Zimmermann or Godet?

[Dietrich Maerz]

IMO Godet did not produced any EK1 in WW2!
All EK1 marked L/50 are produced from Zimmermann or B.H. Mayer!

The paint is different ....

[Roglebk]

The paint is different ....

Is there enough proof that Gebr. Godet and C F Zimmemann used different kind of paint or is it just like much else in this business a "modern myth" that derived from threads worked out by enthusiasts like us?

[Roglebk]

There seems to be an urge in the community to detect as much connections, cross-linkages, cooperations and variations as possible. Also it seems to me that some collectors have a very hard time to accept the notion of an "unknown maker" and need to come up with some kind of "proof" that a previously unknown maker now is know - by a pin, a hinge or a dent somewhere.

Dietrich

Agree totally but this forum and all others would be pretty boring places without our work and theories. All that we collectively know, and don't know, comes from theories worked out by us and the ones that came before us.

And now i'll crawl back into the Imperial section, where items are even harder to "connect" and to "find proof" about...

[Dietrich Maerz]

Is there enough proof that Gebr. Godet and C F Zimmemann used different kind of paint or is it just like much else in this business a "modern myth" that derived from threads worked out by enthusiasts like us?

Hard and dead solid testing with Scanning Electron Microscope. Solid data.

Agree totally but this forum and all others would be pretty boring places without our work and theories. All that we collectively know, and don't know, comes from theories worked out by us and the ones that came before us.

There is absolutely nothing to say about throwing theories around and a lot of theories have sparked a lot of new discoveries. What I am saying is that sometimes ONE guy says (for example) that such and such dies survived and the whole community takes it for real. Scientific work needs solid data or findings supported by relatively high numbers of specimen. Not on what one guy heard from another guy who might have heard it from an SS General .....

[streptile]

The paint is different ....

I suspected that. I'm looking forward to reading whether they can be separated out by eye, or if extensive testing is required.

[Robert P.]

What real evidence do we have that tells us that Zimmermann made Godet crosses during WWII? Is this just a truism derived from theory? I agree they're nearly identical but, I can see some minor differences between both maker's crosses. Please help me on this one, gentlemen. I'd honestly like to know why these statements are made, where and why we take this for our absolute.

Robert

[streptile]

What real evidence do we have that tells us that Zimmermann made Godet crosses during WWII?

Hi Robert,

I don't know that anyone says, "Zimmermann made Godet crosses during WWII." I think the more accurate statement would be:

Either:

1. Zimmermann made Godets
2. Godet made Zimmermanns
3. Godet sourced components from Zimmermann and did the assembly themselves
4. Zimmermann sourced components from Godet and did the assembly themselves
5. both companies sourced components from the same source and did their own assembly.

If the paint is substantively different on enough Godets and Zimmermanns over a substantial amount of time (i.e. if there is sufficient evidence to rule out a change in paint at some point in the war by a single company manufacturing both crosses), then I think we can rule out 1. and 2. above and focus on the other options.

As Carl has pointed out, by WWII the famous maker of WWI-era decorations, J. Godet und Söhn, had ceased to exist as an independent entity, being subsumed by maker WILM (another storied maker of WWI-era decorations) in 1925 and renamed Gebrüder Godet & Co. It was this company that received the license to manufacture WWII decorations under the PKZ code "21". As far as I know, the "other" Godet, J. Godet & Sohn AG, that was founded sometime between 1925 and 1934 after the original one was bought by WILM, did not make any WWII decorations. In light of these facts and suppositions, it becomes unclear whether Gebrüder Godet "21" retained any of the manufacturing facilities to which we know they had access before 1925, and thus tends, in my opinion, to lend credence to the theory that their work was outsourced to another company (i.e., Zimmermann).

So, for me, one salient question that still lacks an answer is: when WILM bought Godet in 1925, did they buy the facilities, or just the rights to use the name? If the latter be true, then we can speculate that they (WILM) could have chosen an excellent source for their wares and marketed them under the famous name.

Of course this theory would be undermined if it were shown that Godet's EK1 paint did indeed differ from Zimmermann's, but it would not necessarily follow that Gebrüder Godet had the facilities to manufacture their own components. Assembly, of course, is a different question.

[Robert P.]

Trevor,

Thank you. You have explained things very well as usual. I wasn't aware of the closing of the Godet & Sohn firm. I guess you Imperial guys have the edge on us TR collectors at times. As you have pointed out there are many scenarios which could have been possible. I had no idea that Godet and Zimmermann's manufacturing history was filled with so many unknowns. It reminds me of the Juncker/Zimmermann connection. Thank you once again for explaining things.

Robert

[streptile]

Hi Robert,

You're welcome . Obviously I enjoy the minutiae.

One other thing I have not yet mentioned. When WILM bought J. Godet & Sohn in 1925 and renamed it Gebrüder Godet, they retained the old J. Godet & Sohn address at 55 Charlottenstraße.

The "new" Godet that sprang up sometime after that sale, which called themselves "J. Godet & Sohn, AG," maintained their premises at No. 12 Unter den Linden.

Was this a new premises for J. Godet & Sohn, AG? Or was it the old manufacturing plant of J. Godet & Sohn? I ask because a 1934 entry in a Berlin phone book seems to indicate something of a quiet duel between the two Godets.

Gebrüder Godet, who we know as maker "21," has their listing.

Then, J. Godet & Sohn AG has theirs just below, and is quick to point out that they have "Ordens-Werkstatt im Hause" (Orders-manufacturing in-house). Is this a subtle way of besting Gebrüder Godet, by advertising something Gebrüder Godet did not have, i.e., their own production facilities?

Of course this is all very speculative, but it is interesting to me to wonder. Maybe we will have some clarity on this in the near future.



Another thing that suggests a possible spirit of competition. A contemporary (1930s?) Packet from J. Godet & Sohn AG which states:

nur Unter den Linden 12 (only at Unter den Linden 12)

and again advertises that they have a workshop on the premises (Eigene Werkstatt im Hause). Obviously a point of pride for them.

[Leroy]

Scientific work needs solid data or findings supported by relatively high numbers of specimen. Not on what one guy heard from another guy who might have heard it from an SS General .....

And, for any "theory" allegedly based on "science", the "solidity" of the underlying supporting "data" needs to be, and deserves to be, examined, and questioned, and challenged as to its accuracy, its relevance and, especially, its interpretation. What may have been overlooked? What may have been assumed? More importantly, what may contradict it? Can those contradictions be irrefutably explained? Are the "peer reviewers" competent in the field and experienced in the specific objects of the theory? Has there been any competent technical or historical peer review of the data by qualified outsiders at all which resulted in true and universal consensus that the data has been confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt? If not, why not? Is the underlying data accurate, but possibly misinterpreted as to time or circumstance? Could the underlying "data" be altered by different historical interpretations of the timeline of events? Was the initial data from which the theory was developed, or upon which it was imposed, broad enough to have real contextual meaning? Is the theory accurate under all possible scenarios, or only under some? Is some necessary data missing, or capable of different interpretation, or incapable of being retrieved through the passage of time, or available and just not believed because, if believed, it would contradict the theory? Are parts of the "science" actually subjective in nature? Do we yet understand all of the physical mechanisms which may have created some "data" in the first place? Science is a wonderful thing, but without 100% reliable and uncontestable data, it is very dangerous.

[Robert P.]

Thanks again, Trevor. That is very interesting.

Yes, Leroy, our theories should stand any test. Very sound.

There is one thing which stands out to me when comparing the Godet and Zimmermann EKI's. The block hinge of the Zimmermann crosses has multiple 'ridges' running horizontally along the length of the hinge. The Godet hinge has less defined ridges. And, I am just looking at a mere dozen or more examples. This is a minor difference, but still a difference. This implies one of two things:

1. Different hinge stock material, or
2. Finer finishing of the Godet-marked crosses' hinge before assembly.

Like I say, it's a minor difference, but it stands as solid evidence that one maker finished something in a different manner. Does anyone else see this as a 'typical' feature between the two makers?

Robert

[WEISNER]

I Am glad you see this also Robert! I mentioned this several posts back (post 34) and asked others to compare this difference and so far, you are the only one to mention this!

Can others with both makers crosses have a look and post what they find!

Kevin

[Douglas 5]

The differences in the anchor blocks surface I pointed out in one of the pictures I posted . It is not alone... with it are the anchor shoulders that have in my eye important uniqueness .
When talking about 'teamed' ventures there has to be something solid to indicate and support this . Myself I think there is some evidence that could support this . I did a bold comparison just to start .... with mixed reactions ...
The Godet I used I have in hand ... it is an early Cross and pin set . Sourcing out from day one I cannot see happening . .. exspecialy with established companies . To me this is a Godet own pinset made on in house equipment . Now looking at the anchor : surface groving- or lack of - ... and the shoulder angles go hand in hand . Correct me if I am wrong - but they are left behind during the tooling process and are unique to that one machine only . .. different size anchor rod holes, different pin holding colars . Godet have there own and so do Zimmermann - have their own tooling .
Working close together as it seams - would also mean sharing parts . But as mention correctly a difference obtaining from a 3rd party - or sharing parts .
The question I have : is there evidence of mixed pin sets- as to Godet anchors with Zimmermann pins and any other combinations .
Godet EK1s with the wider beading are very few around and have my own idea why which is linked to the - what I consider - UB frame .
A diagrame of my view of sharing parts .

Douglas

[Rich G]

I'm not going to speculate who made the parts and who assembled what but one thing I fail to understand is how 2 companys, so far apart (pforzheim and Berlin) would have such an agreement to share parts or assemble for one or the other when there were so many other manufacturers so close to hand. The same applies with LW awards and the Juncker/Deumer/IMME connection. As more and more digging is done, more and more I suspect the dies were provided by and unknown company but used by many individual firms.

Rich

[Douglas 5]

Yes Richard .... very good possibility .... out sourcing .
Company A produces tooling ( very close if not identical) and ships out to Company B and C ( eg Godet and Zimmmermann )
Both companies B and C can produce their own pin sets - which could give the impression they came directly from either maker B or C ! The same goes for new componants and even new design layout which company A can make to fit and is usable to any supplied company - even both companies B and C ! As pointed out the distance is what favors this senario . Frames to me are different : an identical B and C frames - would suggest B to C or C to B supplied parts or finished product .

Douglas