Announcement

**Andreas Klein** · 10-07-2011, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Thomas Durante View Post

Hi Andreas,
But that doesn't discount that they were also the makers of the Daisy IABs too.

That's why we have this discussion here. If we have a positive proof that Daisy was made by Deumer i have no problem but so far we have nothing like that.

Correct me if i'm wrong ... the link to the Daisy IAB was made by the Daisy PAB. No research on the IAB sector only the idea that if someone likes apples that he (must) like pears too.

As mentioned, there is evidence to support this as laid out carefully in the PAB book.

I will read it and answer in detail to that after the weekend because i haven't it with me.

Observer and Paratrooper badge designs at least twice each, so why not their IABs & PABs too?

Tom here we discuss about apples and pears. Changing a part or certain parts on a multi piece award is much easier than on a single piece award. On a multi piece award you still can use parts of your tools or existing stuff. Perhaps you were supported by sub contractors too.

On a single piece award you have to change the whole production process.

So if we talk about the IAB we should stay at the IAB. Do we have other makers with such a drastic design change? I don't think so.

Hymnen is a maker who marked his badges and had their very own unique design so i think everyone knows of whom we speaking. Do we see a design change in their production which look like a apple was transformed into a pear?

Hollow, half-hollow, massive production and different materials (nickel silver, tombak, zink) and no design change. The same to Mayer, ShuCo, Wiedmann and GWL. Isn't this a forensic conclusion that design changes of the IAB wasn't made?

**Andreas Klein** · 10-07-2011, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Thomas Durante View Post

Hi Andreas,
Thanks for clarifying your position. I am glad that we both agree that Deumer made the deformed leaf IABs.

Hi Tom,

for no missunderstanding: i wouldn't say that Deumer made all of them because i can't exclude other makers (in Lüdenscheid or elsewhere) using the same design so i would call it - as we made it with SHuCo - Deumer Design.

**Michou** · 10-07-2011, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Thomas Durante View Post

Hi Michou,

So you are calling an IAB the "Daisy Type II", but it doesn't have a daisy on it? What does the Type II stand for?? To me this is all much more confusing then calling these "Deumer".

Tom

Hi Tom,

the nickname daisy was taken over of hollow zinc PAB (with daisy on it) with same needle system as hollow zinc IAB. I thought that would be admit in collecting circles

Michou

**Thomas Durante** · 10-07-2011, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Andreas Klein View Post

So to say We know that ... is the wrong term and i would say I believe that ... is correct and gives the overall subject another view.

I don't agree Andreas, because we can clearly see that the crimping tool was no longer being used for the catch on the Deumer IABs and PABs. Why would Deumer stop crimping the catch in if the tool continued to work? Clearly they preferred the crimping method because they continued to use the HINGE crimp method.

Originally posted by Andreas Klein View Post

Well, when the police find my fingerprint at a place than they can prove via forensic that this fingerprint belongs to me.

But therefore my fingerprint has to belisted in a database (let's call it the basic evidence). But if they haven't me in their database i will be an unknown person .... i can go to different places and without the basic evidence they can only prove that the same fingerprint can be found on differnt places ---- they can't link it to a real name.

There are plenty of murder cases where there was no dead body found at all. Yet, there was sufficient FORENSIC EVIDENCE to convict a person for murder, even though there was no body. Again, if forensic evidence is good enough to convict someone and put them to death for it, then I would say that forensic evidence is plenty good for benign uses such as linking unmarked badges to makers.

Tom

**Thomas Durante** · 10-07-2011, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Andreas Klein View Post

Btw Tom,

you speak about a (perhaps) broken crimping tool in the PAB prduction. In this thread we speak about IAB production.

Have you similiar photos showing an IAB with this damage to support the idea of a design change in IAB production?

Andreas, in my post above I show an IAB and a PAB. IMO, Deumer used the same crimping tool for the catch on their IABs and PABs. After this tool broke, you can see that Deumer used the SAME EXACT CATCH AND SQUARE CATCHPLATE for both their IABs and PABs.

I also don't think its a coincidence that both Deumer IABs and PABs switched designs. Actually, I think it is a good piece of evidence that we are on the right track with Deumer as the maker. Not only did Deumer switch obverse designs on their IABs when going from early, hollow production to later, solid-backed crimped production; but they also switched obverse designs on their PABs as well. This pattern of changing designs can be seen on other Deumer badges, such as their Paras, Observers and Pilot badges. All this tells me that Deumer had a precedent of changing designs, so not really out of the ordinary IMO.

Tom

**Thomas Durante** · 10-07-2011, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Andreas Klein View Post

for no missunderstanding: i wouldn't say that Deumer made all of them because i can't exclude other makers (in Lüdenscheid or elsewhere) using the same design so i would call it - as we made it with SHuCo - Deumer Design.

Hi Andreas,

Its possible, but based on the evidence I don't think so because it doesn't appear that different makers could use the same exact obverse design. For example, why do the MK#1 through MK#7 IABs all have DIFFERENT obverse designs? All 7 of these badges have very similar designs, but each is different in tiny little ways. But clearly they were supplied by 1 die maker, so why are they not identical? Another example are the 13 different makers that used the VIENNA PAB design. Why are no two vienna PAB designs exactly the same? They are all different in tiny ways.

And that can all be seen without having to look at the reverse of these badges at all. Once you turn them over, you can find a whole bunch of different reverse setups, which further indicate that different makers were involved. Each maker had their own way of construction, so when you take all this into account, I think it is impossible to find two makers that used the EXACT same obverse design AND used the same exact reverse hardware materials AND attached them in the EXACT same fashion.

Tom

**C&A** · 10-08-2011, 03:10 PM

Another suspicious discussion...the roots we find into the GCA once again.

A completely superfluous forum but the God of it understand this never.
Without the brain and the threads of the moderators the GCA dies quickly.

Christian

Announcement

IAB classification

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread