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

[Panzercracker]

....I haven't heard people say "Juncker design" on the nickel/brass based IABs or PABs. Not only did the hardware differentiate, but there were change-ups in those dies too? Why? Could it be that some maker's, that popped up later, like Heubach, began "apprenticing" in the Juncker factory before releasing their own unique designs -from their own factories? I'm NOT saying this is a fact, but might explain the many differences. Yes, dies do wear out, but....

--Rgds, Ken

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Ken,

do you have pictures of the design you mean?

When it comes to Juncker attributed stuff we have a real highlight of hardware forensic

[Panzercracker]

Hi Andreas. Sorry, I'm finding your English hard to follow, but if you do a search on the "Forums", you'll clearly see the differences on both the front and backsides.

--Ken

Hi Ken,

do you have pictures of the design you mean?

When it comes to Juncker attributed stuff we have a real highlight of hardware forensic

[Norm F]

So based on your thoughts Deschler produced this catch until 1957 and sold it to S&L - right?

Hi Andreas,

Although both formed from a double wire stock, the Deschler catch is different from the S&L '57 version in the small details. If they came from the same supplier then they were from two different time periods, but no particular reason why they had to come from the same maker.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Thomas Durante]

Although both formed from a double wire stock, the Deschler catch is different from the S&L '57 version in the small details. If they came from the same supplier then they were from two different time periods, but no particular reason why they had to come from the same maker.

I agree with Norm on this as well; similar but different enough shape and tool marks to be from a different time period or different maker.

Tom

[Panzercracker]

I don't dabble in the '57 stuff, but to my eye, the '57 catch Norm has shown differs from the wartime Deschler catches Tom has shown.

BTW, another way one could look at early N/S Juncker is the "timeline" method, whereby one could "assume" the flat stock catch variants came "before" the "round-C". Unless you have 100 of these babies in hand, you'd think what I'm saying is F.O.S. -but there are differences on the obverse. --And I don't think it's just the funny metallurgy either...

--Ken

I agree with Norm on this as well; similar but different enough shape and tool marks to be from a different time period or different maker.

Tom

[Hans N]

Hi Norm,

i don't have access to GCA so that i can't read what Hans wrote in that thread, but i'm quite sure he wouldn't link it to S&L if he had it in his hands because i doesn't have the "sawtooth" feeling like the rim of wartime badges which is the result of the S&L die.

I called it out as an S&L from the obverse design alone which is rather special. I also posted some links to other badges with hardwares like that one and you thanked me and you said it looks like a match and then asked for my opinon about the hardware with the words "What would you say? Unmarked wartime one or something later ?"

My reply to that was (and still is for the record):
"well to be 100% certain the time frame for that type of hardware are needed to be determined but with what we know this far i personally would regard it as a "something later" rather than a war time one. "

[Norm F]

BTW, another way one could look at early N/S Juncker is the "timeline" method, whereby one could "assume" the flat stock catch variants came "before" the "round-C".
...
--Ken

Hi Ken,

I don't presume to know anything about IABs but with regards to the Juncker Kriegsmarine Tombak badges the round-wire "c" catches appear earlier than the flat-wire catch variants. But I guess there's no reason why the default catch choice couldn't be different for different lines of badges?

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

I called it out as an S&L from the obverse design alone which is rather special. I also posted some links to other badges with hardwares like that one and you thanked me and you said it looks like a match and then asked for my opinon about the hardware with the words "What would you say? Unmarked wartime one or something later ?"

My reply to that was (and still is for the record):
"well to be 100% certain the time frame for that type of hardware are needed to be determined but with what we know this far i personally would regard it as a "something later" rather than a war time one. "

Hi Hans,

Thanks very much for clearing that up.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Panzercracker]

Thanks for getting back Norm. Of note, on the early flat-wire IAB by "Juncker", is it's smaller weight and appearance. It has a short and stalky look to it much like the "Heubach designs" that came out later. I'm only throwing some ??? out there because there could be other variables involved in who made what and when. IMO, the flat catch variants (Juncker N/S IAB) have a little more detail too, but......

--Rgds, Ken

Hi Ken,

I don't presume to know anything about IABs but with regards to the Juncker Kriegsmarine Tombak badges the round-wire "c" catches appear earlier than the flat-wire catch variants. But I guess there's no reason why the default catch choice couldn't be different for different lines of badges?

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

..."do you believe that firms like S&L and other big players are really responsible for this quantify of variants?", a most definitive YES. Why not?? Since we are talking about FLL badges in this thread, lets take some of their badges for a quick example. Here you can see 6 distinct reverse hardware setups. ...Now, these are all FLL-marked badges so there should be no talk of possible different makers here that possibly shared the "FLL design".
YES there certainly was many variations to be found by one single firm. Why would a single firm need all these reverse hardware setups? Your guess is as good as mine, but the bottom line is that it proves that a single maker used many variations.

Tom

Hi Tom,

Just thought I'd add one other observation to the point you made earlier about multiple setups from one firm. When you look at the wide variety of setups on the zinc marked FLLs that you illustrated with your compilation and compare that to the wide variety of setups on the S&L Coastal Artillery badge, it's interesting that there's no overlap between them. So we're seeing two prolific Lüdenscheid makers with a lot of internal variation in hardware combinations and yet which do not duplicate one another. Therefore, even if they did happen to use the same home workers at times for assembly (something we assume on the basis of anecdotes and interviews), then often the home workers must have received different instructions from each firm, resulting in recognizable patterns of setups for each maker.

I know there are occasional examples at other times when we do see shared exact setup combinations (like GWL and Deumer, or Deumer and S&L) but statistically these seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Norm,

Another great compilation and I can only agree with all you wrote. It really is amazing how many different setup combinations we can find on badges, especially ones from the same maker. Even with several makers working right next door to eachother, the differences in hardware is amazing. This fact only underlines the notion that hardware can be used to identify a certain maker (IMO).

Now all you have to do is step foot inside the Bundesarchiv, then your observations might be taken seriously

Tom

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Norm,

only for the records if we understood you correct:

1.
you are saying that all the 6 coastal ari badges you show with their different setups and the one withe the crimped in setup are all from S&L?

2.
That the sharing of one and the same setup by different makers is the exception and not a historic fact or a common practice in mass production?

[Norm F]

Hi Norm,
only for the records if we understood you correct:

1. you are saying that alle the 6 coastal ari badges you show with theier different setups and the one withe the crimped in setup are all from S&L?

2. That the sharing of one and the same setup by different makers is the exception and not a historic fact or a common practice in mass production?

Hi Andreas,

The only point I was making on that posting was that the wide variety of setups seen on the FLL marked zincers showed no overlap with the equally wide variety of setups on a single type of zinc Coastal Artillery (currently attributed to S&L). I just couldn't see any sign of the same home workers being used to complete these two sets of badges from different makers, that's all. In that example, either no home workers were used, or separate home workers were used by the two companie, or the same home workers were used but with distinctly different instructions from the two manufacturers.

To answer your specific questions above:
1) Yes, those zinc CA badges are currently all attributed to S&L as the best working theory, based upon a confluence of many factors similar to the scenario I described earlier in post #142 for the S&L Minesweeper badge attribution. Without getting into it all here, they were all produced with the same obverse and trimming stamps which notably created a slight bending flaw at the junction between the left wing tip and the inner upper left wreath as seen on the reverse. These features, unique to this model of CA badge, indicate the same trimming tools, analogous to the flaw seen in the S&L zinc Minesweeper which carried forward into the S&L '57er production using the same trimming stamps. But there are other factors as well worthy of a separate discussion.

2) I certainly would never suggest that different makers sharing the same setup was not a historic fact -- obviously some did on occasion for particular products. All I was saying is that, for Kriegsabzeichen, shared setups of exactly the same composition were far less common than the use of distinctly different combinations. That's why the setup is worth looking at when studying a badge, and also one factor (among many) that is routinely used when identifying fake badges using an "inappropriate" setup.

Best regards,
---Norm

[colin davie]

Thanks for this thread, the time taken and opinions expressed are appreciated by not only myself I'm sure.

There's a guy in Germany who sells repro medal bars (sold as such) that uses what looks like a similar catch to the double wire ones shown here, wonder if they are still available even today?



C