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

[Dietrich Maerz]

can not post the letter because of the copyright.

Who has the copyrigfht on that letter? The Bundesarchiv? Then you can post it. Or are you trying to tell us that Frank got the copyright now for all Bundesrachiv files? Well, I am 100% sure that there is no copyright on that piece of paper and here it is.

The deduction Frank makes might be interesting, the letter in itself is by far no indication that Friedrich Linden made any Iron Crosses 1. Class. The letter mentions that the company made "Eiserne Kreuze" which could and is most likely referring to the Second Class, which was at that point in time (August 1940) far more in need than the first class.

His reasoning goes like this:

- there is a catalog from FLL showing WW1 EKs (obviously pre-1939)
- he finds a cross and assumes it is the same as the one in the catalog (page 452)
- he takes the letter from FLL to the PKZ as final proof for the identification of an unknown cross

He might be right, but that is for sure not more solid than deducting a maker from a catch ...

Dietrich


PS: I find it far more interesting that there is a handwritten note to "Büro O" that something needed to be added to the Müller Pforzheim files.....

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Ken,

with alot of fantasy and one eye closed perhaps an A but not an R ....

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Dietrich,

there is indeed a copyright on the files. That's why they ask you for what you use them and in which circulation. Luckely they are not searchung the internet for their documents ....

Anyway surely Linden didn't say: "iron crosses of 1939" direct in their letter but please read the last sentence carefully. Linden says that their iron crosses were allready approved by the Präsidialkanzlei.

Because of the fact that the iron cross of 1939 was under direct control of the Präsidialkanzlei the only logical conclusion out of that is that Linden meant the iron cross of 1939. Btw in the daily language "iron cross" was the common word for "iron cross of 1939".

[Panzercracker]

Fantasy? It's called R - E - A - L - I - T - Y! PM me!

--Rgds, Ken

Hi Ken,

with alot of fantasy and one eye closed perhaps an A but not an R ....

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tthere is indeed a copyright on the files. That's why they ask you for what you use them and in which circulation. Luckely they are not searching the internet for their documents ....

Even if they search the internet and find this post nothing will happen. Here in the USA we have the rule of fair use and nobody is making any money with it. I also have the same package and I also bought it from the Bundesarchiv and I am not aware of any restrictions. Yes, I had to tell them how many I print, but that was in connection with photos, not documents from companies. That is just plain ridiculous!

Anyway surely Linden didn't say: "iron crosses of 1939" direct in their letter but please read the last sentence carefully. Linden says that their iron crosses were allready approved by the Präsidialkanzlei. Because of the fact that the iron cross of 1939 was under direct control of the Präsidialkanzlei the only logical conclusion out of that is that Linden meant the iron cross of 1939. Btw in the daily language "iron cross" was the common word for "iron cross of 1939".

That is not my point. My point is, how anybody, including Frank, would know that the FIRST class was meant? I say they meant the SECOND class and there is absolutely nothing that speaks against it. Since this thread is about pins, hinges, and catches any revelation regarding FLL can only be of interest if the FIRST class is presented.

That is not the case and as I said above: the way of "proving" that FLL made the FIRST class of the 1939 Iron Cross is very, very thin indeed. Any catch-relation is far more solid in this case (which also doesn't meant a lot in some cases).

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

Hi Ken,

with alot of fantasy and one eye closed perhaps an A but not an R ....

How can that ever be an "R" or an 'r"?? In what alphabet? Mongolian runes?

Dietrich

[Panzercracker]

You call the hallmark of a German company Mongolian? I'm not the cross-eyed one here, and call things as I see it.

--Ken

How can that ever be an "R" or an 'r"?? In what alphabet? Mongolian runes?

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

No, I do not call the hallmark of an unknown German company mongolian. I call the interpretation of the hook-like sign more similiar to a mongolian rune than to a German "R" or even "r".

I complement you for calling things as you see it, but that just doesn't make it right. I cannot comment on you being cross-eyed or not, but all I know is that is not a German "R" or "r" and that is not a matter of perceived reality, being cross-eyed or not, but a fact.

[Panzercracker]

I'm not going to argue with you Maerz. Maybe you need an eye exam, but I sure don't.

--Ken

No, I do not call the hallmark of an unknown German company mongolian. I call the interpretation of the hook-like sign more similiar to a mongolian rune than to a German "R" or even "r".

I complement you for calling things as you see it, but that just doesn't make it right. I cannot comment on you being cross-eyed or not, but all I know is that is not a German "R" or "r" and that is not a matter of perceived reality, being cross-eyed or not, but a fact.

[Thomas Durante]

- there is a catalog from FLL showing WW1 EKs (obviously pre-1939)
- he finds a cross and assumes it is the same as the one in the catalog (page 452)
- he takes the letter from FLL to the PKZ as final proof for the identification of an unknown cross

He might be right, but that is for sure not more solid than deducting a maker from a catch ...

Dietrich

Andreas, please tell me you have more information than this to connect this type of EK1 to FLL! Frankly I am quite surprised that you, of all people would support a connection to a maker based on just this information. In the past when we discussed maker connections, you have always been one to urge caution and the need for "documented evidence". While I obviously didn't always agree with you, I respected your stance. So that is why it is so surprising to see you now support a maker connection, with what has to be the flimsiest connection I can think of. The only piece of evidence I see that could make even a remote connection is the catalog with the picture of the EK1, but the one shown in the catalog is different than the cross attributed to FLL!

You have to excuse me Andreas, but I have to smile at the apparent hypocrisy.

The document that you have discovered is certainly interesting, and I think is sufficient evidence to suggest that FLL made the EK (whether it be the EK1 or EK2, who can say?). That is good evidence in itself, but connecting it to a certain EK1 is a completely different matter. Especially with no forensic evidence to be seen on the crosses themselves that suggest FLL production in my opinion (such as a hinge, catch, pin, materials, or finish to other FLL-marked awards).

Tom

[Dietrich Maerz]

I'm not going to argue with you Maerz. Maybe you need an eye exam, but I sure don't.

--Ken

I am not argueing with you! I am just pointing out that this is not an "R" nor an "r". If you think it is an "R" I am very happy for you! As an academic proof it will not pass. And that is also not subject to your approval or arguing.
Maybe it is not so much the eyes here, which need examination but more the brain that wants to see something that isn't there? Try at least to think about it!

[Panzercracker]

I don't need to "think" about it because it's as plain as day, that there's a stylised "AR" in that mono. Censor me anytime too... Ha. Ha.

--Ken

I am not argueing with you! I am just pointing out that this is not an "R" nor an "r". If you think it is an "R" I am very happy for you! As an academic proof it will not pass. And that is also not subject to your approval or arguing.
Maybe it is not so much the eyes here, which need examination but more the brain that wants to see something that isn't there? Try at least to think about it!

[Thomas Durante]

OK guys, I think we have covered the mark. Its just another piece of evidence in the large puzzle, whether some can see some letters in the mark or not. Lets not ruin this thread with pointless argueing.

Thanks

Tom

[all1knew]

Hi Norm,

Indeed, looks like a perfect match. Another piece of the puzzle and more evidence that these Flatbacks are likely Rettenmaier's.

Thanks Norm.

Tom

I can get on board with that!

William Kramer

[Andreas Klein]

OK guys, I think we have covered the mark. Its just another piece of evidence in the large puzzle, whether some can see some letters in the mark or not. Lets not ruin this thread with pointless argueing.

Thanks

Tom

Tom with all respect but you have covered nothing. We have an iab with a symbol looking hallmark stamped into the reverse.... that's all and as always you jump on it and see an AR because it fits what you want to see.