CCC for Tom

[münster]

´Here you go Mr Durante

[münster]

2

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Dion,

Thanks for the additional pics. This CCC is quite strange, specifically the eagle design. Based on the reverse, this "type" of AGMuK CCC should have the type of eagle seen here: I will post a picture. Note the distinct solid round eye and open mouth of the eagle. The eagle design on Dion's CCC has what looks like an F&BL eagle! The soft obverse detail, mixed up eagle design, pitted obverse, and total lack of finish are all concerns for me, however the reverse of the clasp IS SPOT ON FOR AN ORIGINAL AGMuK CCC. Dion, your pics are still pretty dark and you are the one holding it, so does your eagle match my eagle?

Dion, can you give us some dimensions and a weight?

Thanks

Tom

[münster]

Different Eagle Tom, There is finish left on the clasp though. I do not have a scale or measurement device at the moment.

I also wouldnt say it is pitted, more like a little run down and old.

Kind of interesting with the eagle, any thoughts on that?

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Dion,

The eagle difference is troubling, I have no explanation other than the fact that all original AGMuKs of this type have the eagle I show. Also troubling is the soft appearance to the oakleaf veins to the right side of the badge. The one thing you can say for certain with AGMuKs was their highly details die strikes.

The pitting I am referring to is on the grenade head, those look a little too deep to have been from a hit or something IMO.

Something else is what looks like file marks on the obverse. This is something that can be see on reproductions, where they try to file down the inconsistencies on the obverse. The lack of "high quality" finish that is so typical to AGMuK CCCs coupled with the marks on the obverse I guess could go hand in hand with a well worn original. The eagle is the big problem I see. Your clasp is clearly late war, with the fluted pin and the late award date makes perfect sense in that regard, the question is that if this is original, why would AGMuK switch to a different eagle design so late in the war? Doesn't make sense.

If the reverse wasn't so perfect, I would call this a reproduction. Without weights and measurements to help, it will be difficult to say for certain. It most certainly is not a "typical" AGMuK CCC.

Tom

[Al P]

Do we really know which companies made up the AGMuK group? Could this be an example of sharing of the resources perhaps among members?

Just tossing it out there.

Al

[Robert P.]

,

[münster]

We have already established the eagles are different Robert

[Thomas Durante]

Hi guys,

Al, we do not know for certain the makers of the AGMuK conglomorate. I have a hunch who a few of them are (JFS, RK, AS, and a few others), but there is just not enough solid proof to nail any of them down for certain.

You find a lot of evidence for tool sharing with AGMuK, heck pretty much all the obverse are identical. Even looking at a JFS CCC, there are many similarities and that makes sense because they too were located in Gablonz. Why would any of these makers share with F&BL, a Ludenscheid based company? Sure, anything is possible, but was it likely....I don't really think so. In addition, nothing on the F&BL CCC matches anything on the AGMuK CCCs. Obverse design, BP crimping, soldered on hardware, finish, etc. all vastly different from eachother. I don't think the answer lies with one of the AGMuK makers deciding to use an F&BL eagle at the last stage of the war. More than likely, we are looking at a reproduction OR the eagle and obverse are so distorted from wear that it just resembles an F&BL CCC. Here is the eagle from an F&BL CCC for comparison. Most striking is the slant of the eye, matches pretty well to Dion's CCC that started this thread.

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

Hi guys,

Also notice how on Dion's and the F&BL, the right talon of the eagles leg reaches further down on the swastika. The AGMuK CCC that I posted and that Robert shows, the talon doesn't reach the other leg of the swastika.

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

F&BL & Dion