So you want to know about S&L Dk's?

[Thomas Durante]

Also (and whether the pieces are real or not) I would not put too much significance on the use of hollow rivets on these by S&L, which was making these for the first time that we know of. They may have just been emulating Zimmermann.

Hi Leroy,

Well this is the EXACT reason why we should be very skeptical of these S&L DKs in my opinion. If S&L was making these for the first time, it stands to reason that they would be using construction techniques that they were familiar with. By studying other S&L badges (like their Para badges), there is a clear prescendent that they preferred solid rivets. This was during the war and even on their 1957 badges. It is only much later that they dabbled in cheaper, hollow rivets.

Here is a postwar 1970s (or later) Para badge. Note the uncharacteristic semi-hollow eagle, and this one carries an L12 mark. Notice the exact same type of hollow rivets. These are identical to the S&L DKs, even down to the same identical tears in the flanges of the rivet head. You just do NOT see these type of rivets on wartime S&L badges.

On the same topic, look at the Juncker DKs. Their rivets are IDENTICAL to the ones used on their Para badges, Pilot badges, Observers, ROAGs, etc. This is further proof that different badges by the same maker would reasonbly use the same construction techniques, hardware, rivets, etc.

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

rivet closeup

[Leroy]

Tom,
I absolutely agree that the rivet work is very sloppy! You'll get no argument from me on that at all.

S&L never falsely marked badges after the war to indicate manufacture by some other company (such as the L/12 mark on this thing). Do we even know that the badge shown is by S&L at all? Certainly, it's been played with.

Here is a photo of the rivet on another DKIS attributed to S&L. There is no maker mark on the pin, so that ID is not positive. Personally, I would very much have liked the chance to look at the DK's on that board to be able to compare them with others we see now. Were they the same at all in terms of construction? Are we comparing apples to oranges?

I do not know Barry Turk at "e-medals" well at all, but I will be glad to e-mail him (unless some one who does know him would rather volunteer) to see if good pictures of the specific pieces are still available.
Best,
Leroy

[Thomas Durante]

S&L never falsely marked badges after the war to indicate manufacture by some other company (such as the L/12 mark on this thing). Do we even know that the badge shown is by S&L at all? Certainly, it's been played with.

Hi Gentry,

How do you know this for a fact? I will disagree with you here and show you another badge, but this time its marked L/56. It is the same type of badge, identical in every respect (same semihollow eagle, same wreath, same reverse hardware and same rivets). Even the marks are in the same place, stamped in right next to the hinge. So these were clearly made by the same maker.

So at a minimum, we can definately say that there is 1 maker out there that was producing these badges postwar AND marking them with different maker marks (L12 and L56, and probably more...). I would contend that these were made by S&L. The reason for this is that the obverse wreath and eagle design is IDENTICAL to the wartime badges by S&L. Not only are they identical, but the EXACT SAME WARTIME DIE was used for them. Not only that, but the reverse hardware it the same as what was used by S&L on their wartime badges (short barrel hinge and flatwire catch on a round catchplate).

These postwar reproductions are tied to S&L, no doubt about it from a forensic analysis in my opinion.

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

Here is the obverse of these "semi-hollow eagle" Para badges. If you compare the obverse eagle and wreath die characteritics to EVERY wartime parartrooper badge maker, you will find that it ONLY matches S&L badges. Every other maker used a different design, different dies and different reverse hardware.

Furthermore, there are reports that these semi-hollow badges were bought by a few German collectors in the 1970s.......directly from S&L! I haven't been able to confirm this, but this aligns perfectly with what we can see on the badges themselves from a forensic standpoint.

Tom

[Terry OToole]

s&l rear of dkis on e-medals now

[Leroy]

Tom,
If you now wish to assert that S&L, in addition to all the other things said about them, falsely marked badges postwar, that's your right. No one to my knowledge has ever said such a thing before. I suppose next we'll see RK's and e-boats and all sorts of things supposedly made by S&L and marked to others. Except for your para badges, do you have, or have you seen, other type badges so marked which you can link to S&L? And if you have, please show them and tell us where they came from (provenance). On the para badge you show in Post #20, is it marked to someone else?

I personally think (in a very friendly manner) that you are walking down the wrong road here, albeit in a well-intentioned way, and are reaching conclusions too quickly. There is, quite frankly, just something about this entire process which does not sound right to me. I believe you may, instead, be seeing pieces manufactured by someone else (or certainly marked by someone else) which you are attributing to S&L. Surely, you must by now have an absolute "flow-chart" for such badges, where you can definitively trace the total evolution of such badges, all the way up to these strange semi-hollow back eagles. I know you feel that S&L, because of die-wear, kept pumping out para badges after 1945. It would be helpful to all this to see examples of each and every stage of these badges and how you are linking these to S&L and S&L only. It just seems to me that there is more to this than meets the eye. Have you considered linking up with Andreas and actually going to see the people at S&L (who did meet and talk with him and who told him many very interesting things)?

Anyway, back to the possible S&L DK's. Here are a couple more shots of the DKIS (with repaired enamel, which I got for $50 from a junk box at a show some time ago), which has been attributed to S&L.

[Leroy]

Full reverse. (No "splits" in any of the rivets.)

[Leroy]

Terry - Thanks for that shot! Is this one of the ones from the board? When these were listed, Barry Turk made a point of mentioning where they came from, and I saw this one last night, too (but couldn't "capture" it), but the description just said "typical S&L construction" (or something similiar) and didn't mention where it came from.

[Leroy]

Just one more.

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Leroy,

The badge posted by me in #20 is the L12-marked badge.

I feel this is an ideological struggle between me and you when it comes to S&L. But if you take all the emotion out of the arguement, and just look at the forensic evidence I have laid out, I think you will see that S&L most certainly produced these badges.

I will show you an excerpt from my upcoming para book, hopefully you can see enough detail to see what I am talking about. In my opinion, the key to S&L para badges is a die flaw along the main wing ridge of the eagle. There are 3 distinct patterns to be found, and I refer to them as A-Type, B-TYpe and C-Type.

A-Types are only found on wartime badges, made by S&L and do NOT have any die flaws on the wing. It is also VERY important to note that NONE of these eagles have been found on 1957 version badges. S&L is the ONLY maker of 1957 para badges.

B-Types have a very long die flaw on the wing. These eagles have been found on "questionable" para badges. I personally think some of these can be on wartime para badges, but they are also found on the earliest 1957 para badges by S&L. So its clear to me that when S&L started to produce the 1957 badges, they were using this heavily-flawed eagle. All these badges are found with SOLID RIVETS.

C-Type eagles are from the same master hub, but there is NO die flaw. This tells us that S&L scraped the old wartime die (probably because it was so heavily flawed) and created a new die from the original master hub. 99.9% of the details are identical to the wartime die, but there is NO flaws. This type of eagle is ONLY FOUND ON 1957 para badges. Not only that, but its the very late 1957 para badges, with HOLLOW rivets, crappy finish and the smooth pin we normally associate with 1957-type badges.

I know you talk to a lot of people and many supposidly know all the ins and outs of what S&L did post-war. But like most collectors, I don't have the "benefit" of this knowledge and therefore have to rely on the physical attributes of the badges we see in front of us. When you take all emotion and stories out of the picture and just concentrate on the forensic attributes of S&L products, the picture is quite clear (to me) that S&L produced these badges post war.

Tom

[Seewolf]

Very interesting discussion friends. I´m too thinking that S&L did NOT made wartime DK´s. The only pic i can show is the very early 57er para badge Tom is talking about. Hope it helps a little bit.
Flawed eagle and solid rivets.
Let´s see what´s more coming up here....

[Leroy]

Tom,
There is no basic, unconquerable, problem between us, as I freely acknowledge that S&L did begin new production at some point. The very real difference we have is that neither I nor people like Andreas (and others) believe that S&L started actual new production (i.e. new die stamping) anywhere near as early as you believe. Instead, they continued using up old parts for many, many years. At some point, these parts were exhausted and they had to resume new production. Also, based on what we have learned (and there is nothing special or secret in this, only the willingness to speak directly to people who have been involved in this business for years), even their first postwar assembly of original parts was not some huge endeavor, as the market, up until the very late 50's and early 60's, simply had not grown to what we know today. That is simply the truth. Sure, there were some collectors (and some vets looking to replace lost awards), as well as$the very early "occupation soldier looking for souvenir" category, but, even so, the demand was nothing like what we know today. Everyone that we have!20spoken to$has confirmed)20this, over and over.`It is [U-5Dnot[/U] an ideological struggle, nor is "forensics" the sole and complete answer to these questions. To understand%>0fully and gorrectly the "forensics&, you [Y]have[/U]-20to have t`e "people%2<explanation" which goes along with it. Any skilled law enforcement officer will confirm this and I have seen countless examples in court where human testimony will clarify the naked forensics, as to time, place and circumstance, which dramatically changes the true meaning of the raw physical data. That does not mean at all that the data is itself wrong, only that it cannot be accepted in a vacuum without the benefit of further explanation. You, as an engineer (just as Dietrich, as an engineer) have a different approach. That is not criticism, only my personal observation. Based on the input I have received from others, including people I did not know before who came up to me and introduced themselves at the SOS, this is a fundamental problem now in this "hobby" and one which is, quite frankly, creating very serious repercussions and bad feelings. I have seen this before in my professional career and if allowed to remain unaddressed, never ends well.

Did you see Andreas' recent post where he confirmed, on a recent visit to Pforzheim (which was badly bombed), that he found inventory documents showing that a small manufacturer (not one of the "big boys") had 50,000 (!) wound badges in stock just before the Russians came? What must the situation have been like in Ludenscheid (a town with many, many "big time" manufacturers, and which was never bombed) at the end?

It is very interesting that you mentioned the possiblity that S&L might have created a new die from "the original master hub". In fact, when Andreas spoke with them (and I don't want to say too much, as this is his information for his book), they told him that the idea of die repair just made no sense (as the die would fail again) and so they routinely made new dies from a "mother die". As you can imagine, this has all sorts of implications.

It is still very much my position that S&L did not falsely mark their badges. Instead (and you may have seen this yourself) S&L preferred not to be a direct retail seller of anything, but instead preferred to be a supplier to retailers. If badges made by them ended up with spurious marks, I think you can safely bet that the "middleman" either put them on there or someone else did.

You also mention that you think badges with the wing flaw may have existed during the war. Is there any proof of that you have been able to find? Can you tell if the flaw suddenly appeared, fully developed, or did it start small and grow? I have already mentioned to you privately that I believe it is possible that deterioration in the working die may have arisen through lack of use or poor storage after the war, and that we may be seeing this reflected in the first new resumed use of the die. Most assuredly, this can be seen with early 1957 version RK's. The first ones have no raised beading flaws in the arms and are believed to have used leftover wartime-stamped frames. Shortly after the introduction of the "new-form" RK, however, you see frames with very bad flawing (which led S&L to produce the new "C" frame). Was this because S&L had to pull the old die from storage and start using it again because it had run out of old frames?

I was not being flippant when I suggested you team up with Andreas and go see S&L. Apparently, they do not respond well to written or e-mailed inquiries at all, but they were willing to meet with Andreas (who, of course, is German) in person.

I am happy to be corrected, any time, if that correction is based on information fully verified not only by forensics, but by "people" input as well. I don't mind being embarassed, or wrong, at all. Except for that DKIS which I posted, found in a junk box, I don't have any alleged S&L DK's. In fact, Dietrich asked me for one when he was doing his book, but I had to tell him that I only had that one (which I considered, based on the knowledge in existence then, postwar - which may or may not be correct).

One thing that I have a hard time getting past is that photo from the Imperial War Museum, showing British soldiers, right after the war,wearing mint condition awards (just as we saw on the "barter boards"previously auctioned if England, shown here, and now sold by "emadals"),identifiable as S&L pieces (the RK's, O&S, etc. were clearly S&L), with mint conditicn DK's as well. The DK's were sold as being actual S&L products(with COA's by Detlev Niemann). No one else in Ludenscheid was known to have made these. Where did they come from? I think they were made late in the war by S&L and that's why they were available to these soldiers, fully finished and completed. Perhaps, though, this attribution is wrong and they were really made by FLL (which used hollow rivets on flight clasps) and were just available for these boards. Certainly, the wreath construction, date formation, etc. does not match other identified makers, such as Deschler, etc., of the DK.
Best,
Leroy

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Leroy,

Lots of information in your post and I think we will just end up going in circles. Maybe we have misunderstood eachother, but the point to my postings here was to show that there is a precedent that S&L used hollow rivets on ONLY their postwar-produced Para badges. That is a fact as far as I am concerned.

From there I make a jump to say that if S&L made DKs during the war, then they likely would have used solid rivets. The fact that these DKs only have hollow rivets make them more like 1970s products rather than 1944 products. This may or may not be correct, but I would rather trust the "forensics" of the badges rather than stories from the company that might still be in business today making these reproductions. Money is a big incentive to hide the truth. I am not saying that is what is happening, but you have to look at both sides of the coin when we talk about interviews with former wartime producers IMO.

What is the earliest one of these S&L DKs has ever been found? What is the provenance? Is the provenance solid enough? I would say that just because one of these was found on a barter board that was "allegedly" found in 1946 doesn't mean that it was really found then and there. I agree with you that S&L may not have started production in the 40s or even in the early 50s, but it would take more than a sample board or two to make me think that these S&L DKs are wartime when they have more in common with 1970s S&L products.

Tom

[Terry OToole]

Terry - Thanks for that shot! Is this one of the ones from the board? When these were listed, Barry Turk made a point of mentioning where they came from, and I saw this one last night, too (but couldn't "capture" it), but the description just said "typical S&L construction" (or something similiar) and didn't mention where it came from.

Leroy , i ve no idea if it came from a board what you quoted is pretty much all the description here is the front