Deumer catalog RK

[Dietrich Maerz]

The Oakleaves attached to the "L/21" Zimmermann Knights Cross were stamped "L/21" "Godet" Oakleaves.
Another hint that the original die for the "Godet" Oakleaves came from C.F. Zimmermann (or at least from Pforzheim) are the attached Oakleaves to the Schickle Knights Cross mentioned earlier.
The next "Godet" set was marked "900" and "L/50" in a box only, just as the L/52 Trevor just showed.

Dietrich

[Leroy]

Q. for Trevor: Why are the swords for the Oakleaves & Swords from the "burned Zimmerman hoard" a one-piece stamping, instead of two separate swords morticed together as done by Godet?

Comment: The Oakleaves attached to the Schickle RK in the Shropshire Light Infantry Museum are, I believe, a match to the Oakleaves presumably made by Deumer for the Oakleaves and Swords to the German Order, also made by Deumer.

Q. for Dietrich - You had a chance several years ago to examine the set from Regimentals and confirmed that the loop on the Oakleaves appeared to be an S&L loop, although the rest was Godet. Was the set in your magazine article the same as the Regimentals set, or was it a second set? (I know that I asked you this when the magazine first came out and you didn't know. I was just wondering if there was any new information.)

[streptile]

Q. for Trevor: Why are the swords for the Oakleaves & Swords from the "burned Zimmerman hoard" a one-piece stamping, instead of two separate swords morticed together as done by Godet?

Hi G.,

I don't know why these were made differently, if indeed they were.

[Leroy]

Comment: The Oakleaves attached to the Schickle RK in the Shropshire Light Infantry Museum are, I believe, a match to the Oakleaves presumably made by Deumer for the Oakleaves and Swords to the German Order, also made by Deumer.

Sorry! Please disregard the above statement. I am away from my photo collection and may have referenced the wrong type.

[Andreas Klein]

Andreas,

I know that I am very stubborn but I am not doing this to be obnoxious. But it is really incorrect when you say "nearly identical" without clarifying. I should have done that earlier, too. So here it is: The frames are 100% identical and this is down to microscopic features. The "nearly" refers to the paint. And again, very kindly and please don't get this wrong: there is 100% solid evidence that the "Deumer Cross" in Lüdenscheid is a Zimmermann and also 100% evidence that the Godet parts are 100% Zimmermann. Just as the L/21 is 100% Zimmermann.

Is the cross in lüdenscheid marked 20 or L/50 ??? If yes than it deserves the title 100% Zimmerman, if not than it's guesswork.

Now you say the opposite. Just to clarify: C.F. Zimmermann was not on that list, just as you say now. And that Zimmermann was not on the list as a supplier to the PKZ has no bearing on being a sub-supplier or not.

In May 1940 Dr. Doehle gave out two lists:

List 1 was for the actual pkz suppliers of the woundbage and there Zimmerman is mentioned.

List 2 was for the actual pkz suppliers of the iron cross family and there Zimmerman is not mentioned.

So my above statement is correct: Zimmerman was known in May 1940 as maker but not for the iron cross in the early days.

[Norm F]

Is the cross in Lüdenscheid marked 20 or L/50 ??? If yes than it deserves the title 100% Zimmerman, if not than it's guesswork.

Hi Andreas,

Just so that I understand clearly, are you saying that a maker stamp is the only thing you would accept as reasonable proof for badge attribution? In other words, for the two Minesweepers attached here, the one marked L/11 was made by Deumer while the unmarked one could have been made by anyone, i.e. guesswork?

Best regards,
---Norm

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Andreas,

The evidence is very clear that Gebr. Godet bought EKs, RKs, oakleaves, Red Cross decorations, and even German Eagle Orders from C.F. Zimmermann. This has been discussed many times but here is a précis of the evidence:

• EKs and RKs are identical between G.G. and C.F.Z.
• G.G.'s 21 and [L/50] stamps are nearly identical to C.F.Z.'s 20 and [L/52] stamps (see below).
• When G.G. EKs were ordered from a different company (e.g. B.H. Mayer), the EKs came stamped with an L/50 that resembled Mayer's L/18 (see below)

If both firms were using the same tools than the output will be identical and the number digest are typical German ones so not a surprise that they look equal.

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Andreas,

Just so that I understand clearly, are you saying that a maker stamp is the only thing you would accept as reasonable proof for badge attribution? In other words, for the two Minesweepers attached here, the one marked L/11 was made by Deumer while the unmarked one could have been made by anyone, i.e. guesswork?

Best regards,
---Norm

Hi Norm
for the L/11 marked one Imo the wording "100% Deumer" would be correct. When it comes to the unmarked one it's imo a nice original featuring a design which was used by Deumer too.

[streptile]

If both firms were using the same tools than the output will be identical and the number digest are typical German ones so not a surprise that they look equal.

That might explain why the 20 + 21 stamps and L/50 + L/52 stamps were similar in a vacuum, but add these factors:

• G. Godets so stamped are identical to Zimmermanns.
• G. Godets that are identical to Mayers are also stamped like Mayers.
• G. Godet's most famous decorations are found in numbers in C.F. Zimmermann Fire Lots.

...and it becomes harder to accept any other explanation.

Is there any compelling evidence that G. Godet did manufacture their own EKs etc.? I'm willing to change my mind if there is.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Is the cross in lüdenscheid marked 20 or L/50 ??? If yes than it deserves the title 100% Zimmerman, if not than it's guesswork.

Not marked. Neither "20" nor "L/52" (if that is what you meant) Under that assumption the first Knights Crosses awarded until March 1941 are also not Juncker for sure. Could be anybody, maybe Witwe Türck from Vienna. The early S&L are most likely from Specht und Habicht aus Alt-Gablonz and Klein & Quenzer was only supplying the loop, attached to a cross from who knows who.

I have no idea how detailled you have studied Knights Crosses (meaning the very, very intrinsic details of more than 20 examples), but it seems our conclusions are different. I base mine on such studies and I stick to what I wrote above. It is a Zimmermann at Lüdenscheid and it is a Zimmermann with the Godets.

... List 2 was for the actual pkz suppliers of the iron cross family and there Zimmerman is not mentioned. So my above statement is correct: Zimmerman was known in May 1940 as maker but not for the iron cross in the early days.

He was not even on the list od Sept. 1941! But the company was surely known to Dr. Doehle, otherwise no LDO number L/52. I have no idea why you are denying Zimmermann the capability of being a supplier to whoever he chooses in this case, but when it comes to making the counter argument, you always bring up suppliers that were not approved by the PKZ or LDO, like the die maker in Pforzheim.

Why not Zimmermann? The more so when it is proven to be the case!

Dietrich

[Andreas Klein]

Is there any compelling evidence that G. Godet did manufacture their own EKs etc.? I'm willing to change my mind if there is.

Doehle itself mentions GG as active maker of the iron cross family.

[streptile]

Doehle itself mentions GG as active maker of the iron cross family.

Respectfully, I have to ask: is that all your evidence?

[Andreas Klein]

Respectfully, I have to ask: is that all your evidence?

Yes.

[streptile]

Thank you for such a concise answer.

[Norm F]

Hi Norm
for the L/11 marked one Imo the wording "100% Deumer" would be correct. When it comes to the unmarked one it's imo a nice original featuring a design which was used by Deumer too.

I see. In that case, how do we know that both Minesweepers weren't made by someone else and Deumer marked one for the retail market? If that were true is it still "100% Deumer"?

The Schwerin marked 2nd pattern U-Boat clasp was made in Gablonz by Adolf Scholze for supply to Schwerin. They were found in the ground in an unfinished state near Scholze's factory in Gablonz, the construction is completely different from Schwerin's 1st pattern U-Boat clasp and Schwerin is listed as a major customer in Scholze's wartime accounting books. If that's true is it still 100% Schwerin because of the mark?

If Zimmermann did make an RK, mark it L/50 and supply it to Gebr. Godet who provided it to the PK would it still be 100% Gebr. Godet because of the L/50 mark?

Best regards,
---Norm