Pab p&l l/18

[Thomas Durante]

Andreas, my comment of "spot on match" was directed toward the PAB in the catalog. And I stand by that, if you compare the two (like you just did with the IAB), then I think you will find that the P&L PABs are almost identical to the catalog image. At a minimum, they are the closest match to any other PAB out there.

As far as the IAB goes, I agree with you that they are not a spot on exact match. There are some differences to be seen. However, if you compare a Frank & Reif IAB, there are even more differences, and more significant design differences than what you are circling on the P&L IABs. So the P&L IAB is the closest to the catalog image.

Clearly P&L made IABs and PABs since we have their catalog. So for those of you that don't agree with Norm and I that the P&L IAB and PABs shown in this thread were the ones made by P&L, can you please show the IABs and PABs you do think were made by them?

Thanks

Tom

[Andreas Klein]

As far as the IAB goes, I agree with you that they are not a spot on exact match. There are some differences to be seen. However, if you compare a Frank & Reif IAB, there are even more differences, and more significant design differences than what you are circling on the P&L IABs. So the P&L IAB is the closest to the catalog image.

What kind if P&L IAB are you speaking from?? Yes, we have a picture of it in an catalog but there is no real badge which is a match to it - so the sentence "the P&L IAB is the closest to the catalog image" makes no sense to me. You have no real P&L badge to compare ...

And what to you mean with "compare a Frank & Reif IAB" ... compare a Frank & Reif with and to what? Should i compare it to the catalog? I allready did it and they aren't a match - which wasn't a big surprise.

Clearly P&L made IABs and PABs since we have their catalog.

No Tom, they pictured it but you have no evidence that they made them. As the document from the UNIFORMENMARKT clearly proves P&L pictured something in the catalog what caused the lose of their license and the ban to sell any remaining stuff in stock. As said before that bad child could be the IAB .... which would explain why we can't find a real badge which is a match to the picture.

So the sentence "clearly P&L made IABs" is unproven guesswork.

So for those of you that don't agree with Norm and I that the P&L IAB and PABs shown in this thread were the ones made by P&L, can you please show the IABs and PABs you do think were made by them?

No Tom, this is not the way ... it's you who is jumping into every thread with an unmarked Frank & Reif IAB and teaching the poster that he has for sure a rare Petz & Lorenz IAB. So it's up to YOU to show us the positive evidence for such a statement. It's not our job to prove that the guesswork is wrong --- anyway we allready did it with the picture compare done above.

So we wait to see your hard evidences ...

[Norm F]

Please read carefully...

als langjähriger Vertreter und Fachmann bei der Firma Otto Schickle, Pforzheim, habe ich mich am 1. Nov. 1939 in gleicher Branche in der Firma Petz & Lorzens... selbständig gemacht.

That means that he was a sales agent when he works for Schickle. And that he was now a independent sales agent wo sales the products from Petz und Lorenz. In German we call that a "selbständiger Handelsvertreter" who has the order for one or more firms to make business. He works in other name and for other acoount and not for himself. For every deal he make he get a bonus

When he was the proprietor of P&L there must be stand... mit der Firma selbständig gemacht and not... in der Firma... a litte but important difference from with and in

Nothing more and nothing less... but that is the problem when people are not undestand Germand docs right.

Hi Basti,

Thanks for the clarification.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Hi Guys,

I'd be happy to consider other candidates of IAB to match the P&L catalog if one emerges.

The Kriegsmarine badge matches to the P&L catalog are quite easy since there's no other candidate for the matching U-Boat badge (which is quite uncommon) and we're lucky enough to see a major flaw in the Destroyer that matches the badges. I understand you guys have a lot more IAB makers to sift through. Having said that, you're likely looking for a Tombak badge to match the P&L catalog which narrows the field considerably.

In previous discussions of the P&L catalog, the point has been made that these are air brushed photos of actual badges, and so we would expect diffferences in the small details at times and must content ourselves with the closest match, not a 100% exact match (although the U-Boat is pretty exact). At least this is better than outright drawings.

While the marked Frank&Reif badge uses a very similar obverse, I think it's clear on the close comparisons here that still the "P&L attributed" Tombak badge is a closer match than the marked F&R zincer.

In the end, it's better for communication purposes to have a descriptive name for a particular badge rather than simply "unknown maker" so that people know what kind of badge one's talking about.

To me "P&L-attributed" is a better designation than "unmarked F&R" for the Tombak badge at the top of the thread. It provides a unique identifier and shows the current train of thought without making a full commitment, whereas "F&R design" seems quite misleading given the mismatches.

But you're the Heer collectors, not me, so you want a term the majority can live with. And now I'll retreat to the calmer waters of the Kriegsmarine.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Andreas Klein]

To me "P&L-attributed" is a better designation than "unmarked F&R" for the Tombak badge at the top of the thread. It provides a unique identifier and shows the current train of thought without making a full commitment, whereas "F&R design" seems quite misleading given the mismatches.

Hi Norm,

have you seen that both badges:

- the marked Frank & Reif

and

- the unmarked Frank & Reif

are sharing the exact same major details like the iron sights of the rifle, the head of the eagle and the design of the leaves (my yellow arrows) which are ALL not present on the picture of the Petz & Lorenz badge?

So why should i start to give an unmarked badge which has matching major details to a maker marked one the name of a totally different maker where all these details are totally missing? This is not logical ...

So "attributed Frank & Reif" - if you really need a makers name as nickname - is 100% more logical than anything else - and it's for sure a 100% identifier for every beginning collector because we have the maker marked ones as reference.

Btw the little details which you have marked with your green arrows is the classic die evolution when a hollow tombak badge is transformed to massive zinc production.

In previous discussions of the P&L catalog, the point has been made that these are air brushed photos of actual badges, and so we would expect diffferences in the small details at times

I think we can't call a different eagle, a mssing empty area at the swaz and the missing iron sights small differences caused by an air brush job ... it's a different badge and nothing else even if you take into account how many details are visible in the catalog. Where is the reason to show details of the leaves and acorns for example and than to forget the iron sights of the rifle?

[schwelch]

Hi Andreas,

just for my information: Where do you see a difference of the three badges on the first picture? If you reduce the brightness of the P&L catalogue picture you can clearly see that there is a vein as well (maybe it's more visible at my screen because I'm sitting at a retina display (high resolution)?). I think it's just not that visible, because of the printing methods in the past.

BR
Sven

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Sven,

i sit in front of a Petz & Lorenz catalog - wartime version ....

But let's say yes it is there to have no discussion about that.

Is this the solution? - no, because the iron sights of the rifle, the eagle and the area between swaz and rifle is 100% for sure different on all displays.

[Graeme]

Hi Graeme,

As far as I know the pre-war P&L Sports badge uses only the flat-surfaced main pin shown here. But this pin is also used on the P&L U-Boat badge which bears the three variant reverse setups seen below, so P&L obviously changed things up a bit (as did many other makers). And all of the top four badges in this compilation use the same distinctive spiral catch as well.

So P&L used all three setups on their U-Boat which are found on a variety of other products pictured in their catalog.

Best regards,
---Norm

Hi Norm

Thanks for the detailed pics and information, and also for the group pic of catches. For me it is a real shame that that "thicker" pin is not seen on a marked P&L badge. That would be the icing on the cake for me with regard to the KVKs that are marked L/18.
But I can see the real possibility for P&L for the KVK from the series of uboat pics and different pins used.

Hi Guys,

But you're the Heer collectors, not me, so you want a term the majority can live with. And now I'll retreat to the calmer waters of the Kriegsmarine.

Best regards,
---Norm

Hi Norm

The trouble with a thread like this one is that there are so many points that crop up, that could be replied to, but for now I just wanted to comment on the above quote of yours.

Don't retreat to the calmer waters of the KM , your comments are very informative and interesting, and it is nice to have your thoughts in this type of thread. We often go round and round but sometimes that is the way. I also like the points Andreas puts forward, especially about the IAB we are discussing here.

I am sure we will get to a point where we have a term or name we can live with, it might just take a little longer.

cheers
Graeme

[Graeme]

As far as the IAB goes, I agree with you that they are not a spot on exact match. There are some differences to be seen. However, if you compare a Frank & Reif IAB, there are even more differences, and more significant design differences than what you are circling on the P&L IABs. So the P&L IAB is the closest to the catalog image.

Hi Tom

IMO this is not a logical way to approach discovering unknown makers.

A particular IAB is the closest match to a catalog image, and we are starting to incorporate that into into the solution. I think factual info is what is needed.

Clearly P&L made IABs and PABs since we have their catalog. So for those of you that don't agree with Norm and I that the P&L IAB and PABs shown in this thread were the ones made by P&L, can you please show the IABs and PABs you do think were made by them?

Thanks

Tom

Regards the manufacture of IABs and PABs, I have no problem believing that P&L probably made them, because there is a catalog that includes them. That is factual.

In this discussion, specific badges are being discussed. Because someone does not feel that the specific badges may not be made by P&L, does not require them to tell you which ones are. Your comment actually deflects the issue imo.

best regards
Graeme

[Graeme]

Hi Norm

I would be interested in your thoughts about the following badge

Based on all the pics already seen in this thread, who do you think may have made this badge?

cheers
Graeme

[Norm F]

Hi Norm

I would be interested in your thoughts about the following badge

Based on all the pics already seen in this thread, who do you think may have made this badge?

cheers
Graeme

Hi Graeme,

Well, since you dragged me back...

You're making me look at a lot more IABs than I'm accustomed to but I'll have a stab at it.

I noticed that the Heer guys also tend to call this one an "unmarked F&R" but I can't understand why? It's clearly a different design from the "true" unmarked F&R. You posted your nice duo of marked and unmarked F&R IABs back in 2006 here, and those clearly have matching obverse designs. That of course is a solid badge like Don's lovely silver grade attached here.

But the semi-hollow "pseudo-unmarked F&R" attached below (which I assume is the same type you just posted) doesn't match the semi-hollow marked F&R; it some ways it's a better match to the "P&L design" which I'll show in the next post but really it doesn't match either exactly. Unless I'm missing something I see no reason to call that one an unmarked F&R?

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Okay so here in the first comparison is the "pseudo-unmarked F&R" on the left compared with the P&L design on the right. The lower leaf margin to the right of the wreath (green circle) is somewhat closer to the P&L than the true F&R but the other two areas in red circles are clearly different (different shaped leaf on the upper left and different leaf veins below the gun trigger.

In the second comparison you see the "pseudo-unmarked F&R" is again different from the "true unmarked F&R" in two out of the three areas marked (red circles vs. green circles).

So to answer your original question, I don't know who made the "pseudo-unmarked F&R" IAB, and I can't link it to either P&L or F&R at this time.

Best regards,
---Norm

[colin davie]

The "pseudo" badge has a chest feather missing... extreme lower left there is a space where the others have a feather, different legs too.
C

edit: Totally different beak.

[Norm F]

The "pseudo" badge has a chest feather missing... extreme lower left there is a space where the others have a feather, different legs too.
C

edit: Totally different beak.

Hi Colin,

I think perhaps the differences you see may be related to differences in finish and lighting? - pretty subtle. At any rate, the other more significant differences in the wreath differentiate them from the marked F&R.

My "pseudo" term was just an ad hoc designation for this discussion but I think moving forward a better designation for this type of semi-hollow zincer might be "F&R-like". This term carries the impression that it bears similarity to F&R but remains distinct.

And for the unmarked hollow Tombak that remains the best match we have to date to the P&L catalog, perhaps a suitable term for more conservative collectors would be "P&L-like". I'm satisfied calling the KM badges actual P&L based on my studies in that area but I understand in the Heer community some may still harbor some doubts.

It's best to have descriptive terms that strike an acceptable balance between absolute attribution and inadequate vagueness. To my mind, a good terminology scheme for the four similar yet distinct IABs discussed in this thread would be:

1) semi-hollow zinc marked F&R (with the usual typo, Fank & Reif)
2) solid zinc "unmarked F&R" (obverse matches the marked version)
3) semi-hollow zinc unmarked "F&R-like" (similar yet different from the F&R)
4) hollow Tombak "P&L-like" (best match to the P&L catalog and hardware variant matches the P&L U-Boat)

Best regards,
---Norm

[Graeme]

Hi Norm
Thanks for the comparison pics with the red and green circles, very good for reference imo..

Hi Graeme,

Well, since you dragged me back...

You're making me look at a lot more IABs than I'm accustomed to but I'll have a stab at it.

Best regards,
---Norm

Norm, I don't think you take too much encouragement to be dragged back, and I suspect you look at IABs more than you pretend , we all look at different badges when researching.

Hi Graeme,

I noticed that the Heer guys also tend to call this one an "unmarked F&R" but I can't understand why? It's clearly a different design from the "true" unmarked F&R.

Unless I'm missing something I see no reason to call that one an unmarked F&R?

Best regards,
---Norm

Hi Norm

To be honest, I am amazed at this comment of yours, especially from someone who has disected and discussed badges in great detail. I see all the differences in the badges that you have pointed out, but there is an overwhelming striking resemblence that you appear to want to rule out. Maybe this is because you feel so strongly with your P&L link to the hollow buntmetal variant.?

If you were to show a marked "Fank & Reif badge to people unfamiliar with this discussion or even IABs for that matter, and asked them to look through all the IABs we know of, and ask them to pick out 3 other IABs that they thought had a connection to the marked Fank & Reif, they would most likely pick the IABs we are talking about, the hollow, semi hollow and unmarked solid.
With such a close connection in design, imo, you can not dismiss this by saying this is "clearly a different design".
All these badges have several very unique significant details, not seen on other IABs.

It is a great discussion, but I am on hols at the moment, and struggling to reply as quickly as I would like and as fully as I would like, but will revisit this.

best regards
Graeme