Deumer catalog RK

[Andreas Klein]

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.

Dietrich there is no need for sarcasm. But after you shouted out loud 100% Zimmerman I thought it would be safe. But we only have a Cross in Lüdenscheid which is unmarked and you attribute it to Zimmerman.

[Dietrich Maerz]

It is no sarcasm. It is a purposive exaggeration to make the point clear. If you took it as an insult, I apologize.

Now let me ask you this: when we discuss the post-war B-Types, you sometimes mention your example. What makes you so sure it is a S&L ? Nor marking at all. So it could - following your reasoning - be made by, well, just anybody who got some parts, or who had the die. True? And I quote:

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.

But fun aside and back to reality. There is in most cases in our hobby only circumstantial evidence. From that, we puzzle the "truth" together. In the case of the Knights Cross it is fairly easy due to the low production number, the limited number of suppliers, and the strict control by the PKZ.

It might be a diffent case when you discuss high volume badges which were made by litterally hundred suppliers.

I stick with the evidence.

Dietrich

[Andreas Klein]

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"?

We don't know it but based on the regulations about badge marking an L/11 marked badge has a good chance to be really from Deumer. That's why I have no problem to accept it as Deumer.

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?

The same finding showed 100 marked wound badge's too... are they now all made by Scholze too?

[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?

Hi G.,

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

Here are some additional photos of the front and back of a one piece "swords" stamping from the Zimmermann hoard. Perhaps Dietrich could confirm to you (and the rest of us here) that the accepted construction method for Godet was to have two separate swords, with one "morticed" over the other and then soldered.

It would, of course, be very interesting to learn that the construction method for the "Swords" portion of the Oakleaves and Swords indeed changed during the war, and that there are both "Godet" sets with one piece and with two piece construction of the "Swords" portion.

[streptile]

Here are some additional photos of the front and back of a one piece "swords" stamping from the Zimmermann hoard.

Gentry,

There's really no proof that those swords planchets were supposed to be for the OLS to the 1939 RK, as discussed at length here.

Do we know that this set, which is clearly for the 1939 RK, is not made in the accepted way?

[streptile]

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

Hi Andreas,

Can you please provide the exact German word(s) Doehle uses for "active maker"?

Thank you in advance.

[Thomas Durante]

The same finding showed 100 marked wound badge's too... are they now all made by Scholze too?

Yes, it is certainly possible Andreas. The reverse hardware setup is typical of Gablonz-based makers just like we see on the Uboat clasps.

I don't know anyone that is pushing this possibility because there is no real evidence to speak of, however if it turns out to be true, it shouldn't be much of a surprise.

Tom

[Dietrich Maerz]

The accepted idea of "mortised" or "build" swords comes from the observation that the two swords are identical, but the one side is flipped. I do not know of anybody who has put an soldering iron to the set in order to separate them (or try to separate them)
Since both swords show the typical signs of die struck it is also not easy to say whether the swords are single pieces soldered together later on or one die struck piece (made from a mold with the use of two identical single swords). The soldering of the loop to the swords is exactly in the area of interest. During the research to my book I was told that they were "mortised" and the observation of two identical swords laid on top of each other confirmed that notion.

@Trevor: I don't think that there is an "accepted" way in the sense of having an "unaccepted" way. The important part with the Swords is that the right is a flipped opposite of the left and that their overall characteristics are identical to known originals. If you observe that fact, you would immediately also say: this is two identical swords laid on top of each other - which they are indeed. The question can only be: when?

[Leroy]

Trev - I honestly have no idea if the "sliced-in-half" set is made in the "conventional" way. I think you'd have to have them in hand to tell. Certainly the one I showed (from Butschek) is a one piece example (and looks like the others you showed).

I am a bit surprised to see what appears to be perhaps some level of equivocation in Dietrich's description of the construction technique, especially as I have described the method here before and my description was said to be "exactly how it was done". I would love to see more discussion of this.

[Dietrich Maerz]

I think the only way to find out is for somebody to buy a set of Swords and desolder them. Won't be me.
Apart from that you can discuss but you will never find an answer. To define "what appears to be perhaps some level of equivocation" I am still of the opinion that they are "mortised" since the set is clearly made of two identical swords.
Now you can discuss whether these two identical swords were mortised to create one single die from which the set was stamped or they were stamped single and then joined for each set. "Mortised" they are in both cases because the set is made of two identical swords.

[Leroy]

I think the only way to find out is for somebody to buy a set of Swords and desolder them. Won't be me.

Nor me, either.

Could this not be confirmed under the microscope (or by simple x-ray)? Also, there should be some slight, but measureable, difference in the elevation of the swords to each other.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Microscope doesn't show anything. Al least not on the ca. 20 sets I have on record so far. SEM won't do either, X-ray might work, but I am not familiar with the capabilities of that procedure.

But I also have to admit that when I have a set here I do not look whether they are "mortised" but I rather look at the details of both swords, the angle, the dimensions. If that is ok for both, they are automatically mortised. Must be!

[Leroy]

Good enough for me!

[Norm F]

The same finding showed 100 marked wound badge's too... are they now all made by Scholze too?

Clearly. The zinc wound badges marked "100" on the crimp for W&L with Gablonz-style construction found incomplete in Gablonz along with "AS in triangle" products with the same crimp style, and W&L listed as a major customer in Adolf Scholze's wartime accounting books.

But that wasn't the point. The question was whether an award made by one company and supplied to a second company who marks it with their maker number for retail or to fill an order can be assumed to be that second company's "100% product"?

In several instances, the evidence shows that you cannot always assume that the maker mark means it was "100% produced" by that maker. The maker mark is only one piece of evidence among several that must be taken into consideration.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Andreas,

Can you please provide the exact German word(s) Doehle uses for "active maker"?

Thank you in advance.

The german text is:

"Liste der Firmen, die Aufträge auf Anfertigungen von Eisernen Kreuzen (Großkreuz, Ritterkreuz, 1. und 2. Klasse) sowie Spangen zum Eisernen Kreuz (1. und 2. Klasse) erhalten haben".