New arrivals from the bombed Zimmermann factory

[Robert T.]

Hi Chris,

In my view it is possible, even probable, that Zimmermann manufactured both types of oakleaves for Godet. In fact, the L/50 and the 21 marks are simply slightly altered versions of Zimmermann's L/52 and 20 marks.

Gebr. Godet commissioned a lot of stuff from other makers, and each manufacturer stamped with Godet's number. Thus, a "Godet" L/50 EK1 made by Zimmermann has a stamp that looks like L/52, while a "Godet" L/50 EK1 made by Mayer has a stamp that looks like L/18:

Hi Trevor,

Excellent information concerning the maker marks.

Thanks,
Robert

[streptile]

Hi Trevor,
Excellent information concerning the maker marks.
Thanks,
Robert

Many thanks Robert. I could do an identical illustration with the 20/21 marks, but I think everyone gets the picture: in my opinion Godet's traditional 21 and L/50 marks were done with Zimmermann stamps, and everything so-marked (including EK2, EK1, RK and its higher grades, DAO, Red Cross decorations, etc.) is probably made by Zimmermann and retailed by Gebr. Godet.

I want to clarify that nothing we are discussing here applied to J. Godet.

It is my opinion that:

• Klaus' lot is from the Zimmermann factory fire and is authentic WWII-era castoff material;
• The sword planchets are from making Württemberg Friedrich Order swords;
• The pieces of the German Eagle Order and the Red Cross decorations lend even more credence to the theory that Gebr. Godet bought much of their stuff pre-made from multiple other jewelers, foremost among them Zimmermann;
• The partial OLS set is an authentic Zimmermann-made Godet set, destroyed for some reason.

I asked a friend about that Friedrich Order without showing him this thread. His reply was:

That is considered a very late set by Godet.

Here is a comparison with sword planchets (from the lot previously shown on this forum, but of the same exact type, for clarity) and the swords from this FO. I don't think I need to do complicated annotations to demonstrate that they are the same. Size and arrangement of the berries, grip filaments, proportions... all identical. What I have noted, with two red arrows, is the evidence on the FO swords that they were made by joining two halves, just as we see here. I'm quite sure that in-hand they would give up the secrets of their construction without much of a fight.




.

[Thomas Durante]

In my view it is possible, even probable, that Zimmermann manufactured both types of oakleaves for Godet. In fact, the L/50 and the 21 marks are simply slightly altered versions of Zimmermann's L/52 and 20 marks.

Gebr. Godet commissioned a lot of stuff from other makers, and each manufacturer stamped with Godet's number. Thus, a "Godet" L/50 EK1 made by Zimmermann has a stamp that looks like L/52, while a "Godet" L/50 EK1 made by Mayer has a stamp that looks like L/18:


(Thanks Stefan)

Hi Trevor,

Very compelling arguement, especially with your exhibit of the maker marks in post #77. Thanks for sharing, I look forward to more information you have regarding these connections.

Tom

[Leroy]

And here are the "lateral lines" in the crossguards that are the one of the "fingerprints" of a "Godet" set of Oakleaves and Swords. Can we just not see them because of the resolution of the photos of the pieces from the "Zimmermann burned group"??? Or are they not there???

Superior work, Trevor.

[Leroy]

And here's your other comparison, Trevor.

[Robert T.]

And here are the "lateral lines" in the crossguards that are the one of the "fingerprints" of a "Godet" set of Oakleaves and Swords. Can we just not see them because of the resolution of the photos of the pieces from the "Zimmermann burned group"??? Or are they not there???

Superior work, Trevor.

Some more fingerprints of a genuine set of swords from Godet (as outline by Dietrich Maerz in his fine book) are also found here:

* Dot #1 looks like a wedge pointing to the center.
* Dots #2 and 3 are more elongated.
* Dot # 4 is smaller and nearly perfectly round.

Robert

[streptile]

Hi Gentry,

I think you meant to write "where" and not "here" below:

And where are the "lateral lines" in the crossguards that are the one of the "fingerprints" of a "Godet" set of Oakleaves and Swords?

Anyway, since you asked, I will show the high-res scans of this same planchet, courtesy of Dietrich. Here the lateral lines are visible:



My guess is that these lines show on all these planchets, and we just can't see them. Maybe Klaus will show a high-res scan of one of his? Alternatively, the absence of these lines (soft strike?) could be one reason these were rejected.

Superior work, Trevor.

Hi Trevor, Very compelling arguement...

Thank you!

[streptile]

Some more fingerprints of a genuine set of swords from Godet (as outline by Dietrich Maerz in his fine book)...

Very nice, thank you.

[Robert T.]

Trevor’s examples compared to the “Niemann set”.

Circle in red is a flaw on the cross guards that seems to be present on the three swords.

The dots on the “Niemann set” and the planchet are well defined but have been flattened..? on the Fiedrich Order set (considered to be very late…?)

Robert

[Leroy]

I think you meant to write "where" and not "here" below:

Actually, I did mean to write "here', as the lines normally seen on "Godet' sets were showing up on the Friedrich Order set you posted (and I was reposting) but not on the separate planchets from Zimmermann. Seeing now, however, the high resolution scan of a planchet, they are there, too.

P.S. What is the significance of the Friedrich Order set being considered a "very late" set? Does that imply that the pieces from Zimmermann are also very late (meaning that its work on Oakleaves and Swords was very late, as well)?

[streptile]

What is the significance of the Friedrich Order set being considered a "very late" set?

For those dudes, "late" is post 1917, and "very late" is interwar or later. So I think it has no significance for this discussion.

[Robert T.]

A couple of things I'm considering:

The swords on the original L/50 and 21 pieces are the same. No question about that. In my view the swords attached to the cut oak leaves are close, but not identical to original finished pieces.

I am we'll aware that creating a new hub, or a new working die is a very long and skilled process requiring many test strikes to check the accuracy of the work as it is developed. This is why my thoughts are that these could be the normal throw-off pieces from such a process...these are in effect scrap testers, that would normally be recycled along with all other off cuts of silver. It would explain why the oaks have been deliberately (in my opinion) cut in two, before finishing was complete. They just weren't good enough.

If these are indeed from the ZIMMERMAN burn hoard, then my problem comes as to why these development swords (if indeed they are) are attached to a 21 Oaks, when logically I'd expect them to be on a L/50 set.

Any views on this ?

The Württemberg Friedrichsorden swords said to be from the interwar or later period already show some die wear but IMO less than the L/50 example shown here.

A new swords working die was perhaps created to replace the old one and was being tested on the later 21 pieces. The test strikes with crisp details would have been found in the Zimmermann rubble.

Robert

[Johannski]

And what is with this thread:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru....php?t=505461?

Last year there was no discussion.

... But maybe now?

[Robert T.]

And what is with this thread:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru....php?t=505461?

Last year there was no discussion.

... But maybe now?

Many thanks for the link!

Cheers,
Robert

[streptile]

And what is with this thread:
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru....php?t=505461?
Last year there was no discussion.

Dietrich concluded (correctly) that the flans in that old thread were not used in the construction of the OLS, so no one was interested. But those are the sword flans I used for my comparison with the FO swords, since they're the same type as we see here.