Super rare Luftschutz service medal 1. class with ribbon

[Antonio Scapini]

S&L's wartime production, in contrast, tolerated no obverse flaws.

Best regards,
---Norm

This is only speculation Norm. No proofs can tell this for sure. A medal produced in february 45 cannot be distinguished from one produced in 46. Furthermore we don't know when the die was bought from Souval.
Other aspects are too complex to explain here.

PS: trimming process was made in different ways, even for the medals of the same type. I tryed for years to understand what can be a definitive proof, but until today it is missing. We can only speculate and exclude the Souval and the other known fakes, but some S&L specimens will stay in a border line place. Of course an analysys based only on some die flaws of the obverse (because the reverse is different) is not enough. It proves only that S&L and Souval used the same dies.

[Norm F]

Hi Antonio,

What we can say about the S&L production in wartime is that the Tombak "L/16"-marked examples, zinc "4"-marked examples and the unmarked barter board/salesman case early-postwar offered examples all lacked any sign of the flaws being discussed here.

So far, there's no evidence that the flawed examples came from S&L in wartime, although that doesn't preclude them from participation in post-war production. Meanwhile, we know that post-war Souval often produced dies from casting of wartime badges. That's all we know at this time.

Best regards,
---Norm

[kenneth wolfe]

So far, there's no evidence that the flawed examples came from S&L in wartime

But there's no evidence that they didn't. That I believe is the real question is when did these die flaws appear and based on the information we have it can't be proven either way with 100% certainty.

[Norm F]

But there's no evidence that they didn't. That I believe is the real question is when did these die flaws appear and based on the information we have it can't be proven either way with 100% certainty.

To be clear, the 8 notches we're discussing aren't "die flaws" per se but rather "die features" reproduced from a medal with these hand-sawn notches. If S&L were responsible for cloning the badge with these saw-marks during wartime then that raises two difficult questions:

1) Why would a new die be cast from a badge during wartime when presumably they would have still have had a master die to go back to?
2) Why would S&L never mark these "notched" ones but only mark the un-notched ones, and the notched ones don't appear in the end-of-war "S&L sales cases"?

Sure there's no proof, but logic and the small amount of available evidence leans away from S&L producing the version with the reproducible "Souval notches".

Best regards,
---Norm

[Antonio Scapini]

We know maybe 1 or 2 marked S&L zinc specimens, and we know absolutely nothing about the barter boards. As far as I know barter boards specimens could be made in 1943 as in may '45 after the end of the war and we can't know if they are at 100% S&L or from another maker.
As I told you, we can only speculate about the S&L production, but if you feel comforted thinking that S&L specimens with flaws are postwar, then you can think what you prefere! Of course your thinking is possible, but we must say at the same time is lacking real, solid evidences.

[Norm F]

Of course your thinking is possible, but we must say at the same time is lacking real, solid evidence.

Agreed. Most evidence in this hobby is circumstantial (which is better than nothing). And cloned surface abnormalities are the mainstay of our identification of Staegemeir and many other known reproduction awards -- a useful exercise in those cases.

A the same time, the lack of real, solid evidence cannot allow for declarations of originality for these not-uncommon zinc medals with cloned surface abnormalities -- especially at inflated prices. (Not that anyone has made that assertion in this thread, but in other threads.)

Best regards,
---Norm

[Alex W.]

A very interesting discussion going on here. Lots of good points were already made about Souval and S&L postwar made products.
Judging Souval medals and badges by the type of finish, even material - can be misleading as it sometimes varied.
Of course Souval and S&L had a huge relation in those early post war years.
However I will not agree that Souval bought dies from S&L or Meybauer etc.
From what I have gathered it's more complicated than that.
When looking at the postwar SS Long Service medals from both of these companies - even though almost identical, they only vary in small details of the lettering and the runes. However they definitely don't use the same dies. Still, from the size, weight and look it's obvious, that both companies got their dies from same source.
So instead of sharing/trading/selling one die; there are two very similar dies.
A thing both companies did however, was to share parts and pin/ring hardware.
Another good example for the co-operation of both of them is the Pioneer of Labor badge - made by S&L with very early "57er period" hardware and typical finishing - however it's also available with early Souval claw hardware made by Souval. Both share details and are obviously of the same manufacturing period.
I don't want to add more details here as this is already going off topic but I wanted to point out that there was more going on besides one company selling the other company a die set.
Here are a couple of interesting LS1 related pics. All 3 medals are made of zinc, even though the quality varies. It shows that the unmarked S&L medal on the right is much thicker than the Souval made LS1.

Best regards,
Alex

[Alex W.]

2

[Alex W.]

3

[Alex W.]

4

[Alex W.]

5

[Norm F]

Hi Alex,

Thanks for posting! Very helpful comparisons and info.

I see that your badge on the left has the typical "Souval notches" described in this thread (for want of a better term), as well as some visible casting pits on both obverse and reverse if I'm not mistaken.

The thick badge on the right that you have described previously as a late-war S&L or "possible barter board piece" has an unusual notch in the lower corner of the bottom cross arm on the reverse -- not sure what to make of that. On what basis do you call that an S&L -- is it just the similarity to marked pieces or is it something about the circumstances in which you acquired it?

The middle badge lacks the Souval flaws but is thinner than the medal on the right. It looks to me like all 3 have the same pebbling pattern but the "Souval" on the left and the middle badge are less distinct than the badge on the right. Do you have a theory about that middle one?

Best regards,
---Norm

[Alex W.]

Hi Alex,

Thanks for posting! Very helpful comparisons and info.

I see that your badge on the left has the typical "Souval notches" described in this thread (for want of a better term), as well as some visible casting pits on both obverse and reverse if I'm not mistaken.

The thick badge on the right that you have described previously as a late-war S&L or "possible barter board piece" has an unusual notch in the lower corner of the bottom cross arm on the reverse -- not sure what to make of that. On what basis do you call that an S&L -- is it just the similarity to marked pieces or is it something about the circumstances in which you acquired it?

The middle badge lacks the Souval flaws but is thinner than the medal on the right. It looks to me like all 3 have the same pebbling pattern but the "Souval" on the left and the middle badge are less distinct than the badge on the right. Do you have a theory about that middle one?

Best regards,
---Norm

Hi Norm,

Yes correct, the medal on the left shows the typical saw marks found in many postwar Souval marked LS1.

The thick badge on the right matches the pattern of S&L marked pieces. I got it as "an early S&L postwar/bater board piece". It's possible that it's a late war production as well.

It's actually the medal in the middle that seems most interesting to me. It is identical to the Souval pattern but without the saw marks usually found on postwar Souval made LS1. I'll have another look at it, but it didn't seem to vary much in size or thickness compared to the "saw mark" Souval medal. Seems like an earlier Souval variant than the ones with the mark. It would be interesting to know exactly how early.

Again, all 3 of these medals are made of zinc. All were made using the same method and show a very fine seam at least at some spots along the rim.

Best regards,
Alex

[Norm F]

Thanks Alex, the more info the better.

Again, all 3 of these medals are made of zinc. All were made using the same method and show a very fine seam at least at some spots along the rim.

The "seam issue" is fraught with difficulty in interpretation, in my opinion. Unlike a typical war badge with only an obverse design, these 2-sided medals would have two equally-deep, detailed obverse and reverse dies, so even with a struck badge one would expect some flashing at the mid-line which would have to be trimmed, potentially leaving a visible "seam" in some areas.

A cast medal would also have a seam but depending on the quality and technique of the making of the molds, the seam could be anywhere -- at the mid-point or closer to one side of the other. And subsequent hand-filing can hide the sins.

All that is to say, it's often more reliable to use cloned surface irregularities, texture and casting pits as evidence for cast medals rather than the presence or absence of seams except in obvious crude cases.

The crispness of the pebbling on the right medal favours a striking method for that one vs. the casting pits, poor detail and cloned notches of the medal on the left. Like you say, the medal in the middle literally "sits in the middle" - bit of a mystery, but there's no question it's not as detailed as the medal on the right.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Steinhauer & Lück

For future reference, here's a zinc example marked "4" in the ring that was posted by WAF member plaut in 2007. This is presumably the look of a late wartime zinc S&L. Unflawed and showing a crisp pebbling pattern.