Zimmermann or Godet?

[Robert P.]

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

Douglas,

Are you saying both maker's frames are different, or identical?

Robert

[Darrell]

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

Douglas, where are pulling all these %'s from? Out of the air? What are they based on? See this is where I have a problem. You state this and you state that and draw a fancy diagram and poof .... case solved.

I welcome discussion and theories ... but these are wild guess and assumptions ... based on what???!!

% of WHAT samples and HOW many specimens are we talking about?

[Douglas 5]

A very important but still puzzling question .
It appears to me that Godet started with their own frame , core and pin set and for some reason stopped ?? and some how ended up with Zimmermann frames . The 2 previously mentioned senarios indicating how this could have happened .
So Godet could have used two frames (their own and Zimmermanns) and Zimmermann one .

Douglas

[Sammler]

[Douglas 5]

Darrell : It is a demo - mock -setup senario with no incerted data or percentage numbers .
Each segment just has a '% sign 'with a question mark after it .

Douglas

[kriztof]

They all look the same to me

[Darrell]

Darrell : It is a demo - mock -setup senario with no incerted data or percentage numbers .
Each segment just has a '% sign 'with a question mark after it .

Douglas

I understand that .... but they still represent a certain percentage even though they are not numbered. Call it the Engineer in me ... but 1/2 a circle is 50% whether you label it or not. I understand what you are trying to represent, but by placing a small percentage of overlap in the center indicates the % as being extremely small. Should it be large or should it exist at all? If it is unknown, it should not be drawn as such.

Anyway ... I've digressed enough ....

[5tefan]

...

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.

...

What option will you choose, if you see the following pictures?

[streptile]

What option will you choose, if you see the following pictures?

I know those crosses and I agree that they support the theory that Godet outsourced all work to a third party, which (I think) is your point. In any event, the L/50 Mayer is an interesting cross and should be considered in this dialogue, in my opinion.

I fail to understand ... 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.

If we speculate that WILM wanted to market crosses under the famous Godet name but didn't have the facilities to manufacture them, it would make sense to me that they would look further afield than Berlin for their products. For one thing, I doubt they would have wanted to stamp a Godet mark on a cross from a local manufacturer. A product from Pforzheim may have seemed different and interesting in a Berlin shop. Thus the question you pose doesn't overly trouble me. Also, they surely would have looked for the best quality crosses, regardless of the location of the factory, and I think many of us agree that Zimmermanns are among the finest of the TR-era EK1s, so many of which compare so unfavorably with the silver-and-iron beauties of the past.

This is all extremely speculative, and I hope we will find some answers soon.

[Douglas 5]

Darrell : the circles by them selfs would have suggested a - ratio - and I purposly put a remark under it : "... diagram is not to any scale " .

Douglas

[Robert P.]

I have taken the liberty to post this montage of a Zimmermann (left, 'L/52') and a Godet (right, 'L/50') to show the similarities of the inner beading of both. It is my opinion that both are absolutely identical. Incidently, for whatever it's worth, one of the crosses had the frame rotated 180 degrees. And, I do see quite a difference in paint texture. Take a look...

Robert

[Leroy]

I'm sure you guys are probably already aware of this, but I thought I would mention here the recent discovery that Deumer was involved in RK production, but the cross on display in the Ludenscheid museum attributed to them is a Zimmermann. IF this is correct, was Deumer the supplier to both Zimmermann and Godet (at least for that form of EK)?

[Douglas 5]

As you mention that now : can one match Deumer pin sets or even parts to ones found on Godets and Zimmermann EK1s ??? If it was me ... I would use the same pin sets or parts I supply to others for my own crosses .

Douglas

[Douglas 5]

Look the same to me Robert : The left one shows a bit more die wear and paint appears diffferent .

Douglas

[streptile]

I'm sure you guys are probably already aware of this, but I thought I would mention here the recent discovery that Deumer was involved in RK production, but the cross on display in the Ludenscheid museum attributed to them is a Zimmermann. IF this is correct, was Deumer the supplier to both Zimmermann and Godet (at least for that form of EK)?

Hi Gentry,

I have pondered what, if any, relevance the discovery about Deumer RKs may have on this debate. However, the fact remains that I could not imagine two more stylistically different EK1s than a Deumer, and a Zimmermann/Godet. In my opinion they are the two makers who occupy the absolute opposite ends of the design spectrum in TR EK1s. So I can't really wrap my head around a connection on the level of the EK1 or below (yet).