frame that they
made up new centers to fit. The standard size Imperial centers would not
have filled that space. Most likely all of this type of replacement crosses,
made buy this firm, had this round three, non magnetic center.

BTW, Brett, very nice find and probably very uncommon.

Regards
Ken

[George Stimson]

I like Paul's answer, too. But can someone please clarify P numbers? I mean, my understanding is that they weren't in use until 1944. But given the great amount of awards exhibiting them, I don't see how that's possible. They must have been in use earlier.
So, was the system established (and used) earlier than 1944 and it was only mandatory after 1944, or is the 1944 date incorrect, or what?

[Kecon]

George

I'm afraid I'm a bit confused at this point, also. Whats the difference
between "P" numbers and LDO numbers. I was always under the understanding,
that the LDO #'s started in 1941. Like from #1 Deschler on up. So, whats
the deal here?

Ken

[George Stimson]

No, P numbers and LDO numbers are different. Deschler's P number was "1." Their LDO designation was "L/10."

[Kecon]

George

As I understood it, the numbering system started in or about 1941.
What you call the"P" numbers. Then the LDO numbers started in 1943.
Where does the 1944 date come in. If the numbering system did'nt start
untill 1944, then all those early crosses and other awards with straight
numbers would have to be incorrect. Take for example an early #100 EK
with a "rattle" center. A supposed early made cross. Get what I'm saying?

Ken

[Paul Massucci]

I too don't know why the 1944 date has been thrown in the mix. As I understand things the Prasidialkanzlei number was used on offical award pieces and the LDO number on private purchase items. The LDO was formed in 1941 in an effort to assure private purchase items met certain quality standards, as privately purchased items were available starting shortly after the "officialy awarded" were approved. The following is an explaination I copied years back but can't remember from where. If I'm not mistaken the LDO system was abolished sometime before the end of the warbut yet again my memory fails me as to when. Hope this helps rather than confuses
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o></o>
<o></o>

"Prior to and during World War II, Germany contracted privately owned “Court Jewelers” for the manufacturing of awards, decorations and orders (as opposed to most countries that used government used mints). At the onset of war, these firms operated under a lenient system which permitted them to make several variations of awards, such as the “Convex” Iron Cross, and even allowed other jewelers which were not under government contract to reproduce awards for private purchase by recipients. Faced with the chaos of having its decorations liberally distributed, the Government intervened, and in 1941 outlawed the private purchase of awards from non-licensed dealers. From that point on, all recipients that wished to purchase duplicate copies had to do so through a government authorized firm. The laws also placed specific guidelines by which all decorations were to be constructed, and the production of non-standard awards was severely curved. Therefore, a majority of the variations that are encountered in awards today come from those manufactured early on in the war. From 1941 onward, regularization was the norm, or at least the goal, in the world of Third Reich decorations.


The LDO, (Leistungs Gemeinschaft der Deutscher Ordenshersteller, Administration of German orders Manufacturers), was a self-governing organization formed in 1941 which regulated the manufacturing of all German awards. This organization and its members, through decrees which came directly from the Fuhrer’s office, tightly supervised the dimensions, materials and construction methods used to create the medals that would decorate Germany’s soldiers. It was also an information source, and construction methods were discussed and shared among firms. All members of this organization were issued a number, an “LDO number” or Prasidialkanzlei (Arabic) number , which was supposed to be stamped on all awards produced by these firms. In reality this particular regulation was not tightly enforced, and a great number of awards were produced with no mark all. It has been stated that the numbers that identified the firms changed on a regular basis, when, in reality, this was not the case. Some firms do have two numbers, one which is prefixed by an “L” and a Prasidialkanzlei one, but these did not change during the war. One explanation put forth for this is that the “L” prefixed to a number was used for privately purchased pieces, where the Prasidialkanzlei number was used for award pieces. "

[Sonderkommando]

Thanks for the responses guys.

I believe that the PK numbers were being used before '44 as well as there are to many "early-ish" pieces about with the number being used on them.
Everyone seems to agree that pieces supplied to the PK had to have had the PK number on them. Official award pieces were then supplied from the PK along with free replacement pieces for awards lost while on duty.
Thats what made me wonder why an Imperial EK2 would have the PK number as it would'nt have been an award piece and it would'nt have been lost while on duty as it would'nt have been worn while on duty.
As Paul said, maybe the loop with the "1" on it was simply fitted as it was a standard stock item being used on the EK2's of the Third Reich.
Never the less a nice variant of a Deschler cross.

Thanks,
Brett

[Paul Massucci]

Hi Brett,

I'm just curious as to where you got th1 1944 date from?

[Sonderkommando]

Hi Paul,
In Gordon Williamson's book he says that from '44 onwards all awards supplied to the PK were to carry a PK number. From the way it's worded, it sounds as if before '44 that the PK numbers weren't in use.
George made a good point earlier in the thread and it would be interesting to hear from Gordon in regards to clarifying the use and time frame that the PK numbers were in use.

Brett