Mayer or Schickle?

[Norm F]

Hi Guys,

I'm no IAB expert, but can comment on the parallel situation in the Kriegsmarine badges. There's a similar discussion on this topic in this thread.

Although B.H. Mayer stamped L/18 into the pins of a few rare examples of the Schickle-design U-Boat, Destroyer and Minesweeper badges, there's no evidence they actually made the badges, and almost all of the badges are unmarked. All the badges match the Schickle catalog and have reverse setups that are reflected in Schickle's EK1 setups. The obverse designs and reverse setups are completely different from B.H. Mayer's own zinc lineups, and Mayer marked all of his own zincers L/18.

Schickle generally did not mark his KM badges, but appears to have supplied a large number of awards to the KM as the Schickle Minesweeper (for example) is one of the most common Tombak Minesweeper designs from the early wartime period. After the PK banned Schickle (and P&L) from further production of 3rd Reich awards in 1941, we have the Präsidialkanzlei's official published announcement in July, 1941 permitting the sell-off of Schickle's "remaining stock" ("noch auf Lager befindlichen") by the Pforzheim Chamber of Commerce (of which Herr Barth of Foerster & Barth was president) under the supervision of the LDO for quality control. It's therefore logical that any leftover Schickle awards purchased by F&B or his business partners in the Liefergemeinschaft Pforzheim, B.H. Mayer and C.F. Zimmermann would be marked with their LDO number to reflect their approval by the LDO.

It's this handful of Schickle products marked by others that have misled collectors for some years now, in my opinion. For KM badges, the badge forensics all point to a single maker for all the Tombak badges, marked or unmarked, and based on the Schickle catalog and Schickle's EK1 finishing methods that would be Schickle.

Here's the ultra-rare L/15 marked Schickle Destroyer that matches the Schickle catalog and next to it you see identical examples with precisely the same hardware application but stamped L/21 by F&B and L/18 by B.H.Mayer. All three from the same die and all three finished in identical styles - different from F&B and Mayer's own zinc Destroyers. The logical inference is that F&B and Mayer acquired some Schickle stock in the sale which was approved under the LDO's watchful eye.

Furthermore, the rounded sheet metal catch shown on the IAB at the top of this thread is typical for Schickle's marked wound badges and was not a common "stock item" used by other makers.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Norm,

Thanks for the explanation, and I certainly follow the logic here. And I don't necessarily disagree with the hypothesis here, however there is always one question that I continue to come back to:

We identify Schickle as the true maker of these awards in most part because we are lucky enough to have a Schickle catalog, and the badges are a match in obverse design. But the problem is that the only catalog we have ever found from a Pforzheim maker is Schickle. What if tomorrow a Zimmermann catalog pops up, with the exact same badges shown? Or the catalog from some other small-name Pforzheim maker? The fact that we know of no other catalog from the Pforzheim area makes this theory a little suspect to me. It seems to me that BH Mayer was attributed as the maker for decades, but then 1 catalog pops up from the Pforzheim area from a small-time, barely heard of company (Schickle), and then all of a sudden all these badges are attributed to Schickle based on their similar obverse design.

For all we know, some other Pforzheim maker could have been the true designer of these badges. Schickle, BH Mayer, Zimmermann & F&B could have all used stock photos in their catalogs and all sold these badges. That is totally possible, and nothing necessarily points to Schickle as the true maker.

The similar reverse hardware on Schickle EK1s is some very good evidence for sure, but have all other Pforzheim-based makers been compared also to see if any other maker could fit into the theory? If no other maker had similar hardware, then I would tend to agree that Schickle is the best candidate. But if other makers can be found with similar hardware, then the "catalog connection" to Schickle becomes very weak IMO.

Tom

[Hans Kondor]

What I don't understand... After P&L finished the production, Mayer bought their stock, thats why we can find L/18 marked P&L set-up variant IAB,GAB,PABs. But why only Mayer marked the P&L products and not marked the ones bought from Schickle? I haver never seen a C type catch Mayer design IAB, GAB, with L/18 mm.

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Hans,

Interestingly enough, a BH Mayer/Schickle with round wire catch, marked L/18 just popped up on MB's website a few weeks ago. But what does that tell us?

My question is, how do we know BH Mayer didn't produce all these badges, and simply supplied them to Schickle...or any other pforzheim maker for that matter? We don't have a BH Mayer catalog, so we have no idea what BH Mayer produced or offered or what their badges looked like.

These BH Mayer/Schickle hollow IABs, PABs and GABs are some of the most common badges to find. It seems to me, that this type of badge must have been produced in huge numbers, probably over many years. Does it make sense that Schickle could have produced ALL of these badges by themselves, only for a few months early in 1941 before they were put out of business? On the other hand, BH Mayer was a large and well established producer for the 3rd Reich. They were a prestigous firm, and produced the Official medals for the 1936 Olympics. They were also a large and early producer based on the shear number of their EK1s, KVKs and Wound badges we can find in collections today. And unlike Schickle, Mayer never went out of business during the war, so they had many years to produced these badges and that is likely why we see so many of them today. They produced all the way up until 1945, but were bombed out in the last few months of the war.

Tom

Tom

[Hans Kondor]

Hi Hans,


These BH Mayer/Schickle hollow IABs, PABs and GABs are some of the most common badges to find. It seems to me, that this type of badge must have been produced in huge numbers, probably over many years. Does it make sense that Schickle could have produced ALL of these badges by themselves, only for a few months early in 1941 before they were put out of business?

Tom

Tom

I totally agree with that Tom.

There is a real mess about that makers. We can found square catch variant L/15 marked wound badges and the so called Schickle type C catch WBs with 26 and L/18 mm. Not to mention the Mayer EKI with Godet maker mark

[Norm F]

...there is always one question that I continue to come back to:

We identify Schickle as the true maker of these awards in most part because we are lucky enough to have a Schickle catalog, and the badges are a match in obverse design. But the problem is that the only catalog we have ever found from a Pforzheim maker is Schickle. What if tomorrow a Zimmermann catalog pops up, with the exact same badges shown? Or the catalog from some other small-name Pforzheim maker? The fact that we know of no other catalog from the Pforzheim area makes this theory a little suspect to me. It seems to me that BH Mayer was attributed as the maker for decades, but then 1 catalog pops up from the Pforzheim area from a small-time, barely heard of company (Schickle), and then all of a sudden all these badges are attributed to Schickle based on their similar obverse design.

For all we know, some other Pforzheim maker could have been the true designer of these badges. Schickle, BH Mayer, Zimmermann & F&B could have all used stock photos in their catalogs and all sold these badges. That is totally possible, and nothing necessarily points to Schickle as the true maker.

The similar reverse hardware on Schickle EK1s is some very good evidence for sure, but have all other Pforzheim-based makers been compared also to see if any other maker could fit into the theory? If no other maker had similar hardware, then I would tend to agree that Schickle is the best candidate. But if other makers can be found with similar hardware, then the "catalog connection" to Schickle becomes very weak IMO.

Tom

Hi Tom,

It's hard to know where to begin since the evidence covers a wide area of discussion covered elsewhere (including this thread in the KM forum), but you're quite correct that the discovery of the Schickle catalog was a catalyst for the new theory. However, it was far from being the sole piece of evidence.

In fact, the old attribution to Mayer was based on a sole piece of evidence, and that was the very rare L/18 marked pieces, without any other corroborating evidence.

For now, let's consider the reverse setups. Schickle did not mark his war badges (in my view because they were award pieces, not private purchase) but fortunately we have the wound badges and EK1s which were marked as required. So let's look at the L/15 marked Schickle silver wound badge - it has the same complete setup (hinge, pin and rounded stamped sheet metal catch) as the IAB that Daniel opened the thread with. And twice we've seen this same type of wound badge double marked with first Schickle's L/15 in the body and then Zimmermann's L/52 in the pin for re-sale. This is perfectly consistent with the period announcement of Schickle's remaining stock sold in 1941 to members of the Liefergemeinschaft Pforzheim (Mayer, F&B and Zimmermann). So, could Mayer have made the wound badge, supplied it to Schickle who was then shut down because of "poor quality" while Mayer was not, and then sold back to Zimmermann? Far less likely then the simpler scenario of Schickle simply selling his production under the watchful eye of the LDO (as documented).

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Here are other Schickle products obviously marked by others. The Schickle L/15 marked Spanish Cross with Schickle's setup has been found additionally stamped L/21 by F&B and L/52 by Zimmermann, yet in both cases the reverse setups are clearly different from F&B and Zimmermann's own Spanish Cross production. This clearly shows the direction of stock was from Schickle to the Liefergemeinschaft Pforzheim and not the other way around.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Here's the Minesweeper badge from the Schickle catalog. There's a characteristic flaw in the swastika arm that is apparent in the catalog image. This same flaw is apparent in the vanishingly rare L/18 stamped Tombak Minesweeper (only two found so far) but is absent in the quite different B.H. Mayer zinc Minesweeper which is always stamped L/18.

Note that the Schickle Minesweeper again has the rounded stamped sheet metal catch that can also be found on the Schickle U-Boat, wound badge and EK1. This catch has never turned up on an L/18 marked zinc Minesweeper.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

The similar reverse hardware on Schickle EK1s is some very good evidence for sure, but have all other Pforzheim-based makers been compared also to see if any other maker could fit into the theory? If no other maker had similar hardware, then I would tend to agree that Schickle is the best candidate.

Here's the rare L/15 marked Schickle EK1 with the same hardware combination as the Schickle Minesweeper (courtesy of Hans N.)

[Norm F]

These BH Mayer/Schickle hollow IABs, PABs and GABs are some of the most common badges to find. It seems to me, that this type of badge must have been produced in huge numbers, probably over many years. Does it make sense that Schickle could have produced ALL of these badges by themselves, only for a few months early in 1941 before they were put out of business? On the other hand, BH Mayer was a large and well established producer for the 3rd Reich. They were a prestigious firm, and produced the Official medals for the 1936 Olympics. They were also a large and early producer based on the shear number of their EK1s, KVKs and Wound badges we can find in collections today. And unlike Schickle, Mayer never went out of business during the war, so they had many years to produced these badges and that is likely why we see so many of them today. They produced all the way up until 1945, but were bombed out in the last few months of the war.

Tom

Regarding the "short" amount of time for production of a large volume of awards, again this requires a paradigm shift in the collective understanding of Schickle and Mayer when it comes to war badges specifically. Otto Schickle was a major manufacturer of military awards before and during the war until July, 1941. The Tombak Minesweeper, U-Boat and Destroyer badges were also produced in large numbers, and if we focus on the Minesweepers (a practise which has led to many insights ) we see that the Schickle Minesweepers are almost as plentiful as the other two major suppliers of official award Tombak Minesweepers, Schwerin and Juncker. We also now know that the transition to zinc in Pforzheim began in 1941.

True, Mayer was an established manufacturer, but it is now apparent to me he was never a major provider of war badges to the KM. From April to June, 1941, the KM introduced the Blockade Breaker, Fleet Badge, Auxiliary Cruiser, 1st Pattern S-Boat and Coastal Artillery Badges. Interestingly B.H. Mayer produced these awards only in zinc and always marked them L/18. They are all uncommon so we see no mass production of KM awards from Mayer at all from mid-1941 onwards. So if Mayer was producing only zinc war badges from mid-1941 onwards and only for the private purchase market, then naturally the large numbers of unmarked Tombak awards were produced prior to that time. Furthermore all of Mayer's own KM badge production used setups different from the Schickle design badges.

The evidence suggests that Schickle was the premier Pforzheim war badge producer prior to July, 1941, with a large output, and after that Pforzheim largely backed out of war badge production aside from some small zinc production, while production ramped up in the other major sites of Vienna, Gablonz and Lüdenscheid.

Best regards,
---Norm

[troybyrom]

Schickle or Mayer

Hi Guys,

I'm no IAB expert, but can comment on the parallel situation in the Kriegsmarine badges. There's a similar discussion on this topic in this thread.

Although B.H. Mayer stamped L/18 into the pins of a few rare examples of the Schickle-design U-Boat, Destroyer and Minesweeper badges, there's no evidence they actually made the badges, and almost all of the badges are unmarked. All the badges match the Schickle catalog and have reverse setups that are reflected in Schickle's EK1 setups. The obverse designs and reverse setups are completely different from B.H. Mayer's own zinc lineups, and Mayer marked all of his own zincers L/18.

Schickle generally did not mark his KM badges, but appears to have supplied a large number of awards to the KM as the Schickle Minesweeper (for example) is one of the most common Tombak Minesweeper designs from the early wartime period. After the PK banned Schickle (and P&L) from further production of 3rd Reich awards in 1941, we have the Präsidialkanzlei's official published announcement in July, 1941 permitting the sell-off of Schickle's "remaining stock" ("noch auf Lager befindlichen") by the Pforzheim Chamber of Commerce (of which Herr Barth of Foerster & Barth was president) under the supervision of the LDO for quality control. It's therefore logical that any leftover Schickle awards purchased by F&B or his business partners in the Liefergemeinschaft Pforzheim, B.H. Mayer and C.F. Zimmermann would be marked with their LDO number to reflect their approval by the LDO.

It's this handful of Schickle products marked by others that have misled collectors for some years now, in my opinion. For KM badges, the badge forensics all point to a single maker for all the Tombak badges, marked or unmarked, and based on the Schickle catalog and Schickle's EK1 finishing methods that would be Schickle.

Here's the ultra-rare L/15 marked Schickle Destroyer that matches the Schickle catalog and next to it you see identical examples with precisely the same hardware application but stamped L/21 by F&B and L/18 by B.H.Mayer. All three from the same die and all three finished in identical styles - different from F&B and Mayer's own zinc Destroyers. The logical inference is that F&B and Mayer acquired some Schickle stock in the sale which was approved under the LDO's watchful eye.

Furthermore, the rounded sheet metal catch shown on the IAB at the top of this thread is typical for Schickle's marked wound badges and was not a common "stock item" used by other makers.

Best regards,
---Norm

Norm,
Great followup on the subject. A lot of good info in what you posted. It makes since that if one company sells off it's stock to others, that they should incorporate their mm's before selling. Thanks for this insight.

Troy

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Norm,

Thanks for the synopsis, very helpful and informative. I know I have read it all before, but its a bit confusing and therefore very helpful to read it over again and see all the evidence laid out in one place.

The most convincing evidence to me is the Spanish Crosses marked L/52 and L/21, but clearly different from these makers own crosses. That is strong evidence that these crosses went FROM Schickle TO Zimmermann & F&B.

There is still the niggling suspicion of the possibility of some 3rd party supplier, supplying all these badges to Schickle, Zimmermann, Mayer and F&B, etc. But admittedly that is a rare chance, and the only way to know for sure is to find catalogs from these other makers that show different obverse designs. That would confirm that the design of these badges was solely Schickle IMO. But until that day, this is good evidence that Schickle was indeed the maker of these badges.

Thanks Norm.

Tom

[Norm F]

There is still the niggling suspicion of the possibility of some 3rd party supplier, supplying all these badges to Schickle, Zimmermann, Mayer and F&B, etc. But admittedly that is a rare chance, and the only way to know for sure is to find catalogs from these other makers that show different obverse designs.

Hi Tom,

I suppose, but if they were all simultaneously dealing in the badges from a 3rd party "mystery supplier", it's odd that only Schickle and P&L were slapped down and not the others, and a coincidence that the "mystery supplier" would cease in mid-July right when Schickle was shut out. From that point in time onwards Mayer's and F&B's own design zinc KM badges appear with their maker marks and their own unique setups.

Having said that, I do in fact believe that for some badges (but not all) they would all get their obverse dies (not the completed badges) from the same supplier, Paul Wissmann. We know from the original S&L correspondence, that Wissman from Pforzheim provided dies to S&L for some (but not all) of their KM badges which have the same obverse designs as the Pforzheim makers. Fortunately there are still small die characteristics and reverse setups that allow us to tell them apart. For example, Schickle, P&L, Mayer, F&B and S&L all shared the same obverse design for their Minesweepers (the Type 2 in the Minesweeper Classification System), but are all distinguishable by their own subtle die characteristics, different trimming outlines and trademark hardware setups, not to mention Mayer's and F&B's habit of marking their badges.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Hans N]

Lets not forget that there has always been a doubt in the past in regards of the so called Mayer badges made in zinc but we know from the Schickle EK´s that zinc cores was in use in the Schickle EK´s before the company so strangely was ordered to sell their tools AND remaining stock of badges in mid 1941.

The double LDO marked badges is the final nail in regards who made these badges IMHO. LDO must have given their approval to allow anything to be double LDO marked and that must have come due to one reason only - the sell out of the remaing stock of badges. There is no other logical answer to that as i see it.

[Norm F]

Lets not forget that there has always been a doubt in the past in regards of the so called Mayer badges made in zinc but we know from the Schickle EK´s that zinc cores was in use in the Schickle EK´s before the company so strangely was ordered to sell their tools AND remaining stock of badges in mid 1941.

The double LDO marked badges is the final nail in regards who made these badges IMHO. LDO must have given their approval to allow anything to be double LDO marked and that must have come due to one reason only - the sell out of the remaing stock of badges. There is no other logical answer to that as i see it.

Hi Hans,

I agree, Schickle had already started working in zinc in 1941. But one small clarification: the PK ordered Schickle to cease production of awards of the 3rd Reich, not to "sell their tools". Following that decree, the PK then gave Schickle permission to sell off his "remaining stock" (no mention of tools) under the auspices of the Chamber of Commerce and the LDO.

Best regards,
---Norm