Oakleaves with swords

[Leroy]

Agree! Not a Schickle loop!

And so what is it? Unmarked frame, silvered, iron core? S&L?

[Robert T.]

And so what is it? Unmarked frame, silvered, iron core? S&L?

In your opinion, was the frame ring on the Schickle KC working die already almost flat or was it similar to the S&L -donut- and the ring later reworked?

Robert

[Leroy]

In your opinion, was the frame ring on the Schickle KC working die already almost flat or was it similar to the S&L -donut- and the ring later reworked?

Robert

As a guess, having never seen a Schickle frame taken apart, I would imagine that it might have been almost flat to begin with.

What do you think this cross is? I note from your previous posts in other threads that you have shown more than once that the Schickle and S&L frames bear striking similarities.

[ChrisJ]

Now there is a thought.....

[Robert T.]

As a guess, having never seen a Schickle frame taken apart, I would imagine that it might have been almost flat to begin with.

What do you think this cross is? I note from your previous posts in other threads that you have shown more than once that the Schickle and S&L frames bear striking similarities.

I think we're getting a little off-topic here....again...

I have some frivolous ideas to post on Schickle, Deumer and S&L, but perhaps at another time.

Robert

[Ludwig]

And so what is it? Unmarked frame, silvered, iron core? S&L?

Do you have a full picture of the cross? IMO that doesn´t look like any known original KC at all!

[90th Light]

Great photos, Chris! Not an S&L set, but compare to this set attached to a German Order said to be from Deumer, another Ludenscheid maker. Also look at the cross from the IWM photo. Is that a flat ring at the top and is the cross a Schickle?

Thank you Leroy,

I agree that my set of "Oakleaves with Swords" does appear to be the same as the set attached to the KC said to be from "Deumer". Have you ever seen any other examples like this ?

This being a Ludenscheid maker would make sense because they did come from a British veteran,

Chris

p.s. I have contacted the Imperial War Museum to see if I can get an image of the front and back of their one. They have replied to me so I will see if I can also get an image of the KC. Hopefully the two are still together and part of their collection. Given that they came from the War office with a requistion number then there is every chance.

[Leroy]

Chris - As with S&L, sometimes a good place to start Oakleaves examination is in the "1957 era", and then work backwards. Here is a set of Oakleaves photographed and sent to me by Luud Pouwels ("LuckyLuudje" here), a very knowledgeable collector, believed to have come from Deumer dies. Unlike S&L, Deumer's wartime production of RK's and Oakleaves (they were both in its wartime catalog) has hardly been examined at all and could prove to be a very fertile field.

[Flemming]

That Deumer Catalog says "Deumer Catalog 1939" but the Oakleaves was first instituted in 1940, if I remember correctly?

How Can that fit together...a 1939 Catalog published in 1940?
If that was the case, then it would say, in my opinion, "Deumer Catalog 1940".

Just a thought, here early in the morning.

/Flemming

[Biro]

That Deumer Catalog says "Deumer Catalog 1939" but the Oakleaves was first instituted in 1940, if I remember correctly?

The heading 'Deumer Catalogue 1939' is not an original part of the catalogue Flemming... It is just something a collector put on the digital image to identify the catalogue. For a start its grey with shadowing, and different type face.

Good observation though!

Marshall

[Leroy]

It's my understanding that Deumer must have had a catalog after the earlier one. The caption is apparently left over, as I understand it, from when Dietrich's copy of the catalog was loaned out, then published on GCA without credit. After objection, the loaned catalog was apparently replaced with a later version, but the caption wasn't changed. If this is incorrect, I'm sure someone will advise us. (S&L also had a 1939 catalog, followed by one published in early 1941. After 1941, perhaps because of the existence of the LDO, no medal/badge manufacturer published a catalog for the remainder of the war.)

P.S. I'm still waiting for Juncker, Deschler and a host of other possible catalogs.

[ChrisJ]

Any thoughts as to why the EK 1 and EK 2 have the word "original" quoted ?

[speedytop]

It is meant "original size".

Uwe

[Dietrich Maerz]

It's my understanding that Deumer must have had a catalog after the earlier one.

Deumer hat in fact a 1939 catalog. There is not Knights Cross in it. The one without the oakleaves is past June 1940, the one with the oakleaves after that date but not past October 1941.

In any case, the description "1939" is wrong for both.

[Leroy]

So a 1939, a 1940 and a 1941 catalog. Do you agree that no one had catalogs after 1941? Does anyone have any wartime catalogs from Juncker, Deschler, etc.?