Zimmermann or Godet?

[Douglas 5]

Sorry Carl .... I disagree with what you are saying here in post 89 :
Dietrich,s sampling of 2 crosses for paint analisis is correct , sufficient and sound . It produced a clear 'fact' ! 2 different paints exist . A mass sampling of more crosses of either one or both paint types will not make one of them disapear . 1 is all you need to prove existance . There are many question independently from this : why different paint , special order ?, time of use ......and many more .

The same goes for the Godet/Zimmermann pin stets/components.... 2 types exist , and diffrernt cores and frames ,,, still a fact that they exist ...why and who's they are is a different matter .
Only as it was brought up I will reply quickly - it is not part of this thread . In the other thread Trevor had posted his true findings regards variation in frame manufacturing which is very important . There appears to be a certain percentage variance in form and size . As shown in a true scale in one of the other threads my early Godet frame is so close in size to the 'normal' UB cross - that it meets and falls in with the general frame variations range nicely . Almost the same size and the frame differance is more noticeable in enlargments . The Shocking thing is that the UB core Swastika are all dead on the same size and show absolut no variation . To me this indicates : "intentional/mandated ! Just saying that something is 'so or so' constitutes an instant lynching (been there done that ). I have gone to great length to find purchase and do proper to true scale picture comparisons to present their existance - which is proof and fact !
Theory is a thought of someting that could be . Paint analysis and or a picture comparison - just to name 2 - is no longer theory but fact .

Douglas

[5tefan]

I'm a little bit skeptic about the different painting theorie!
I have also two electric microscope and can not see any structur item.
OK, I can see with my naked eyes some difference in surface structures. But, I can not sort it to a possible additional maker! I'm Quality Engineer and have a good Know How about Painting processes and painting layers or different painting surface strutures.

Here you can see only Zimmermann EK1 were you will also see different surface strutures with your naked eyes.

I'm not sure if this is a possible characteristic to add one more maker, which have not produced any EK1 in WW2?

See and ...

Will we see also different B.H. Mayer EK1 with different paintings?

I don't think so

All parts are out of one tool! There are no second tools for Godet!
Even the UB EK1 have the same number of ribs!!!

And if you think that Godet painted and put the single part together, I would ask why?

Same L/50 & L/52 maker mark design? Also L/18 & L/50 same maker mark design!
Even "20" or "21" --- I'm still looking for a marked "21" on the inside of the pin!

What else argument you need?! Switch on your CPU in your head

[streptile]

I'm still looking for a marked "21" on the inside of the pin!

Here you go.

[ben bijker]

Will we see also different B.H. Mayer EK1 with different paintings?

Yes.

[Dietrich Maerz]

I'm a little bit skeptic about the different painting theorie!
I have also two electric microscope and can not see any structur item.

Well, there is nothing I can do about that. All I can say is what I said. And the Electron Microscope is not lying nor are the pictures. You will see the proof soon. It is not a theory, it is a fact.

Dietrich

PS: And with just a little patience you will see a "21" marked EK1 soon.

PPS: What is an "electric microscope"????

[Dietrich Maerz]

Here you go.

Another one!

[streptile]

Another one!

[Leroy]

And just to have everything all together in one place for quick reference.

[Douglas 5]

Nice 21 Trevor .
A comparison of the same shot to my unmarked one . I guess the catch on yours would be wide base C catch ?

Douglas

[streptile]

I don't have a dog in this fight at all, but I just received a PM that made me realize that perhaps some people, who aren't necessarily complete EK geeks , may not know of one of the key arguments in favor of the position that Godet manufactured no EKs of their own during WWII. I will just briefly present the evidence here so it may be considered in this discussion.

Godets look a lot like Zimmermanns, so some have argued (as we can see earlier in this thread) that Zimmermann made Godets to order, and just stamped them L/50 (Gebrüder Godet) instead of L/52 (CF Zimmermann). The fact that the crosses look alike is interesting, and some also point out that the L/52 and L/50 marking stamps also look very much alike. Further, there exist some crosses made by BH Mayer (maker L/18) that are stamped L/50. Those who believe that Godet made no EKs themselves, also point out that these L/50 Mayers have an L/50 stamp that looks nothing like the other Godets, but in fact looks just like Mayer's own L/18 stamp.

The conclusion is that, when Zimmermann was making L/50s, they made the L/50 stamp, too, so it looks like the Zimmermann L/52 stamp. When (for whatever reason) Mayer was making Godets, Mayer made the L/50 stamp, so naturally the L/50 stamp on the L/50 Mayers looks like the Mayer L/18 stamp. It is easy to see how, for those who believe the L/50 Mayers are authentic, period-stamped pieces, this would tend to support the theory that Godet only outsourced their work to other makers.

Here are Stefan's photos of the L/18 and L/50 stamps, and the L/52 and L/50 stamps:



Now, those Godets that I have seen that are stamped 21 on the pin look like the "Zimmermann" versions in the obverse frame and core details. So the question is, does the 21 stamp look like Zimmermann's 20 stamp (i.e., did Zimmermann also manufacture the 21 stamp)?



I want to make it clear that I am just laying out this evidence, and not stating my personal view.

The fact that Gebrüder Godet 21 never advertises having on-premesis manufacturing facilities, while their competition, J. Godet und Sohn, does, may be seen as support for the theory that Gebrüder Godet 21 never made anything themselves, but I want to make it clear that (for me) it is just an interesting observation, and in no way proves that Gebrüder Godet did not have manufacturing facilities. This is also in reply to some questions I have been asked.

[Douglas 5]

Interesting indeed Trevor ; the Mayer marks L/18 and L/50 sure look like they are from the same die maker and the same for the Zimmermann mark L/52 and L/50 . If 'out sourcing' would be the case then it would be anyones guess still if Zimmermann and Mayer stamped the maker mark on them or did Godet mark the crosses themselfs with marking dies supplied by Zimmermann and Mayer . ... depending on how many PKZ or LDO pieces they needed ??
Now this senario does not account for the 'low bead' Godet frame and pin . If Godet did not make any crosses who made that one - the one I have then ???There is a thought process here that would make this cross fit ... and support out sourcing as well ! Yes we are back to the UB frame and core . As you mentioned when doing cross part comparison between different makers you happen to have notice and record at times fairly large variances ,.... and for me this beading being just so slightly smaller than the regular seen UB - I would also exsplain being as a UB frame size variance only , .... as the core in mine and a few other ones matches in size the regular UB core . This frame type comes with 2 core sizes as you may recall in one of my frame comparisons . The number of crosses with that wider beading are so few around suggest to me either 1 of 2 things : they stopped on their own or were told - to stop use of that die . Concequently over night no EK1 : .. giving the choice either to make/buy ? a new die or to just outsource the EK1 all together .

Douglas

[Rich G]

I don't understand how a company can be awarded a contract to produce the EK1 when it has no means to produce and/or assemble the actual pieces (if that is what is being said here)!

A question... did the PKZ set the price for each piece regardless of actual production cost?

So was it like this...the PKZ award Godet (PKZ Nº 21) a contract to produce, let's say, 10,000 EK1. Godet (PKZ Nº21) turn to Zimmermann (PKZ Nº20) and request they knock up 10,000 EK1 in the name of Godet (with their special frame design) and assemble and mark them as such?

These were then delivered to the PKZ as 'Godet' EK1. The PKZ paid Godet and Godet then paid Zimmermann. Was there any profit for Godet? Was it really worth it financially?

Maybe this is why there are so few '21' marked EK1? Maybe they had a batch made and found there was no financial gain so then dropped the idea?


Hang on...what about this...Godet puts in another order with Zimmermann but Zimmermann are too busy or whatever, so they put in a sly order with their neighbouring competitor B.H. Mayer Kunst-prageanstalt (also in Pforzheim) that they will buy x number of EK1's but they have to be marked L/50. So the firm B.H. Mayer go and create a special L/50 tool to mark them, send the lot to Zimmermann who in turn send them to Godet?

It all just seems so overly complicated!

Rich

[George Stimson]

Godet somehow lacks the ability or will to produce EKs but they manufacture their own totally different German Cross?

[Douglas 5]

Richard : A possible senario I did not think of .
I remember reading on a forum somewhere that the price was set by the PKZ to a fix amount that was 'adjusted' during the war ...and for LDO pieces they could set their own prices . With hundred makers and more this would have been a statistical nightmare seting individual pricing and the book keeping that went with that !!
Economics is a big part , as no company would make cross and lose money . Is this not noticeable later in the war with the decline in quality and finishing - as cutting corners ? The Quality control was set up for a reason .
The other thing I cannot see is that -.. . as you quentioned above - not having the means to make and assemble . So that would means they did not make any of their own Knight Crosses and Oaks either and bought them from some one else ?? And the wide bead cross as well ? Able to make a KC - then one can make EKs as well !!
One would have to compare 21 marked Oaks with the pin marked 21 EK1 to see if it is the same marking die .... which appear to be close .

Douglas

[Douglas 5]

As you mention the German Cross - George ... a different view yet . Not 'wanting' to make EKs as they had the means to make other awards though .
Higher end awards they wanted to be involved with and were . This may have forced them to put out a low number of EK1s (and EK2s) to ensure to get the higher end award contracts . Refusing to make certain awards would not have been a wise move .
This would support and be a reason for out sourcing the EKs .
When looking elsewhere - out sourcing was quit a common thing in those days ! S&L would have not have gotten that big as part of their production was supplying parts or crosses to many small companies that did not have the means to make cross parts .

Douglas