Egghead IAB's possibly maker

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Andreas,

I respectfully disagree with this statement. In a perfect world, you might be right and all the makers followed the LDO and Prasi guidelines and therefore all the badges we collect would look alike.

Hi Tom,

that wasn't the point i said. I don't say that all badges have to be twins because of some official regulations. I say that the fact that two badges come with a grim looking eagle isn't an evidence that two makers were working together.

However, that is clearly not the case. Take the LW flak badges for example. We have about 10 different makers, and we can tell each maker apart simply by looking at the eagle design.

That's correct you BELIEVE that only 10 makers were involved but do you really know it?

You have seen the Wissmann letters to Lüdenscheid which cleary is an hard evidence that the firm from Wissmann did what they said in their wartime ads:

They produced tools for combat badges but they didn't produce combat badges by their own ("Keine Fertigstücke").

And i think there is no need to discuss how many customers Wissmann had .... for sure more than one.

As result of that all badges coming from a Wissmann master die will look more or less familiar to each other.

Each maker had their own little design, but Juncker and Brehmer stand out because their designs are so similar (more similar to eachother than any other Flak badge maker).

Once again ... please show me a Brehmer marked Heer Flak badge and as said above - a same master will give you a similiar result.

GABs, PABs, & IABs are the same way. You have to admit that not all the designs of these badges are the same. Some are closer in design to other makers, but for the most part, most every IAB PAB or GAB can be identified simply by looking at the obverse design.

That's correct but we don't speak here about designs we speak about makers. I have no problem with a "SHuCo Design" because every collector can see based on the obverse design that several badges look similiar. The nickname "SHuCo design" was logical because there are SHuCo marked badges as references so that everyone could see why they got the name. And how about other makers using the same design:

We could identify "Gottlieb & Wagner" or "Eduard Hahn" as makers producing badges in the SHuCo design because we have found hard facts in terms of MAKER MARKET IAB PACKETS. That's the only real evidence in a first step that these makers produced an IAB in general and in a next step we could link a specific SHuCo design IAB to these makers because of several packet/badges combos which were found during some years.

This is a way to link a certain badge to a real firm and having a REAL RELIABLE chance that the link is truth.

What we are doing here is working with a chain of presumptions and that's far away from having basic evidence or can someone prove that Brehmer was involved in any IAB/GAB production or that Juncker really changed design?

I am not saying that the egghead is definitely Brehmer, but Hans makes some very good points.

So where is the problem to continue to call them "Egghead" or with another usefull nickname until real evidences are found? Since ages it was so and it was good so because the collectors had a chance to re-check links and threads in forums. Is it it better to use the nickname "Brehmer" (which points to a real maker instead of a nick which describes the badge) because we have another forum which loves to update it's database once a week with a new sensation to attract more paying members?

Perhaps you allready have noticed that dealers jump at once on such flimsy sensations and are raising their prices for the new unmarked maker version. So is it your goal that collectors drive a Toyota but have to pay the premium price of a Mercedes Benz because of the significant piece of evidence that they have both 4 wheels?

And I think the similarity in designs to the Juncker badges is a SIGNIFICANT piece of evidence that cannot be ignored.

If we start to ignore the presumptions nothing would be left of that ... or did you found a Juncker IAB/GAB packet in the meantime.

Anyway we have around 140 - 160 listed badge producers but based on your SIGNIFICANT pieces of evidence around 5 - 10 firms were producing the whole supply of german combat badges with several variants.

So tell me:

What did the rest of known makers produce?

[Andreas Klein]

Translation of the shown Wißmann ad:

"Paul Wißmann, Pforzheim
production tools (dies) for awards, medals, combat badges in original size and for miniatures, according to regulations, short-term delivery,
no ready-made awards"

[Graeme]

Hi Graeme,

Sure there is a relevance, in that the "egghead" IAB always reminded me of the Juncker IABs. Their design is very similar IMO.

So when Hans put forward his Brehmer theory, it clicked in my head and made perfect sense that Brehmer could be a very good candidate for the egghead maker since Juncker and Brehmer shared very similar designs with other badges such as the LW Flak Badge, Heer Flak Badge, Numbered PABs, etc. The designs of all these badges are so close to eachother, that I do believe Juncker and Brehmer did have some type of collaboration in design of these awards. It may simply be that Brehmer used the same badge designer as Juncker, or that Brehmer purchased some of Juncker's awards and copied the designs which they used to make their own badges from. Whatever the reason doesn't matter much to me, what is important is that their designs are similar and the same can be said with the Juncker IABs and the egghead IABs in my opinion.

Tom

Hi Tom

You may "feel" that there are connections as you mentioned above, BUT imo, there is not a shred of solid tangible evidence in there. And once you start applying these assumptions to other interesting investigations, such as Hans' egghead IAB link to Brehmer marked badges, the picture gets more and more distorted. What you end up with is a starting point of information that you feel is correct, but really is not, and over time the collecting community start to believe this.

Andreas makes several very good points, and any collectors that want to discover the "unknown" makers, should take on board these points. For some reason these points are intentionally being ignored. Some guys have blinkers on.

We are at a time, where it is going to be much more difficult to find the unknowns that are left, and maybe we will not find them. If we do, great. But, let's not wrongly manipulate the info we have just to make a fit.

regards
Graeme

[BassD]

i wrote it often and i know that many people don't share my opinion, but for me it was not realy forensic or science to make connections via needle systems or the kind of finish. Needly systems can bought from many suppliers, and there are a only few kind of finishes used for badges. So i don't wonder that we can found the same needle system or the same finish on different badges. I have no problem to say the badge XY has the design from company ABC, but i don't know why so many collectors MUST make a hard connection. Like Andreas wrote i am very suspicious that we have only a handfull companies that should be responsible for the most badges.

Another thing, we don't know all companies that produce IAB, GAB, CCC etc but we make connections and connections. Whats with the basics? German docs, markermarked packets etc.? Ok maybe we don't know how the IAB, GAB or CCC from such an marker looks like, but for me it was more important to know that there are more companies involved and i know their names than to make a connection via a needle system and have S&L Variant 327 or Deschler Type 87

I know that some people laugh about my thoughts. But hey, no problem with that. But what say this people when docs come up that proof that there are more firms involved than they think in their ideal world whit only a handfull companies?

[Graeme]

I know that some people laugh about my thoughts.

Hi Basti

Serious collectors do not laugh at your thoughts. What you have to say is always worth reading and it makes a lot of sense.

best regards
Graeme

[Bruce Simcox]

Hi Bass D......

......I am with Graeme about your statements: not everyone laughs at what you have to say. I do not laugh.

For me, it is enough to know that a given badge is authentic Third Reich era manufactured. What is important to me concerning pricing is condition.

Not so very long ago Detlev Niemann, and all the other dealers, priced genuine Third Reich badges according to condition. Makers marks were incidental and had no bearing on price. Take a look sometime at the old price guides, and you will see.

It makes me very happy to buy unmarked, excellent conditioned badges for less than a crappy maker marked badge. I always look at the front of a badge rather than the reverse. So, as far as I am concerned, those who pay inflated prices for a maker mark on a badge are doing me a favor.

So, keep it up fellas! I'm happy as a clam at high tide!

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Andreas,

I apologize for the late reply, you posted this the day I left for the MAX and didn't get a chance to respond. I also wanted to get some info together before I did because you cover a lot of ground here. Ground we have already covered in the past, but its good to rehash our thoughts again:

I don't say that all badges have to be twins because of some official regulations. I say that the fact that two badges come with a grim looking eagle isn't an evidence that two makers were working together.

If you have 50+ IAB designs, and 2 are nearly identical, then I think there is good reason to suggest the makers of these 2 badges worked together, or used the same graveur. Would you agree that the MK#1 through MK7 IAB makers worked closely together? Each of these 7 IABs have minute differences in obverse design, and they are marked 1 though 7 suggesting 7 different makers. Yet the obverse designs are nearly identical, much more identical then all the other 50+ IAB makers so there should be no question they worked closely together. Same can be said with the 13 Vienna PAB makers

That's correct you BELIEVE that only 10 makers were involved in flak badge production but do you really know it?

....all badges coming from a Wissmann master die will look more or less familiar to each other.

I agree with this Andreas, however I think the reverse hardware setups would be different, there would be different finishes, different rivetting styles, etc. if more than 1 maker used the same obverse dies. That is not the case, so that is how I am confident that there were only 10 makers involved in flak badge production. Lets take two Paratrooper badges as an example of what I am talking about. One is marked GWL, the other is unmarked. Is there any doubt that both of these badges were made by GWL? Just because a badge isn't marked, doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of forensic footprints that let us know that the unmarked badge was made by GWL. We don't have to rely on a maker mark, we can look at any number of fingerprints on an unmarked badge that leads us to the maker. There is a simple reason why we can identify 13 different makers of the Paratrooper badges; because each maker used its own style of reverse hardware, finish, rivets, etc. So you can see that even if all 13 makers used the EXACT SAME DIE provided by Wissmann, all the little differences on the reverse would still show 13 distinct makers.

Another example can be S&L Knights Crosses. There are some marked "4" and some that are not marked. Is there any doubt that these unmarked crosses are also made by S&L, when they have the exact same frames, same cores, same paint, same loop, etc.? Ofcourse not. Badges are the same, you cannot just look at 1 aspect, you have to look at the entire product, how its put together and how its finished.

What we are doing here is working with a chain of presumptions and that's far away from having basic evidence or can someone prove that Brehmer was involved in any IAB/GAB production or that Juncker really changed design?

Changing designs was not a big deal and actually pretty common with some other Juncker badges. Juncker used 2 different eagle and wreath designs for their Paratrooper badges. They used 3 different eagle designs and 3 different wreath designs for their Pilot badges. They used 4 different eagle designs for their ROAGs. Assmann used 6 different wreath designs for their Paratrooper badges!! All these badges are marked for Juncker or Assmann, so there is no possibility of "die sharing" as you suggest. Changing designs seems to have been an easy endeavor and even common.

Anyway we have around 140 - 160 listed badge producers but based on your SIGNIFICANT pieces of evidence around 5 - 10 firms were producing the whole supply of german combat badges with several variants.

By my count we have at least 52 different and distinct makers of IABs. Yes, I think it is possible that not all of the 160 firms that had a PK number made badges. Getting a license is one thing, but actually winning a government contract to make some badges is another IMO. Some of these firms could been contracted to make all sorts of tinnies, buttons, accouterments, etc. Most LW badges are marked, and we see only 13 makers responsible for the entire supply of all Combat and Qualification badges for the entire Luftwaffe! Another example is the EK2, it is estimated that 3-4 milliion EK2s were awarded, and probably 2 or 3 times that were likely produced. That is about 10 million crossed, but yet only about 55 firms are known to have made them! When I look at those statistics, its not hard for me to believe that 52+ firms were involved in IAB production out of a possible 160.

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

but for me it was not realy forensic or science to make connections via needle systems or the kind of finish. Needly systems can bought from many suppliers, and there are a only few kind of finishes used for badges.

Hi Basti,

These maker connections are not just based on a needle system or the kind of finish used. That is the point you guys just don't seem to get. It is NOT based on 1 or 2 little items like this, but rather on the COMBINATION of fingerprints that lead us to a certain maker. It is the COMBINATION!

I think the COMBINATION of forensic factors that Hans lays out is sufficient evidence to identify the egghead as Brehmer. If you guys can find this specific combination of factors on any other IAB, then I would agree with you that we should stick with "egghead" for the moment:

1. Square-like sheetmetal hinge
2. Roundwire catch with flat spot on top, on circular catchplate plate.
3. Pin with horizontal notch tool-mark near the hinge
4. Earlier-war frosted finish
5. Also used later-war silver wash, with distinctive streaking pattern
6. Almost identical design to Juncker IABs

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

Serious collectors do not laugh at your thoughts. What you have to say is always worth reading and it makes a lot of sense.

Its snide comments like this that make people shy away from posting their thoughts and opinions. If you would put your ego aside and realize that not everyone agrees with your line of thinking, WAF would be a friendlier place. At least when Andreas argues a point, he does it professionally and respectfully, but comments like yours add nothing to the conversation other than a back-handed slap that those of us that don't agree with you are not serious collectors.

If you don't feel comfortable calling these badges Brehmer, then so be it. But realize that others don't agree with you, and that should be OK too. Just because there isn't 100% consensus doesn't mean we are wrong or aren't "serious collectors". There are still guys that believe the Rounder RKs are wartime originals, even though most of the collecting community knows they are bogus. Just because there is no consensus doesn't mean the rounders aren't fakes...

Tom

[judorichard]

Great discussion

Very interesting thread. It makes me want to take a trip to Germany and visit the badge and medal factories. I wonder how many are still operating? Probably not many at a guess. I wonder how many former employees are still around? Maybe they could be tracked down. Sales catalogues and other advertising material would be really useful clues too. Has anyone gone over and tried an "Indiana Jones" expedition in search of this evidence? The search alone would make for an interesting book (or show on the military history channel!)

I would like to go over just to meet Otto Carius, the famous panzer ace. I heard he only retired last year at age 90 or so! It was his book "Panzers in the Mud" that got me back into collecting.

Anyway, great discussion guys.

[BassD]

Hi Tom,

i know that everyone has the focus on different points. You and other like to make connections with needle systems, pins, scratches on pins, finish (in combination with each other). For me that is not realy the right way. I prefer the basics and facts that i can realy proove. Look at the thread on GCA i started with firms which are not listed on the PK oder LDO list. So with this knowledge i asked you how you can make connections when you know that there war more firms out than the known, that involved in the production of badges. When i am right we have no unkown marker for the CCC? Is this right? Exceptional the individuals members of the AGMuK.


Another thing ist that we have more player in the game than the PK. And other authorities has other standards. So you can not compare the IAB production with the EK 2 or the LW badges production.

I know a lot of IAB cracks that will never post in WAF, GCA or other because they can only shake their head when they read that we have a new connection every two weeks. If this forensic work goes on, in the next year we have no unkown badges. Whant happened than? For some people it most be a very boring. Nothing more to discover. For the most collector it was a IAB, and it was an original. For these guys it was not important to make a connection, they also prefere to speak from “similar design”

Another thing, which was a personal thing. When I must read, that I (or other germans) not able to read and understand german documents than I reached a point where I can only say: ok, do what you want, wrote what you want. Most of you know that Andreas, Dirk and I spent a lot of time in the archives and read thousand of documents about badges, production, orders and rules. And after all, we know something, we know that we know nothing. But for some people this not count, because the combination of needle systems, finish etc. is more important. So we have a point where our views are totally different.

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Tom,

would you please explain the following points via pictures because i don't know what you mean and where to look for.

1. Square-like sheetmetal hinge
2. Roundwire catch with flat spot on top, on circular catchplate plate.
3. Pin with horizontal notch tool-mark near the hinge

Thanks in advance

[Bruce Simcox]

Hi Tom......

Posted by Graeme:
Serious collectors do not laugh at your thoughts. What you have to say is always worth reading and it makes a lot of sense.

I don't know how you arrived at the following about the above quote

Posted by Tom: Its snide comments like this that make people shy away from posting their thoughts and opinions.

Don't you think you may be reading far more into that statement than you should? Quite to the contrary, there is nothing snide in his remark at all. But, in my opinion the following is rather inflammatory

Posted by Tom: but comments like yours add nothing to the conversation other than a back-handed slap that those of us that don't agree with you are not serious collectors.

Seems a little self-righteous to me.

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Bruce,

Its very simple, Graeme is saying that I am not a serious collector. Apparently, if I don't agree with his line of thinking, then I and others that agree with me are not serious collectors. That comment is the epitome of self-righteousness.

I am perfectly fine with laying out all the evidence and then letting other collectors decide if it is right or not. I am not trying to convince everyone that I am right, just want to lay the information out there. That is the difference between us, since you guys don't seem to be content with letting others decide for themselves. You want us all to think like you do, but when we don't, then we are not "serious collectors". Sorry, but that is self-righteous and egotistical and I will not tow the party line.

I enjoy these discussions, but there has to be a level of mutual respect. Graeme's comment crosses the line, so if that is how you guys see it, then I will bow out and let the rest of your "serious collectors" get on with it.

Tom

[Bruce Simcox]

HI Tom......

......

That is the difference between us, since you guys don't seem to be content with letting others decide for themselves.

That is the biggest crock of crap yet! Because we disagree with your decision to name unknown badges, and ask for you to provide solid, irrefutable evidence to show why, you fall back on the above statement, and add insult with the following:

You want us all to think like you do, but when we don't, then we are not "serious collectors". Sorry, but that is self-righteous and egotistical and I will not tow the party line.

Instead, you continue to muddy the water with unsubstantiated claims, and accusations of perceived personal attack. Now you have taken the regrettable act of taking it to the level of an attack on the sensibilities of the collecting community at large. Shame on you sir!

You don't seem to be content with calling a 'spade a spade.' Your proof would lead us believe that a spade is a club. Sorry sir, I just don't follow that perception of logic.

I am happy that you are convinced, by your own efforts mind you, that the IAB under discussion is made by Brehmer. We saw the same thing with Deumer. Another unknown IAB 'named' by many now as the undisputed maker of a badge, again with speculative research.

To me it is pretty obvious that all anyone ever did in this thread was to ask you to refrain from quantifying your beliefs by stating them as fact, and supply everyone with the scientific evidence you used to come forward with those beliefs. Evidence arrived at by unbiased, objective, scientific research. But, according to you, unbiased, objective, scientific research has become some kind 'party line' that someone is trying to force upon you.