New Addition - Possible maker connection - Rettenmaier = "Flatback" Maker

[BassD]

so íf you can told me what car i drive when you know what kind of tire i use, maybe i should asked you for the numbers ob the next bingo session.

And again... where is the proof?

i have

- docs and statementes from the firms that show clearly that the firms NOT make the hardware and buy them from other firms

you have

- the badge and that you believe or easily say they did it self

We can do it in another way. Please show me the proof that Deschler or another firm was able to make needle systems, that they have the maschines and the knowledge. It was funny to argue that i have the badge with hardware (unique or common) so the firm must make the needle system self. Very easy thinking. It is up to you to bring to proof out there. So where is the proof that the firms have the maschines and the knowledge to do it. I know from Deschler, S&L, Wernstein, Assmann, Carl Wild an other that they could not make needle systems or that they buy it. It is funny that your side of the table expected that we show the proove and the only thing from your side comes is: the badge and that you believe... for me very thin ice on that you walk

so here we have a totaly different view how to rate it. And from this point we go different ways and all following discussion are useless because we have an other basic from that we discuss

There are so many basic questions out there (did we know all firms that produce combat badges?) that for me it was not serious to say this IS an Deschler or S/L or FLL badge, it must be say it COULD be a Deschler, S&L or FLL badge.

but i wrote it some postings before... your side of the table change very fast the database and in discussions with such a badge the badge is always be called Deschler, S&L and so on. So you make the facts...

always interesting, write or speak you with some guys from the other side of the table via PN or face to face they often said that alle the "hard proofs" are not so hard as they wrote it on the internet. But

[Andreas Klein]

The proof is in the badges themselves. As I previously wrote, many makers either made their own hardware or they got it from a third party supplier that didn't supply many other makers.

Nice guesswork Tom, but please show us any hard evidence for that?

You can't because it's wrong. According to 2 big players in the business S&L and our supplier the award makers weren't able to produce setups because of missing machines, tools, workers and knowledge.

Have a look at the:

- Rettenmaier
- Poellath
- Deschler

badges, mentioned by Norm ... they all have the same setup (surely because they all got it from the same source), so the only evidence you trust - the badges itself - show you that you are totally wrong with this statement.

Here is a good example, a very characteristic catch found only on Schauerte & Hohfeld badges. If S&H used a third party supplier for this catch, why don't we find it on badges by many other Ludenscheid-based makers??

Quit simple: because you shut your eyes ... you believe that every badge came from one and the same maker. Have you ever asked yourself how a "Baumeister" or a "Kissing" IAB is looking ???

Why do we find several badges always unmarked and with a wide varity of different setup?

Could it be possible that "Wissmann" supplied several firms with the same tool design???

So show me the evidence that S&H had the honour to use a totally unique setup which was only allowed to use by S&H.

And explain me why S&H marked badges show the same hardware like other Lüdenscheid based makers?

Same can be said about the catch on the right, as far as I am aware this catch has only been found on wartime Deschler-marked badges, and only 1 type of unmarked CCC. If it was mass produced and sold by a third party supplier, wouldn't we see it on many other makers badges, especially in the Munich area?

No, because the supplier supported around 1/3 of all listed makers (according to Mr. Doehle) all over the reich. Anyway i think Norm has showed you in the thread that Poellath, Rettenmeier and Deschler got exactly the same hardware because they all bought from the same supplier ---- so how can you exclude Rettenmeier or Poellath as maker of the CCC which you linked to Deschler?

[Norm F]

Hi Basti,

The proof is in the badges themselves. As I previously wrote, many makers either made their own hardware or they got it from a third party supplier that didn't supply many other makers.

Nice guesswork Tom, but please show us any hard evidence for that?

You can't because it's wrong. According to 2 big players in the business S&L and our supplier the award makers weren't able to produce setups because of missing machines, tools, workers and knowledge.

Hi Andreas,

What Tom has stated is not contradicting what you and Basti have said -- please note the common ground here:

Tom: "...either made their own hardware or they got it from a third party supplier that didn't supply many other makers... Whether S&H and Deschler made these catches themselves, or used a third party supplier that didn't happen to sell the same catch to any other firm is irrelevant to me. It can be used to point to a specific maker and that is all that is important in this discussion."

Basti: "...docs and statements from the firms that show clearly that the firms NOT make the hardware and buy them from other firms"

Common ground: Both acknowledge that firms were supplied setups by 3rd party companies. Nobody is denying this.

Whether a few badge companies also happened to make some of the catches is not really important. Sometimes the same catch or hinge is used by many different manufacturers but occasionally a particular type is used only by a few or maybe even just one or two. It's these patterns of use that help (along with other factors) in our analyses of unmarked badges. That's how Frank theorized the Wiedmann connection to that EK1 in his book that you published - a good theory and hopefully some other evidence will eventually come up to help confirm or refute it.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Norm,

because of this point of view:

It can be used to point to a specific maker and that is all that is important in this discussion."

there is no common ground between us because as result a maker connection goes as follow:

Tom:

1.
I have an Deschler marked IAB with a noticeable looking setup.

2.
I haven an unmarked CCC with the same setup.

Conclusion:

The CCC must be made by Deschler and all other CCC with same obverse but different setups are variants coming from Deschler too.

Mission accomplished.

We:

1.
I have an Deschler marked IAB with a noticeable looking setup.

2.
I have written documents from the time that firm X was the producer of this setup and that Deschler was one of their customers. So far so good ... matches the IAB - letter must be true.

3.
The document says that the same setup was sold to Rettenmaier, Poellath and alot of other makers too.

4.
Now i look at the CCC and see the setup. I know the setup was produced by firm X - a fulltime setup maker who never produced any badges - but who bought it before it was soldered to the CCC.
Deschler? Poellath? Rettenmeier?

Conclusion:

I can only prove that the setup on the CCC is a product by firm X. But knowing that firm X didn't produce any badges and sold the setup i'm looking at to alot of different makers i can't say who bought it to produce the CCC. So the CCC and any variants of it is an "unkown maker" CCC.

[Norm F]

Hi Norm,
because of this point of view:
there is no common ground between us because as result a maker connection goes as follow:

Tom:

1. I have an Deschler marked IAB with a noticeable looking setup.
2. I haven an unmarked CCC with the same setup.

Conclusion:

The CCC must be made by Deschler and all other CCC with same obverse but different setups are variants coming from Deschler too.

Mission accomplished.

We:

1. I have an Deschler marked IAB with a noticeable looking setup.
2. I have written documents from the time that firm X was the producer of this setup and that Deschler was one of their customers. So far so good ... matches the IAB - letter must be true.
3. The document says that the same setup was sold to Rettenmaier, Poellath and alot of other makers too.
4. Now i look at the CCC and see the setup. I know the setup was produced by firm X - a fulltime setup maker who never produced any badges - but who bought it before it was soldered to the CCC.
Deschler? Poellath? Rettenmeier?

Conclusion:

I can only prove that the setup on the CCC is a product by firm X. But knowing that firm X didn't produce any badges and sold the setup i'm looking at to alot of different makers i can't say who bought it to produce the CCC. So the CCC and any variants of it is an "unkown maker" CCC.

I agree with your "We" approach to your hypothetical scenario, and I bet Tom would too! In that case one needs to correlate to other factors to try to narrow down the list of potential makers. For example, if the CCC in question showed identical construction details to a marked example, or if there were several variant setups on identically produced CCCs and every single one of them occurred also on other Deschler marked products whereas only one of them appeared on the other two makers, or if there were decent anecdotes of Vets picking up their souvenirs at the Deschler factory, or a catalog image with a recognizable obverse flaw, etc. etc.

This why I say we don't disagree. If there's only one clue you have a "theory"; If there are two you may have an "interesting theory"; if there are several different clues you have a "really good theory"; if you have an overwhelming number of clues (like the S&L Minesweeper summary I presented earlier) then you have a "reasonable assumption", if you have a consistently marked badge and factory documentation then you have a "irrefutable fact" - unless it's a fake or a post-war assembled product which is a whole other discussion.

Now we may certainly disagree on how many clues collectively provide a convincing case for a "reasonable assumption", but I think you have to admit there is at least some common ground between the "two sides" in this approach.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Thomas Durante]

Hi guys,

Andreas and Basti, it is clear that no matter what I post, you continue to repeat the same old arguements over and over again. Reading what you have wrote today, I see nothing new in your posts. You back it up with no documents or evidence, you just continue to say "it can't be done". Meanwhile, I continue to back up my position with firm examples of how it can be done; connecting hardware to makers. A prime example of this is the Wiedmann connection in Post #150, taken right out of the book you published. I noticed you both just glossed right over that one and continued to just say it can't be done, it can't be done. Well, it can be done, and your author even did it!

You keep mentioning my connection of the CCC to Deschler, so lets stick with that theme and go directly to the book you published to further illustrate the hypocrisy of your position. As we can see in the Deschler chapter, this maker is said to have used 3 different cores for their EK1s. All the crosses that used Core #2 and Core #3 are marked for Deschler, but all the ones shown with Core #1 are unmarked.

Why couldn't this be a case of two different makers, as you would have us believe? No mention of another maker in the book, all 3 crosses are connected together under Deschler due to the frame and reverse hardware. So here again your hypocrisy is palpable; you have no problem connecting makers to unmarked badges based on hardware in your own book. But when I or Norm or anyone else attempts to do it, you poo-poo it saying it cannot be done.

I really don't understand your reluctance to see that these connections can be made. Sure, not in every case it can be done because some makers used very common hardware, but in most cases it can and has been done successfully.

Tom

p.s., one final interesting note. As I looked through the book I came upon the "round 3" EK1s. Immediately the reverse hardware struck me as a product of "Deschler". I see that in Dietrich's and George's EK1 book, they have this cross attributed to Deschler!! So again, its not magic what we are doing, many good researchers, including Dietrich and George are making these logical connections. And they made these connections more than 2 years ago! They were the first, so its not some "new magic" that we all-of-a-sudden came up with on a whim...

And make no mistake, I completely agree with Frank's connection above, that all 3 EK1s are attributed to Deschler, even the unmarked one based on his "forensic connections". I think he is exactly right.

Tom

[Norm F]

Hi Guys,

Getting back to the Rettenmaier theme that started the thread, they're still in business in Schwäbisch-Gmund today and here's their website:

http://www.alois-rettenmaier.de/index.php/en/

Does anyone live in the area and could perhaps simply ask them if their records or memory can confirm whether or not they produced war badges during WW2? We know about the marked EK1s but maybe we'd get lucky and they'd say "Sure, we made unmarked flatbacks up until 1957!"

Best regards,
---Norm

[Thomas Durante]

This why I say we don't disagree. If there's only one clue you have a "theory"; If there are two you may have an "interesting theory"; if there are several different clues you have a "really good theory"; if you have an overwhelming number of clues (like the S&L Minesweeper summary I presented earlier) then you have a "reasonable assumption", if you have a consistently marked badge and factory documentation then you have a "irrefutable fact" - unless it's a fake or a post-war assembled product which is a whole other discussion.

Now we may certainly disagree on how many clues collectively provide a convincing case for a "reasonable assumption", but I think you have to admit there is at least some common ground between the "two sides" in this approach.

Best regards,
---Norm

Very well said Norm. I don't know why they have a hard time admitting there is some common ground here and that forensics play an important role in the connections to makers (Wiedmann a perfect example, Deschler, etc.). You and I have said probably a dozen times in this thread that the documents A&B have found are very important, but I have yet to hear them say that forensics can play a big part too.

But that is OK, it is apparent from the EK1 book they published that they do infact believe in the forensics side, even if they won't admit it openly on the forum

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

And yet another example, straight out of the book; Petz and Lorenz. This time showing a DRL sports badge with the same reverse hardware setup as an EK1 is provided as the link to P&L for this cross. Now, how can such a connection be made if this reverse hardware is "common and was supplied to 1/3 of the makers all over the Reich" as Andreas and Basti have argued?? The answer is simple, they are wrong and these connections can be made by looking at the reverse hardware. Don't take my word for it, just look for yourself in their book for all these examples.

Again, I have no doubt that Andreas and Basti have found good period documents that confirm that some makers used third party suppliers for their hardware. But to extrapolate that into saying that all makers used third party suppliers is nonesense. Especially when you look at badges like this Petz & Lorenz, or Wiedmann or Meybauer, etc. When you look at these badges, you have to believe that these makers either:

a. Made their own hardware......or......b. Used a third-party supplier that didn't supply to many or any other firms that made these badges.

That is all we are trying to say here. And there can be common ground. Both "sides of the table" can be correct in that some makers used common 3rd party suppliers and some did not.

Tom

p.s., again I have to give credit to Dietrich and George for putting this connection to P&L together more than 2 years ago. Using a similar sports badge as the connection, and even saying "The key to identifying these crosses as Petz & Lorenz's product can be found on their reverses." Well done guys, and another connection that I think is spot on based on the unique reverse hardware.

[BassD]

We are the publisher of Franks book, but that not means that we have no other thinking about some connections. Frank is the autor and bring down his own thoughts.

I asked you again and again. Where is the proof that some markers made their ohn needle system? You have no proof. YOU say some did it because you have the badge. And that is all you have. You did not know if they have the maschines and the knowledge. And this point you can not discuss away. Maybe there are one or more firms that make their own hardware. But still we have no proof for that we can not argue with that. At the moment for me more speaks again that than for your statement.

i wrote it also again and again, we have totaly different views of some points. And that ist why i am stop posting here. Make the connections you want with scratches on the needle and other strong forensic. That is not my kind of research. But is ok, nobody must have the same opion i have. I am waiting for the day there is no unknown badge out there. With this speed from the last two years i think i can not take very long.
Like Dietrich wrote some post before. There is more out there than we know. And with this knowledge i am carefull to do reasearch in the way you do it. Maybe a visit in the Bundesarchiv or the NARA will change your kind of thinking. Believe me, after reading and undestanding this thousands of docs you will have an other opinion about some things.

I have no problem to say: it could be the firm XY ... but i not say it is the firm XY and lets change the database. That is the very big difference between us

Maybe the other side of the table was disappointed or is laughing about us when they read the woundbadge book. We will only write about unmarked badges that COULD be from firm XY, but not they ARE from the firm XY But you will sure we have an extra chapter about needle systems and how the systems works. Maybe an interesting chapter for some people.

It was an interesting discussion by the way. And now a nice day to all out there... i have to do read some docs

[Andreas Klein]

Now, how can such a connection be made if this reverse hardware is "common and was supplied to 1/3 of the makers all over the Reich" as Andreas and Basti have argued?? The answer is simple, they are wrong and these connections can be made by looking at the reverse hardware. Don't take my word for it, just look for yourself in their book for all these examples.

Tom, i really enjoy the time you invest to blow smoke and produce hot air but read carefully what i wrote:

I gave you informations about combat badges (not iron cross setups, not sport badges setups) and i was talking about Deschler and i gave you an answer to your point:

Same can be said about the catch on the right, as far as I am aware this catch has only been found on wartime Deschler-marked badges, and only 1 type of unmarked CCC. If it was mass produced and sold by a third party supplier, wouldn't we see it on many other makers badges, especially in the Munich area?

But i repeat it again for you:

1.
It is not found only and exclusive on wartime Deschler marked badges. Norm showed you and us that it can be found on marked Rettenmaier and Poellath badges aswell.

2.
It isn't found only with mass in the Munich area or at badges from Munich based makers because Rettenmaier and Poellath - as allready by hardware identified customers - weren't located in munich.

So the Poellath and Rettenmaier badges underline exactly what we wrote and can prove with wartime documents.

That is what we call research work: the combination of hardware (badges) in conformity to "software" (documents).

The answer is simple, they are wrong and these connections can be made by looking at the reverse hardware.

...

Don't take my word for it, just look for yourself in their book for all these examples.

You keep mentioning my connection of the CCC to Deschler, so lets stick with that theme and go directly to the book you published to further illustrate the hypocrisy of your position.

Thanks for your kind and friendly statement. We will come back with our hypocrisy after the Kassel show.

[Thomas Durante]

It is not found only and exclusive on wartime Deschler marked badges. Norm showed you and us that it can be found on marked Rettenmaier and Poellath badges aswell.

Hi Andreas,

He did? That indeed would be interesting, so please post that marked Rettenmaier or Poellath badge here for those of us that missed it.

If indeed the unique "Deschler" catch can really be found on a Rettenmaier or Poellath-marked badge as you say, then I would certainly consider the possibility that the Deschler-attributed CCCs might not all be made by Deschler. As true researchers and investigators, we must keep an open mind.

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

Tom, i really enjoy the time you invest to blow smoke and produce hot air but read carefully what i wrote:

I gave you informations about combat badges (not iron cross setups, not sport badges setups) and i was talking about Deschler and i gave you an answer to your point

Hi Andreas,

Its really not much time at all, some quick scans right out of your own published book is all I really did to illustrate my point. It is very convenient to have this book at my disposal, again it is a great book with great detailed pics of hardware. A great investment IMO, I certainly recommend it

As a recap, I will ask a few quick questions (in the Basti style which I like very much because it brings a specific point):

1. Do you agree with Dietrich & Frank's connection to Wiedmann?
2. Do you agree with Dietrich & Frank's connection to P&L?
3. Do you agree with Dietrich & Frank's connection to Deschler?

This is more for my curiosity than anything else. I think you do agree with these connections, and therefore on some level you agree that hardware can be unique in cases and can be a fingerprint to certain makers. I believe you to be a logical collector and a great evidence-based researcher, so I have to think you agree with what we are saying on some level. I think you have just found a few documents to a few makers and are extrapolating that onto every maker in the Third Reich. I can certainly see where you are coming from, but I think it is an honest mistake and only time will tell who will be right in the end.

I mean, could it really be that hard to have the "machinery or known how" to create a pin or a catch?? Maybe for some yes, I do not doubt that. Maybe for others they didn't want to bother with it and just bought them from a third party supplier, sure I can bet alot of makers did this too. But to believe that not a single one had the machinery or know how to create its own hardware? No way.

Tom

[Andreas Klein]

He did? That indeed would be interesting, so please post that marked Rettenmaier or Poellath badge here for those of us that missed it.

Please go back to post #74 for the KVK and here is Rettenmaier attached (thanks to 5tefan):

[Andreas Klein]

I mean, could it really be that hard to have the "machinery or known how" to create a pin or a catch?? Maybe for some yes, I do not doubt that.

I can't say it for all but i can say and prove it:

- für Steinhauer&Lück: YES
- for Deschler: YES
- for Poellath: YES
- for Rettenmeier: YES

and when i see how many unmarked badges are attributed for example to Steinhauer&Lück than the conclusion for the only hardware based forensic is: sorry it doesn't work, it is more disleading than helpfull.