Deumer catalog RK

[Dietrich Maerz]

Do you happen to know on what evidence Niemann determined that it was not only an S&L but also pre-LDO?

[Andreas Klein]

Do you happen to know on what evidence Niemann determined that it was not only an S&L but also pre-LDO?

I haven't it here but i think it was based on the non iron core, the 935 loop marking and the ribbon.

Btw it was Nimmergut and not Niemann who did the coa.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Sorry, I also mix the two up! Nimmergut is it!

[Norm F]

Let me quote Norm:

"The Schwerin marked 2nd pattern U-Boat clasp was made in Gablonz by Adolf Scholze for supply to Schwerin."

... to me this is a clear statement.

Andreas is correct, it was a clear statement. Whether or not you accept that Schwerin was a significant customer of Scholze as shown in the accounting book, and the fact that several unfinished Schwerin-marked U-Boat clasps planchets were found in Gablonz together with untrimmed planchets of the A.G.M.u.K. CCC, "AS in triangle" products and W&L wound badges, the fact is the Schwerin 2nd pattern U-Boat is completely different construction from any other zinc Schwerin Berlin badge and matches the style of Gablonz production. Ignoring the features of the awards themselves when weighing the evidence is like ignoring a patient's symptoms and physical examination and demanding only a documented blood test to prove their illness.

The collective evidence strongly indicates this U-Boat clasp was not made by Schwerin in Berlin, but rather in Gablonz.

Its only relevance to the current discussion is to make the point that a maker mark in isolation does not prove that company manufactured the award -- all factors must be considered before making assumptions.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Dietrich Maerz]

Just as another side note regarding Zimmermann supplying parts to other companies: The DK of Otto Klein, Hanau. Nobody in his right mind would suggest that Klein supplied the parts to Zimmermann.

[Andreas Klein]

Its only relevance to the current discussion is to make the point that a maker mark in isolation does not prove that company manufactured the award -- all factors must be considered before making assumptions.

The U-Boat clasp is the only german award which is labeld "Ausf." which is the shortage for the german word "Ausführung" (realiszation). Does this uncommon label really means that the badges were produced by the firm Schwerin or does it perhaps mean that it was done based on a tool/idea (=realiszation) by Schwerin, so that it isn't a maker mark?

[Dietrich Maerz]

That is IMHO not the correct interpretation!

On the right side of the badge it says "Entwurf" which is design.
On the left side it says "Ausführung", which is implementation.

One has to see both markings in connection to each other.

[Andreas Klein]

Sure Dietrich ... Peekhaus did the design auf the clasp "Entwurf" and Schwerin did the technical realization of this design "Ausführung". "Ausführung" can be translated with "version" as well.

But let's go back to Zimmermann. In the meantime i got another maker list of the iron cross familiy with active orders and this list is dated 26.09.1941. This time the list contains 88 Firms and hwat can be find there:

Number 24 of the list is Gebrüder Godet, Berlin

and Zimmermann, Pforfheim did made it on the list.

So we have now two proven timestamps 26.09.1941 and 16.05.1940 saying that Gebrüder Godet, Berlin was active while Zimmermann,Pforzheim was only focused on the wound badge. How does this fit to the story that Godet never had a running IC production?

The only hint for Zimmermann as active maker is the wound badge list. So i was looking for early wound badges but couldn't find with a unique Zimmermann design. The 20 or L/52 silver/gold wound badges of the early area are in fact Schickle ones which got an Zimmermann mark. You will find a unique Zimmermann design later on 1942/1943. So it seems that Zimmermann loved to use tools from other makers in the early years. To me it's more likely that it was Zimmermann who got support by Godet and not in reverse.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Maybe I do not understand you corretly: are you saying that "Ausführung Schwerin" means that the maker is not Schwerin but that this badge is rather from somebody else who used the "version", "realisation" Schwerin came up with earlier?

[Thomas Durante]

Andreas is correct, it was a clear statement.

And that is fine Norm if Andreas was only talking about the Uboat clasp. But he lumped in Wachter & Lange-marked Wound Badges as well, and I don't think that is a correct assumption at this point. I don't think there is enough evidence to be sure the wound badges were made, although its certainly possible. There is enough evidence for the Uboat clasps, I fully agree with you on that.

But not for the Wound badges........yet

Tom

[Andreas Klein]

Maybe I do not understand you corretly: are you saying that "Ausführung Schwerin" means that the maker is not Schwerin but that this badge is rather from somebody else who used the "version", "realisation" Schwerin came up with earlier?

The U-Boat clasp was instituted on 15.05.1944. At this time it seems that Doehle forced the makers to work again with tools from master tool makers (remember the note in Uniformenmarkt about S&L and Juncker).

So to me it is possible that "Ausführung" only points to the version of the master tool which was used to produce the badge. So it says that maker xy produced the clasp with the (version of) tooling supplied by Schwerin to him.

I think if "Ausf." would be a part of their typical maker mark we would found it everywhere. But it isn't the case. Here we always have "Schwerin, Berlin". The addon "Ausf." is only used when another name is labeled on the badge.

[Dietrich Maerz]

But let's go back to Zimmermann. In the meantime i got another maker list of the iron cross familiy with active orders and this list is dated 26.09.1941. This time the list contains 88 Firms and hwat can be find there:
Number 24 of the list is Gebrüder Godet, Berlin and Zimmermann, Pforfheim did made it on the list.

I have the uneasy feeling that you are not reading my post or you are just ignoring the ones that are not convenient for your thinking. I quoted that list already two or three times and every time I mentioned also in clear plain English that Zimmermann is NOT on that list. So, what else is new? And what does it prove?

So we have now two proven timestamps 26.09.1941 and 16.05.1940 saying that Gebrüder Godet, Berlin was active while Zimmermann,Pforzheim was only focused on the wound badge. How does this fit to the story that Godet never had a running IC production?

Again this feeling that you are not reading my posts. I never ever said that Godet never had a running IC production. Neither did anybody else. All we are saying is that Godet bought parts from Zimmermann, just as Deumer might have done and just as Foerster & Bartrh did and also Otto Klein.
I don't know were you got the notion from that somebody here is denying that Godet supplied EKs and Rks and Oaks and Swords to the PKZ? Also, in September 1941 Zimmermann was very much active - the company had an LDO number!

The only hint for Zimmermann as active maker is the wound badge list. So i was looking for early wound badges but couldn't find with a unique Zimmermann design. The 20 or L/52 silver/gold wound badges of the early area are in fact Schickle ones which got an Zimmermann mark. You will find a unique Zimmermann design later on 1942/1943. So it seems that Zimmermann loved to use tools from other makers in the early years. To me it's more likely that it was Zimmermann who got support by Godet and not in reverse.

And that is also not true. Zimmermann made the German Cross in Gold, marked it L/52 (which is a clear sign that C.F. Zimmermann was a fully approved - by Dr. Doehle - supplier) and even supplied parts of the German Cross (however later on) to Otto Klein. To say that Zimmermann used tools from other makers is wrong in this case (and also wrong in the case of the EKs and the RK).

You are for sure one of the leading experts on the field of Wound Badges, but there is more in life. You have to look at other fields also.

[Andreas Klein]

All we are saying is that Godet bought parts from Zimmermann, just as Deumer might have done and just as Foerster & Bartrh did and also Otto Klein.

Than back this up with something more than repeat it again and again. It's a proven fact Godet was mentioned two times as active maker for the iron cross when Zimmermann wasn't mentioned as active at the same time.

So saying "Godet bought parts from Zimmermann" is pure guesswork.

And that is also not true. Zimmermann made the German Cross in Gold, marked it L/52 (which is a clear sign that C.F. Zimmermann was a fully approved - by Dr. Doehle - supplier) and even supplied parts of the German Cross (however later on) to Otto Klein. To say that Zimmermann used tools from other makers is wrong in this case (and also wrong in the case of the EKs and the RK).

Beeing an approved maker doesn't say what kind of orders you had and got at a certain stage of the war by the PKZ.
Once again: the list i mentioned isn't a list to name approved makers - these are lists naming allready approved makers which had actual demands of the PKZ when the lists where given out.

So the lists are clear documents that Godet was working on/for demands in progress while Zimmermann wasn't and that's what they prove. To say that Godet fulfilled these order by selling stuff from Zimmermann is wishfull thinking and tell me if Conze runned the business from Deumer and Godet, why didn't Godet buy parts from Deumer? Was Conze such a bad CEO that he let Zimmermann earn the money he could do with Deumer as supplier of the parts?

Btw i thought it was clear from my post that "early days" means the area from 1939 - 1941 before the german cross and there you have the Zimmermann mark on Schickle badges.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Andreas,

I will now stop discussing this issue with you because it makes no sense at all.

Trevor has shown a lot of evidence, I provided evidence which you ignore constantly.

When asked why you know whether something is from a certain maker, you come with Nimmergut ...

Now you say that "Being an approved maker doesn't say what kind of orders you had and got at a certain stage of the war by the PKZ." but you insist that Godet was supplying EKs and Rks to the PKZ (since it is on the list). How would you know they are not mentioned on the list because of the Oakleaves only? How can you say that Godet was a supplier of EKs and RKs without contradicting yourself?

And to top it all of you say again that Zimmermann was not on that list, which I already mentioned several times.... and you ignore that at that point in time, both Godet and Zimmermann were LDO-approved (and the approval was a dcision by Dr. Doehle!!!) and Zimmermann produced the German Cross, the second highest order of the Reich!

Have a great day!

[streptile]

I will now stop discussing this issue

I feel the same way.

There is plenty of evidence that Zimmermann supplied G. Godet, and you have two lists saying nothing to the contrary. They say only that G. Godet got a contract to manufacture the Iron Cross. Subcontractors are an integral part of business and have been since before the Third Reich.

And yet no one will be convinced to change his opinion without more evidence. So we're at an impasse.