Announcement

**Thomas Durante** · 05-10-2011, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by ak72 View Post

why didn't they mark the badge itself? i think a profilic maker would have been proud of his production and signed it. Perhaps the same thing as we know it from Steinhauer&Lück ... they had no own die for the production and shared it with others ones.

Why didn't they use the same design as Steinhauer ... they were located 100 meters away of them over the street.

Btw Mr. Schickle was a leading member of the LDO too .... and thrown out - very surprised of that. So i think beeing a member of the LDO doesn't say anything about what a maker produced or not.

Hallo Andreas,

We don't know why some makers chose not to mark their badges, but all we know for SURE is that some makers did just that.....didn't mark their badges. It sounds like you are accepting that this solid-backed badge found in the Deumer packet is indeed Deumer. I would agree with you 100%, but as you can clearly see the badge was left unmarked. So if you agree that this badge is a Deumer, then we can say that Deumer had no problem leaving their maker mark off some of their badges, whether they are the early, hollowback tombak examples or these later war, solid back crimped in examples. It could very well be that since the badges were provided in marked packets, they felt that was sufficient enough to identify the maker and no need then to mark the badge itself.

There are plenty of examples of a maker choosing to mark some badges, but not others. Look at the early Assmann Pilot and Para badges. These are unmarked, but the later ones (using the EXACT SAME dies) are marked. Same can be said for the early Deumer Pilot & Para badges, the early ones were left unmarked for some reason. There doesn't seem to be a rhyme or reason for this, just some badges were marked and some were left unmarked.

Regarding your question why Deumer didn't lean on S&L for their design, I don't really see how or why that is relevant or even makes any logical sense. Almost every maker had their own, unique design. Some designs were similar, but most can be seen to have different designs. Assmann was located within a stones throw of Deumer and S&L, but none of their designs are identical. Their Para badges are different, their Pilot badges are different, their IABs are VERY different, and the list goes on and on. I think it is safe to say that all designs are different in their own way, and that those that are identical are the exception to the rule.

And Schickle may have been thrown out of the LDO, but would you put Deumer on the same level as him? Deumer has an extremely low Prasi & LDO numbers (3 & L/11), right behind Juncker!! so they must have been very highly regarding IMO.

Tom

**Andreas Klein** · 05-10-2011, 10:58 AM

Hi Tom,

we know some reasons for not marking the badge itself:

1. external die suppliers

Steinhauer:
They hadn't an own design for their combat badges and bought their production die from Wissmann, Pforzheim. So beside Steinhauer we have an unknown number of makers which were supplied by Wissmann too.

2. Marked packets

I fully agree ... why should i mark the badge if i have a marked bag or case of it and yes i accept the shown massive IAB produced by Deumer too but i'm quite sure that several others makers used it too. Like we have it with the SHuCo IAB.

But that's not the main question of this thread ... the thread is about the question if the former Daisy IAB was linked to Deumer correctly. I say no.

The Daisy has an evolution from Tombak to Zink with different finishes and so on, so we can be sure that it was produced the whole war. It has been never found in a maker marked bag or anything else. On the other hand we have now several Deumer packets with exactly the same IAB design in it and this design is far away from looking like the Daisy design. The argument that Deumer had used the Daisy design for the early tombak production and switched to zink with a totally different design is imo flimsy due the following reasons:

1.
The Daisy can be found as zink made one aswell - so this design was in production during the whole war and Deumer could have used it but they didn't as we can see it with the badges in the packets.

2.
Based on the high number of maker marked high quality luft badges from Deumer they were possible not able to produce early army badges and never had an early IAB production.

3.
That would have been an totally uncommon behaviour in production evolution:

GWL:
nickel silver hollow - tombak hollow - zink hollow - massive hollow .... always the same obverse design.

Wiedmann:
nickel silver hollow - zink hollow - massive zink .... always the same obverse design.

Hymnen:
tombak hollow - massive zink .... always the same obverse design.

FLL:
tombak hollow - zink hollow - massive zink .... always the same obverse design.

Frank&Reif:
tombak hollow - massive zink .... always the same obverse design.

SHuCo:
iron hollow - zink hollow - massive zink .... always the same obverse design.

Juncker:
nickel silver hollow - zink hollow .... always the same obverse design.

S&L:
tombak hollow - zink half hollow - zink massive .... always the same obverse design.

Vienna:
cupal massive - zink hollow - zink massive .... always the same obverse design.

I think we can continue this list ... and than Deumer as exception?

So far the link of the Daisy design to the area of Lüdenscheid was - to what i know - the fact of some ground dug awards. Well, i think we all have seen the great thread of Pavel here in the WAF with badges from Wächtler&Lange which where found in the area of Gablonz. So a ground dug award is far away from a solid location proof.

Btw we have several other makers located in Lüdenscheid. So why isn't the Daisy not an IAB from Overhoff for example?

Yes i would put Deumer on the same level as Schickle: early award maker and founding member of the LDO. L/15 is imo not that far away from L/11 as number

**Thomas Durante** · 05-10-2011, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by ak72 View Post

The Daisy has an evolution from Tombak to Zink with different finishes and so on, so we can be sure that it was produced the whole war.

Hallo Andreas,

How are we sure of this at all? Zink production started in 1941/1942, so just because we can find some hollow Deumer badges in zinc doesn't mean they made them up until 1945. On the contrary, we can see in almost all makers that when they switched to zink, they tried to use the same hollow dies, but most changed pretty quickly to a solid-back construction. While I agree with you that the vast majority of makers choose to keep a similar design, some definately did not and I think Deumer could very well have been one of them. I can make a similar list of makers that chose to change their designs....many for absolutely no reason that we can see:

Juncker Para: Changed eagle and wreath designs two times

Deumer Para: Change eagle and wreath designs two times

Assmann Para: Changed wreath design 6 times!!!!

JMME Para: Changed eagle design 2 times

Wurster PAB: Changed obverse design 3 times

AS in Triange PAB: Change obverse design 3 times

All of these are marked badges, so there is absolutely no confusion that we are talking about the same exact makers here between their variants. I would contend that just because there doesn't happen to be a maker mark on a badge doesn't mean we should just ignore all the other evidence that points to Deumer making the hollow back Daisy IABs and the solid-back Deformed leaf IABs, etc. I have a feeling that if the 3 Wurster PABs variants I mentioned above didn't happen to have their maker mark on it, you would be argueing that these were made by 3 different makers just because the design was different

Tom

**Andreas Klein** · 05-10-2011, 04:55 PM

Hi Tom,

yes you are right zink produktion started around 1941/1942 so that the massive zink IAB from Deumer started at the same time ... tell me the logical reason for producing with two totally different dies at the same time in one and the same firm?

The luft badges you mentioned are multi part awards and it's easier to change a part - and still have the same production process - as with a single part badge like the IAB. You can't compare it in this way.

Keep always apples with apples ... and here i showed the rule. GWL is the best example that they didn't changed anything.

Don't forget that makers had to show the badges to the PKZ/LDÓ before they could start to produce ... after changing the overall design for 100% i bet they had to go for a new licence.

I have no problem with three different wurster pabs ... they still feature the overall wurster design and only minor parts are changed. Here we have two totally different looking badges.

Btw what about the other daisy design badge which is linked to S&H ... according to what you said about Wurster they would be from one and the same maker as some sort of evolution - but here we now have two different makers ... strange

**Thomas Durante** · 05-10-2011, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by ak72 View Post

tell me the logical reason for producing with two totally different dies at the same time in one and the same firm?

Hallo Andreas,

I don't know for sure, but it is something we can CLEARLY see with other makers. I always bring up the Assmann Paratrooper badge because it is such an easy and convenient example. Just because it is a LW badge doesn't make it any different than an IAB. I am not talking about interchangable parts here, just focus on the WREATH. Leave the eagle out of it for now. If you look at the Assmann wreath, they had 6 different variants!! The first 4 are all used with tombak construction, which therefore means they were all in the same timeframe:

1. Brass - Egg shaped wreath
2. Brass - Thin wreath
3. Aluminum cast wreath
4. Brass - Thick wreath

So like the Deumer IAB, here we don't have an explanation why Assmann switched wreath designs on their early Para badges, but we know full well they did.

I would even go 1 step further and say there IS a logical reason why Deumer switched their designs. It could be as simple as when Deumer decided to switch from hollow zinc to solid zink production, they obviously had to make new dies to do this. They took this opportunity to redesign the obverse to make it more bold and fierce compared to their previous design. This is quite logical, since their hollow IAB design eagle isn't very fierce at all, its doglike and almost comical with its expression. Perhaps they wanted a more bold design, this is something we clearly see with the Juncker ROAG eagles. As the war progressed, Juncker had 4 different eagle designs and each time they changed they made the eagle more bold and fierce looking.

Tom

**Thomas Durante** · 05-10-2011, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by ak72 View Post

Btw what about the other daisy design badge which is linked to S&H ... according to what you said about Wurster they would be from one and the same maker as some sort of evolution - but here we now have two different makers ... strange

This is very easy to answer Andreas, the reverse hardware is completely different

The obverse designs of the S&H & Deumer IABs is similar, but we can see two different dies at work, as well as completely different reverse hardware. Even way before we know the identity of these hollow badges, we clearly defined them as "Daisy 1" and "Daisy 2" because we recognized they were two distinctly different IABs, despite their similar appearance. It was only after Phil identified the maker as Deumer and S&H did all the pieces fall into place with the reverse hardware connections to many other Deumer and S&H-marked badges.

Keep in mind that this might be hard to see when just looking at IABs. When you expand the study to PABs & GABs, there are even more connections here that we aren't even discussing and allows these to be attributed to Deumer (and the other to S&H).

Tom

**Andreas Klein** · 05-15-2011, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Thomas Durante View Post

Hallo Andreas,

I don't know for sure, but it is something we can CLEARLY see with other makers. I always bring up the Assmann Paratrooper badge because it is such an easy and convenient example.

Hi Tom,

as allready said please stay at the apples and compare apples together. We don't know what happend at the Luft production and i think you missed one important think. With Assmann maker marked parts and badges it is easy to identify a inside maker evolution because you have maker marked references to compare with.

Let's re-read the facts we have here:

1.
Not a single Daisy IAB or PAB was ever found maker marked itself or inside a marked packet.

2.
There were only some Daisy PABs which were found in the area of Lüdenscheid. It's a pure assumption that this means that the Daisy IAB came from the same maker ( i think not a single Daisy IAB was found so far in the area of Lüdenscheid).

3.
In 2007 the first maker marked Deumer packet combo was found showing us not a Daisy init.

4.
In 2011 the next one was found and again not a Daisy but the same design as we had it 2007 and again a good source.

So we have now 2 packet sets against alot of assumptions ...

I would even go 1 step further and say there IS a logical reason why Deumer switched their designs. It could be as simple as when Deumer decided to switch from hollow zinc to solid zink production, they obviously had to make new dies to do this.

Pure assumption again ... please re-read my post #17. There is not a single maker who needed to change design for material switching. GWL with all kind material and hollow/massive production is the best example.

They took this opportunity to redesign the obverse to make it more bold and fierce compared to their previous design. This is quite logical, since their hollow IAB design eagle isn't very fierce at all, its doglike and almost comical with its expression. Perhaps they wanted a more bold design, this is something we clearly see with the Juncker ROAG eagles.

Pure assumption again ... even Hymnen with the ugliest eagle of 'em all didn't change the design when the switched material.

And who produced the zink made Daisy badges? If there wouldn't be a single Zink made Daisy your thought had a single chance to be logical.

..., there are even more connections here that we aren't even discussing and allows these to be attributed to Deumer (and the other to S&H).

Please show them.

**Thomas Durante** · 05-15-2011, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by ak72 View Post

There is not a single maker who needed to change design for material switching. GWL with all kind material and hollow/massive production is the best example.

Hallo Andreas,

I mention plenty of examples of design switching in my above posts. This is easy and best seen on the Luftwaffe badges, that is why I mention them. To me it makes absolutely no difference whether it was a Luftwaffe badge or an IAB, so it is apples to apples in my opinion. The ability to cross reference all kinds of Heer, LW and Kriegs badges has allowed us to reveal production similarities by certain makers that would otherwise be hidden if you only look at IABs and nothing else.

We know for a fact that Deumer switched their Luftwaffe Para, Pilot, & Observer designs during the war. There is no logical reason to do this, but yet they did it. Deumer has a precedent of switching designs, so if would be inconsistent if they didn't change their IAB design too during the war.

Another great example of this is the Deumer ROAG eagle. Their early, nickel silver badges have 1 type of eagle, but when they switched to making their Airgunner badges in Zink they redesigned the eagle. Why didn't they just keep the same design, and just cut off the lighting bolts? We don't really know why, we just know they did it, they completely changed the design of the eagle.

We see the same thing with their IABs. I agree with you that the 2 IABs found in the packets are Deumer. We agree on that point, they are the later war, versions of the Deumer IAB.

Tom

**Andreas Klein** · 05-15-2011, 08:02 AM

Hi Tom,

as you can see on post #17 we don't have apples here. Anyway:

1.
How do you explain the zink mid/latewar Daisy badges?

2.
How you exclude all the other Lüdenscheid award makers from the Daisy link?

**Thomas Durante** · 05-15-2011, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by ak72 View Post

Hi Tom,
as you can see on post #17 we don't have apples here.

Andreas, we ARE discussing apples to apples. Badge production is not rocket science, and its all the same whether we are talking about IABs or Para badges. Badge production is badge production, and if you only choose to look with blinders on at one particular badge at a time you will miss out on alot of useful information IMO.

Originally posted by ak72 View Post

How do you explain the zink mid/latewar Daisy badges?

Simple, the hollowback Daisy IABs are Deumer's mid war badges. When they switched to solid-back production they also took the opportunity to change the obverse design and they also took the opportunity to provide a means to crimp in the hardware. This is a natural progression we see with several other Ludenschied makers in an attempt to speed up production such as FLL, S&L, F&CL, etc.

Originally posted by ak72 View Post

How you exclude all the other Lüdenscheid award makers from the Daisy link?

Another easy question, Deumer was a large, and well known manufaturer of all kinds of LW, Heer and Kriegs badges throughout the entire war. They were a premier manufacturer. Who else in Ludenscheid would you consider to be the maker of the Daisy badges if not for Deumer? Keep in mind that the Deumer catalog shows an IAB, GAB & PAB, so we know they offered them (and the PAB is clearly a Daisy PAB

) What other Ludenschied maker has a PAB & IAB in their catalog and is NOT already identified as a maker of the IAB or PAB??

Tom

**Graeme** · 05-22-2011, 07:53 PM

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> Hi Guys
A very interesting thread, with a mountain of information to digest. Tom and Andreas appear like a pair of scrapping terriers, Andreas offering some new thoughts and Tom defending some older thoughts. Strangely both view points can seem valid .... but because of their separate arguments, not everything can be correct, I guess.
The only problem is, now that I have caught up with this thread and a couple others including Toms “Deumer PAB link” thread, I have ended up with more questions than ever.

I have taken the view to start looking at this with a “clean sheet”, and to be sceptical of anything that has been put forward before. There are a whole bunch of assumptions that should not be considered hard evidence.

When Tom opened the “Deumer PAB link “ thread a little while back, I was one of the guys that was not fully happy with the link, even though a lot of good argument was for it. My main stumbling block was the complete change of design for the solid IAB, and I felt that if Deumer made the “daisy” IAB, they most likely did not make the solid IAB.
Now that the solid IAB has been found with a marked Deumer packet on more than one occasion over the last few years, it is not so easy to discard Deumer, for the solid IAB.
So at this point If we do not disect too deeply, we could have three explanations for the badges under discussion

1 Deumer made the daisy, and changed their design and made the solid IAB also.
2 Deumer made the daisy, and sold the solid IAB in Deumer packets, but it was made by someone else.
3 Deumer did not make the daisy, but did make the solid IAB

For me I still feel option 1 just does not make sense. There are too many instances where manufacturers appear to go from hollow zinc to solid zinc keeping the same basic design, and I can’t think of one that changed so radically. One of the assumptions for changing the design, when they went to solid, was that the hollow design was not very good, and they used this time as an opportunity to change it. Although this might seem logical at first, when you think about this, it is extremely unlikely. Zinc daisys are quite common, so they likely produced many badges. I think if the design was not pleasing, they would have changed it well before producing so many, and they had the opportunity to change the design while they were making hollow zincers. The likelihood is that if Deumer is the daisy maker and changed the design so radically, I would have expected to see a change of design in the hollow zincer.
Now even if they did change the design, when looking into this, there is another badge that appears to have gone through the same sequence. The GAB. The solid GAB is definitely linked to the solid IAB , and the GAB has been found in Deumer marked packets also. So two badges completely redesigned at the solid stage? Something is not right here, with this “Deumer made everything situation” we appear to have at the moment. Maybe the GAB link from hollow to solid is not correct either.

As I have mentioned already, I don’t have any new answers and probably more questions, but it might be worth looking at this whole “Deumer” timeline from the point where the solid zincers start. Maybe Deumer made the packeted awards we have seen, and possibly the oval crimp badges and any related to these, and just maybe the “daisy” was not Deumer.

Lets recap the daisy/Deumer connection :-
L/11 style catches, a group of what looked like badly struck PABs found in Ludenscheid, a picture in the Deumer catalogue, that resembles a daisy.
I believe there may be other evidence not listed above ( It is late here and I am tired). Please list any evidence that I have not.

I think when this info was brought to light, it was classed as still not conclusive. A couple of points I would raise regarding the connection of the daisy to Deumer are :-
It may be the case that Deumer did make the daisy, but keep in mind that when connections are made to companies, much guesswork takes place, and less than impressive evidence quite often is used to back up the initial evidence.
The Deumer catalogue, does have a PAB in it that does resemble the daisy PAB, but the IAB and GAB sitting on the same page, imo, do not resemble what are believed to be daisy IABs and GABs. To take the PAB picture seriously you would have to have all badges looking accurate imo.
The daisy postcard in the PAB book in the daisy chapter, does indeed look like a daisy PAB, but I do not recall seeing any mention of Ludenscheid or Deumer on that card. In fact the rest of the postcard series do not appear to show daisy or Deumer products.

I would be leaning to option 2 or 3 at this time, but as I said I am not sure which, although Deumer making the packeted awards is intriguing…

I have more thoughts on this, but will add If there is any follow up. I have probably bored the pants off everyone by now.

It might be good to change this thread to “Deumer badge discussion”. Willcpfc would you mind if we do this?

cheers
Graeme

Announcement

"Deumer" badge discussion

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread