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

[Andreas Klein]

Carl Poellath? (Hard to find good images but apparently they were still selling catches in 1981...)

I hadn't Poellath in my mind when i rasied the question but i would be agree with you and say: yes, Poellath used the catch.

So ... who else?

[Thomas Durante]

I know it ....

Well if we can never know if I answered the maker question correct, why bother playing the game?

If they wouldn't be leftover stocks from war a wide area of third reich badges would be unmasked as postwar product.

This is a weird answer Andreas, why the riddles? So the bags of hardware you showed previously may not be leftovers from the war? Evidence?

Thanks

Tom

[Andreas Klein]

Well if we can never know if I answered the maker question correct, why bother playing the game?

So far i have not read an answer from you so i could not say "right" or "wrong" to it. Come on should not that hard for you because you have used it in the past for some forensic naming of unmarked badges.

This is a weird answer Andreas, why the riddles? So the bags of hardware you showed previously may not be leftovers from the war? Evidence?

The evidence: simple logic. The setup can be found on several as genuine accepted badges - if it would be postwar stuff the badges would be postwar too or?

[Norm F]

The evidence: simple logic. The setup can be found on several as genuine accepted badges - if it would be postwar stuff the badges would be postwar too or?

Hi Andreas,

Certainly could be. Given the unknown amounts and dates of depletion of post-war leftover stock, any number of "accepted wartime" products could have been completed post-war. For example, the nice minty cased Poellath KVK1s with that catch that show up -- since Poellath continued in business to the 1980s and there were bags of these catches around, we can't know for sure whether those are completed pre-May, 1945 or post.

Just to be clear, none of this should detract from anyone's prized collection. It's just good to point out what we currently can't know for sure. I have no doubt that in many cases the leftover stock post-war outnumbers the pre-war awarded examples -- so be it. All we can do is try our best to separate out the ones that were made from obvious post-war components.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

If they wouldn't be leftover stocks from war a wide area of third reich badges would be unmasked as postwar product.

A "wide area"? Can't be too wide an area since that catch doesn't show up on any Kriegsmarine badges (22 makers) and so far on only on KVK1. But I'll keep looking outside of my field.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Andreas Klein]

A "wide area"? Can't be too wide an area since that catch doesn't show up on any Kriegsmarine badges (22 makers) and so far on only on KVK1. But I'll keep looking outside of my field.

Best regards,
---Norm

... you should spend some time in the Heer awards my friend and the wide are of diferent awards we have there

[Thomas Durante]

So far i have not read an answer from you so i could not say "right" or "wrong" to it. Come on should not that hard for you because you have used it in the past for some forensic naming of unmarked badges.

Hi Andreas,

I have a very good candidate for the catch, but again, you are not willing to say "yes" to it because you say it is "secret and that would make a gold rush to their firm".

Tom

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Andreas,


Just to be clear, none of this should detract from anyone's prized collection. It's just good to point out what we currently can't know for sure. I have no doubt that in many cases the leftover stock post-war outnumbers the pre-war awarded examples -- so be it. All we can do is try our best to separate out the ones that were made from obvious post-war components.

Best regards,
---Norm

Well said Norm and we should be carefull with that. Take the L15 desaster as example. Everything with an L15 marking is considered a fake by the collectors. We were told by the source behind the postwar crosses: L15 was not my idea ... the L15 needles which were used came out of leftover stocks.

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Andreas,

I have a very good candidate for the catch, but again, you are not willing to say "yes" to it because you say it is "secret and that would make a gold rush to their firm".

Tom

I think there is some missunderstanding between us. The photos were not made inside a former badge maker ... we made them inside a setup maker who supplied the badge makers with hinge, catches and needles. To find his name would be indeed impossible.

My question was related to the badge makers and there i will for sure say: yes or no.

[Dietrich Maerz]

... Everything with an L15 marking is considered a fake by the collectors. We were told by the source behind the postwar crosses: L15 was not my idea ... the L15 needles which were used came out of leftover stocks.

Not to distract from this very interesting thread, but it remains a fact that the same source also told you, your friends, George, and me that the crosses were made for him well after the war. The use of pins (which may or may not have been made during the war) to create post war production has nothing to do whether the man who ordered the make of such post-war productions invented the L15 or not.
It is not correct to assume or to hint that because the L15 marked pins may or may not be left-overs (the man in question never said they were war time or not, he only said they were there), the proven and admitted post war fakes with L15 are no longer fakes.

It is the time of COMPLETE production that makes a post war fake - not the time of production of ONE part. Otherwiese we can say something is real because "old pre May 1945 iron" was used.

But please continue with the "riddle that riddles itself"!

Dietrich

[Andreas Klein]

It is the time of COMPLETE production that makes a post war fake - not the time of production of ONE part.

Indeed and we both agree in that ... but this view we both use is different from the common view which is doing the easy way and is only focused on one piece of the puzzle.

[Norm F]

... you should spend some time in the Heer awards my friend and the wide are of diferent awards we have there

I'm surprised the Heer guys haven't been jumping in here, rattling off all the makers who used this particular catch.

At any rate while that's going on, I'll just point out that this exercise, although interesting, is not new in that we already know various makers shared suppliers, with examples such as GWL, FLL, and Deumer sharing the same stamped metal catches, or S&L and Deumer using the same hinge and pin, or Schwerin and S&L using the same zinc setups, etc., etc. Which of course is why we never use a single type of catch as proof of attribution and instead use a combination of various forensic, historical and circumstantial features.

But the new part to this discussion is that this particular catch of Andreas' is existing in bulk quantities today. This means this catch can never be used by itself to indicate an award is of wartime manufacture, but rather must again be considered in the broader context of the award in question. Any presumed "wartime" award seen with this catch now has to be carefully judged on its other attributes when attempting to narrow down the time of manufacture.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Chet Sowersby]

Gentlemen, speaking as a badge and cross collector this thread has evolved into the most intresting and informative that I've read in a very long time. Thank you all. Well done!

By the way, are the catches BassD posted Juncker produced?

Chet

[Thomas Durante]

I think there is some missunderstanding between us. The photos were not made inside a former badge maker ... we made them inside a setup maker who supplied the badge makers with hinge, catches and needles. To find his name would be indeed impossible.

My question was related to the badge makers and there i will for sure say: yes or no.

Hi Andreas, I understand now.

My vote for that catch would be Deschler. Without being able to see all sides of it, and in particular the tool mark on the tip of it aside, the general shape of it reminds me most of Deschler.

I guess I am still not clear on "how" we know that this hardware is leftover stocks from the war. How do we know they weren't produced in 1980, and shipped in 1981 as the postmark confirms?

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

At any rate while that's going on, I'll just point out that this exercise, although interesting, is not new in that we already know various makers shared suppliers, with examples such as GWL, FLL, and Deumer sharing the same stamped metal catches, or S&L and Deumer using the same hinge and pin, or Schwerin and S&L using the same zinc setups, etc., etc. Which of course is why we never use a single type of catch as proof of attribution and instead use a combination of various forensic, historical and circumstantial features.

Well said Norm, and I can only echo this statement. I don't think anyone has ever made a connection to a maker based SOLELY on the catch. In every instance I can think of there are multiple points of connection. It is the combination of all these points that is unique and therefore lead to the maker connection.

Tom