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

[Andreas Klein]

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.

I'm not the person for your questions. As you perhaps know it's Frank book so you should talk to him if you don't understand certain parts of it.

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!

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the pictured iab in the deumer sales catalog totally different looking from the one which you call and defend as deumer iab?? You should better not should that loud "flimsy" ....

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Andreas,

I understand it quite well. Sure it is Frank's book, but you are the publisher and I have no doubt that you took a very active roll in helping him with research and documents like the one from FLL we are discussing. The way you constantly rail against other authors making certain maker connection, its just surprising to now see you take a complete 180 degree turn and get fully on board with such a connection. It is especially difficult to comprehend because the maker connection you support is perhaps the weakest link yet to be discussed. Frankly, to be completely honest, a quick look at the reverse hardware on these "FLL" EK1s, nothing on there reminds me of FLL badges. On the contrary, I would put my money on Assmann as the maker of these, I see quite a few clues. Maybe that is better left to a separate discussion though and not muddy the water here?...

Regarding the Deumer IAB connection, you are correct that the picture in the catalog does not match the Deumer IAB. The difference there is that there are 25+ other connections that point to Deumer as the maker. The catalog picture is not relied upon, it is only used as evidence to say that Deumer supplied IABs during the war. That is the same and ONLY thing that can be said about FLL, that they supplied EKs during the war, nothing more. But to use that as the sole piece of evidence to connect a certain EK is quite a stretch, even for me

Don't get me wrong, I am very happy to see this turn of events for you. Whenever one of us "forensic" guys ever come up with a maker connection, you have always been front and center to downplay it. My most vocal opponent! But to now see you starting to embrace certain maker connections is a good sign of progress. I for one welcome you to our side of the table

Tom

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Tom,

surely i have supported Frank but i haven't written this great book and Frank did a hell of work alone and with other IC collectors, not mentioning 20 years of experience in IC collection which i don't have.

So i can say only once again: ask him if you didn't understand some parts of the book.

I have my opinion on the shown FLL document and how to read it but i have to accept that others aren't able to do it because of a different language and that they come to another conclusion.

a quick look at the reverse hardware on these "FLL" EK1s, nothing on there reminds me of FLL badges.

Well, to be honest it is wasting of time to discuss with you about third reich badge production. Within this thread Basti and me showed you the evidence that reverse hardware is nothing to determine a maker because it's third party hardware sold to different makers and you still come around with the "when i look at the reverse hardware" nuts ... read carefully what Norm has written so far based on that evidence - he hits it on the nail while you are still in the land of wishfull thinking.

It's quite interesting that you try to point the finger on Frank but did nothing else so far. Read your own CCC book for example and search for the real evidence for the Deumer or S&L CCC you brought to the collectors world .... you have not a single hard evidence - not even one single document saying that those firms produced the badges.

What you call forensic is mainly based on reverse hardware which you have found on a maker marked badge and which is transferred to the unmarked one but is this still an evidence after the finding we showed here?

As Norm and you pointed out correctly Deschler and Poellath were supplied with the exact same reverse hardware ... so ask yourself if an marked Deschler badge can be the evidence for another unmarked type of badge because of the reverse hardware? Perhaps the other type of badge was made by Poellath - you can't know it by the badge itself.

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Andreas,

So you never gave me an answer on the catch, did I get it right with Deschler?

Thanks

Tom

[Dietrich Maerz]

I have my opinion on the shown FLL document and how to read it but i have to accept that others aren't able to do it because of a different language and that they come to another conclusion.

For the benefit of non-German speaking/reading members I want to translate the relevant section of the mentioned FFL letter (everything else in the letter is irrelevant to the topic at hand):

"Regarding the furthermore Iron Crosses manufactured by me I note that a recognition respectively permission by the Präsidialkanzlei already happened with letter dated 10. July (1940)"

Dietrich

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Andreas,

So you never gave me an answer on the catch, did I get it right with Deschler?

Thanks

Tom

Yes .... we have

- Poellath
- Deschler

and who else?

[Thomas Durante]

Thanks for the confirmation Andreas, nice to see that I was correct with Deschler

Dietrich, thanks for the exact translation of the FLL letter. I think we all read it correctly.....and again the entire point is that there is NOTHING in that letter that says they make EK1s...let alone the specific one that is attributed to FLL in Franks book. It may turn out to be correct, who knows. However, I have a feeling that if I, or Norm or DeBock had brought this same document to light and used it ALONE to connect it to a certain EK1, we would have been met with the same criticism and resistance we meet each and every other time we have tried to connect a maker. Ofcourse I cannot know that for sure, but I am certain of it simply because the evidence itself is very flimsy (in my opinion), especially compared with the pile of evidence offered in other maker connections. This is not a poor reflection on Frank's book overall, I will say it again....it is an EXCELLENT book. I love it and highly recommend it. I just don't agree with this connection to FLL, thats all.

And yes Andreas, I have no problem looking at my own connections in the past, S&L CCCs being one of them. I really don't know where to begin with you if you still try to deny this connection to S&L. I mean honestly, its the only type of CCC ever been found on the S&L barter boards, there must have been tons left over after the war! That fact alone should be enough to connect S&L with that type of CCC (not to mention the dozens of other connection points that I write about on this forum and in my book). With all due respect Andreas, to deny this connection is just being ignorant of a mountain of evidence

The fact remains that reverse hardware can certainly be used to connect makers. It should always be used in combination with other pieces of evidence (like the FLL document you found), but there are ALWAYS clues to each maker in the reverse hardware. We will obviously continue to disagree on this. But that is why some of us can look at a catch and pick the correct maker out of 150+ makers to choose from. Same with a hinge, some makers used a very distinct hinge. And the real power comes in when you look at certain hinges and catches in COMBINATION with eachother that often points to a specific maker. Sure some makers may have gotten them from a third-party supplier, but maybe they didn't supply many makers in that area. Or maybe the common hardware was used on other things and not combat or qualification badges. Whatever the reason, the fact remains that we can identify makers based on the hardware. Whether Deschler made the exact catch or got it from a supplier is irrelevant, the badge itself is still a Deschler product because it was assembled by Deschler and has unique production fingerprints.

To emphasize the point, I can see where this exact EK1 (that has been attributed to FLL) has been discussed in the past by streptile (an acknowledged EK1 expert) in this thread:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ht=assmann+ek1

And what do you know, Streptile's conclusion was Assmann!! The same maker I came up with by looking at the reverse hardware (out of 150+ maker to choose from). I guess that is just a coincidence??

Tom

[Norm F]

Yes .... we have

- Poellath
- Deschler

and who else?

Again it's hard to tell from the photos with different angles, but if the upper end were bent around just a bit more, looks similar to one of Rettenmaier's variations? (Another business that to continued to exist post-war.)

Best regards,
---Norm

[Thomas Durante]

I don't know Norm, I see a pretty sharp bend on the Rettenmaier catch near its base, something I don't see on the catch Andreas posted. Based on that and the tool mark at the tip, I would think two different makers.

Tom

[BassD]

i was not sure if i should wrote i reply or not. But i think it was necessary for different reasons and to make clear why Andreas, i and other can not follow this "forensic science"

Tom, you and the other side of the table have a different view. That is ok and sometimes the one side can lear from the other. But often we are totaly different in the weighting of some things. You tell me the the sky is blue and i say the sky is grey we can discuss and discuss we will never find the lowest common denominator. Maybe only that the there is a sky. Similar with the badge production. We can agree when both sides say: Yes they make warbadges. But then every sides goes an other way.

So here a view simple questions to you. And if you honest please go inside you and tell me if you realy can answer all questions with yes

- Do you believe that one firm use one special hardware set up and no other?
- Do you believe that one supplier deliever only one firm with one special set up
- Do you believe that productions methods never change?
- Do you believe that one firm only use the same homeworkers for the badges and that homeworkers never works at the same time for other firms?
- Do you believe that a finish was always the same and is not depending on the way you make the galvanic and the ingredients?
- do you believe that we know all firms that make badges?
- do you believe that firms like S&L and other big players in the collector community are realy responsible for this quantity of variants?
- do you know how the firms work together?

So and now to the facts. We found one more marker vor the CCC. And i will be sure, we must not long wait and somebody make a connections about the needle system and the finish and other forensic science to connect this name with one of the unmarked CCC.

We found different papers that shows that it was was common practice that one firms make dies for other firms, that one firm lend the dies to another firm etc. think about Wissmann, think about the needle supplier that make ads where they wrote that they make needles for IAB, and IC. How will you determinate an unmarked badges when you did not know who make the badges and you found a needle system that used other firms to? Becaus there is a scratch on the needle we can found on a markermarked badge? Is this the science?

And sometimes the guys from the other side make make it very easy. The picture of the catalog doesn't match? No Problem, we have the set up. The picture match? Year great, a new connection. Ther was a "o" mark on the back? This mus S&L becaus the "o" stand for... for what stand it? Different firms told us this was a production mark for the workers that they know where is the top and the bottom of the badge. For the forensic guys it was S&L, is this the science you speak from? S&L was such a quiete big firm? Mhm and why have so many Lüdenscheid based firms (including S&L) problems to make business because they have no workers? Have S&L the maschines, the galvanic to make all this badges? You did not know that? How can you than say that S&L make it all? Do you know the "System Lüdenscheid" Or was it like in Pforzheim where you have firms that specialized to make the finish on the badge, to bring the needle system on the badge and so on? There are so many points outthere, i can and will not write here all of them.

you will tell me that with your "forensic siecne" you will make a hard connections but don't reflect all the things i wrote above? Can you tell me the car i drive when i told you which tire i have?

The big difference between both sides of the table is, your side connect and connect. And if somebody found an other "forensic science" evidence... no problem we change the database, and change, and change... Our side of the table says: Yes we know that the firm XY make this kind of badge, but we can not say how it looks like. If we have an unmarked badges that looks like a markermarked Deschler one, than we called this badge a badge in Deschler design. Nothing more, nothing less

And know let us play a little. We have 3 different possibilities for this badge

1. Deschler make the unmarked badge
2. Deschler buys the dies from a firm, and this firm also does not markermarked their badges
3. Deschler and one or more firms buys the die from Wissmann

So and now tell me what is right 1, 2 or 3? I can not answer this. But this does not matter, because i say i have an badge, that looks like a markermarkd Deschler badge but i can not say if Deschler was the producer. You will tell me it was Deschler because it has the same needle system? and the same finish? that please got to the beginning of my post and read my "do you believe..." questions. Think here is the beginning of our different ways we go

Also an very interesting point, a lot of collectors are not able to speak and read german. I would never write a book about Japanese badges because i not able to read and understand the docs. Very interesting was it when you must then read from a foreign collector that you as a german native speaker are not understand germand docs

Do you rember the Schickle connection in GCA. Schickle was a Jew? Very interesting how fast the first collectors reply and say: yes that make sence, great reasearch... 5 seconds with google and you will find why this never could be.. but you must understand german for this. Or the Schickle and Petz & Lorenz connection comming from a catalog with the stamp on it... give it to a german native speaker... we will read it other than the interpretation in GCA i will be sure.

could be write a lot of more. but i think this will nothing change. Your side on the table, an my side on the table have a such a different point of view, that the lowest common denominator was very low.

I can only speak for myself, but after reading thousands of docs from the Bundesarchiv, i know that i know nothing. But i have no problem to say it. I search a long time for a key to open one door. And after i open that door there pop of three other doors that waiting to open it. Your forensic guys seems to have a battering ram and open the doors faster than superman can fly.

But the collector world wants connections and names for unmarked badges... so they get it... but what happened when there is no unmarked badge outthere to connect? Must be very boring for the forensic guys when there is nothing to connect outthere

[Andreas Klein]

Again it's hard to tell from the photos with different angles, but if the upper end were bent around just a bit more, looks similar to one of Rettenmaier's variations? (Another business that to continued to exist post-war.)

Best regards,
---Norm

@Norm

... you got another point!

... and who else?

Btw thanks for taking the topic serious and bring us foreward.

I don't know Norm, I see a pretty sharp bend on the Rettenmaier catch near its base, something I don't see on the catch Andreas posted. Based on that and the tool mark at the tip, I would think two different makers.

Nice "forensic" guesswork Tom but totally wrong - no point to you.

[Andreas Klein]

To emphasize the point, I can see where this exact EK1 (that has been attributed to FLL) has been discussed in the past by streptile (an acknowledged EK1 expert) in this thread:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ht=assmann+ek1

And what do you know, Streptile's conclusion was Assmann!! The same maker I came up with by looking at the reverse hardware (out of 150+ maker to choose from). I guess that is just a coincidence??

Tom

Well Tom, if you read the thread of Trevor carefully than you will recognize that the result is not that clear as you like to sell it to me. Finally Trevor ends his thread as follow:

Finally I would like to say that I do not discount the possibility that Assmann did not manufacture this cross, but rather bought it from another maker and marked (and marketed) them as Assmanns. To me, this is functionally the same as being an Assmann. It also seems possible to me that the FLL catalogue shows the same cross, and that FLL bought from Assmann, or that both Assmann and FLL bought from a supplier.

So it could be an Assmann but it could be FLL too and Assmann was only the reseller ... and with the shown document Frank had the hard evidence that FLL was involved in the iron cross production somehow based on a official licence. That is 100% more hard evidence as the forensic side of the table as basis for further conclusion. "To me, this is functionally the same as being an Assmann." - to be honest, for me not. If i'm a car dealer and sell a Mercedes Benz I'm not the maker of all Mercedes Benz.

Anyway i was told that Frank and Trevor had a talk about that subject at the SOS, so i can only high recommend you to talk to them directly to be up to date.

Btw in the very well written thread of Trevor is one week point from my point of view:

What I did not expect was a mark. But sure enough, the ring was marked with a very small "A", the presumed Weimar-era mark for maker Assmann:

Beside the fact that i can't see an "A" in the loop the Weimar-era mark from Assmann, Lüdenscheid was "A&S" for their full name "Assmann & Söhne".

[Norm F]

Finally Trevor ends his thread as follow:

Quote:
"Finally I would like to say that I do not discount the possibility that Assmann did not manufacture this cross, but rather bought it from another maker and marked (and marketed) them as Assmanns. To me, this is functionally the same as being an Assmann. It also seems possible to me that the FLL catalogue shows the same cross, and that FLL bought from Assmann, or that both Assmann and FLL bought from a supplier."

So it could be an Assmann but it could be FLL too and Assmann was only the reseller ... and with the shown document Frank had the hard evidence that FLL was involved in the iron cross production somehow based on a official licence. That is 100% more hard evidence as the forensic side of the table as basis for further conclusion.

Hi Andreas,

Your example is a great illustration of the power of combining documentation with forensics for a more complete picture. You and Basti have repeatedly reminded us of the cooperation that existed between various makers in Lüdenscheid. The letter you and Dietrich showed before from Frank's book proves FLL was allowed to make crosses (granted 1st or 2nd class or both is not specified) and the FLL catalog shows a cross. That's great knowledge. Then the forensics come into play to compare an unmarked cross to the FLL catalog while simultaneously showing production features that link it ot Assmann. Undoubtedly a useful exercise to hone in on the potential makers of the cross and a potential relationship between Assmann and FLL. Sure the final answer may not yet be known but that's not the point. The point is that both types of research are necessary to improve the collective knowledge and both avenues of investigation are valid.

We're not on opposite sides here despite the "black and white" rhetoric that often peppers our discussions; rather we approach the problem from two different perspectives and the end result is an understanding better than either approach alone. I greatly respect and indeed depend upon the insight provided by you and Basti, and I'm sure Tom would say the same. What puzzles us, is what sometimes appears as your complete dismissal of forensic evidence as a whole -- a puritanical viewpoint that "if it's not in a document it's not worth discussing". Part of that may be just rhetorical debating style, but it would be good to remind our readers and ourselves that as a group we have a great thing going here with our combined approaches.

Best regards,
---Norm

P.S. The Rettenmaier attribution to the flatbacks was not presented in this thread as fact, but it's still a great theory and, like any hypothesis, is presented in this thread for consideration so that we and others can continue to ponder the issue based on whatever new evidence and thoughts come forth. Badge "forensics" are part of the investigative approach and always will be. We work with whatever we have. It would be nice to have documents from Rettenmaier or from the PK that prove it, but we also have to consider (speculation now) that if Rettenmaier never got approval and only produced these often low-quality badges in the post-war period from leftover tooling from others, that documentation may not exist.

[Dietrich Maerz]

The letter you and Dietrich showed before from Frank's book proves FLL was allowed to make crosses (granted 1st or 2nd class or both is not specified) and the FLL catalog shows a cross. That's great knowledge....

But that seems only be part of the picture. Here is another contemporary document from the PKZ. It was attached to a letter to the company Knoblauch (a ribbon manufacturer), dated 9. July 1940. It lists the current manufacturers of the EK2. Assmann is on the list, FLL is not.

This also has to be taken into account, not just the letter from FLL to Dr. Doehle. Maybe the genleman from FLL meant a permission to produce the Iron Crosses of the First World war, since that is the only firm indication we have so far.

I agree with Norm here. In general I am not a big friend of the "hinge and catch" connections, especially in the light of the utter nonsense which sometimes erupts at another forum only driven by the urge to have a name attached to everything and because I also know ( just like Andreas and Basti) that the inner workings of the orders and medal industry with hundreds of suppliers and sub-suppliers was far more complicated and intertwined than we all dare to think.

However, the combination of documents and forensics has contributed greatly to the knowledge in our hobby - if done carefully and not in a reckless, ignorant and bullish way. (At least nobody is banned from this forum for having a different opinion ....)

Dietrich

[Andreas Klein]

But that seems only be part of the picture. Here is another contemporary document from the PKZ. It was attached to a letter to the company Knoblauch (a ribbon manufacturer), dated 9. July 1940. It lists the current manufacturers of the EK2. Assmann is on the list, FLL is not.

This also has to be taken into account, not just the letter from FLL to Dr. Doehle. Maybe the genleman from FLL meant a permission to produce the Iron Crosses of the First World war, since that is the only firm indication we have so far.

Or the gentleman from FLL meant the iron cross 1st class of 1939 because they were not listed for the 2nd class so it was clear for everyone what was meant when he wrote "iron cross" ?