Announcement

**Andreas Klein** · 07-03-2013, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by Norm F View Post

Anyone deciding to take Schickle's tooling and make the same badges using the same hardware he used on his marked wound badges would be a brave man indeed in that political climate.
---Norm

So a real brave firm must be behind the zinc made badges of this design. We know for sure that zinc was introduced into combat badge production around 1942 when Schickle was long out of business, so it can't be made by them.

Attached Files

**BassD** · 07-03-2013, 09:25 AM

@ Andreas

so Godet must produce IABs?

Think it was time for a newsletter

**Thomas Durante** · 07-03-2013, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Andreas Klein View Post

We know for sure that zinc was introduced into combat badge production around 1942 when Schickle was long out of business, so it can't be made by them.

Hi Andreas,

Well, we know that zinc was being used in 41 based on the ScHuCo IABs.

Also, didn't you find a notification calling for zinc to be used for the WBs in 1941?

Thanks

Tom

Attached Files

**Andreas Klein** · 07-03-2013, 09:55 AM

But when exactly in 1941? Before Schickle was out or before?

But that's academic because you can't compare the massive zinc IAB with a hollow one if you look for a possible production timeline.

Remember that S&L wrote in their 1942 dated letter to Wissmann that the massive IAB has to be produced from now out of zinc. So we can put a massive IAB out of zinc in a midware timeline beginning late 1941/early 1942.

Bu here we have a hollow zinc IAB. Is it midwar too? I say no because we have the Mayer/Schickle design as massive version so this design followed the official regulations. So a hollow version makes only sense later due to the shortage of material.

But when we have massive in late 1941/early 1942 than "late" must be after that in the timeline and there Schickle was out of business for sure.

So the concusion of having the full timeline in this design can be that Schickle is not behind the design and produced with tools from another designer or someone got the Schickle tools and used it.

Knowing from the Steinhauer letters that material changing was leading into tool changing and following Norm who says that no one got the Schickle tools than the only conclusion is that Schickle had no own design.

**Norm F** · 07-03-2013, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Andreas Klein View Post

But when exactly in 1941? Before Schickle was out or before?

Hi Andreas,

Evidence suggests zinc was introduced in Pforzheim before Schickle was ousted. (You're subconscious must have recognized that since your typo said "before Schickle was out or before"!

) Obviously Schickle was using zinc in early 1941 since we have his EK2s with zinc cores.

Also, from April to June, 1941, the KM introduced the Blockade Breaker, Fleet Badge, Auxiliary Cruiser, 1st Pattern S-Boat and Coastal Artillery Badges. B.H. Mayer produced all these awards but only in zinc and always marked them L/18. They are all uncommon so we see no mass production of KM awards from Mayer at all from April, 1941 onwards. All of Mayer's own KM badge production used characteristic setups different from the Schickle design badges. So all evidence suggests zinc production was adopted quite early in Pforzheim, probably prior to April, 1941 and before Mayer made the newly introduced KM badges.

The massive zinc version of the hollow zinc Schickle-attributed IAB that you showed is vanishingly rare suggesting it's production stopped after a brief trial run. Of course Schickle was used to making solid KM badges so it would not be a stretch to produce a few solids before complying with the "cease production" order in July, 1941.

Best regards,
---Norm

**Andreas Klein** · 07-03-2013, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Norm F View Post

The massive zinc version of the hollow zinc Schickle-attributed IAB that you showed is vanishingly rare suggesting it's production stopped after a brief trial run. Of course Schickle was used to making solid KM badges so it would not be a stretch to produce a few solids before complying with the "cease production" order in July, 1941.

Best regards,
---Norm

The idea of a brief trial run is only guesswork ... and it's not only a question of the used material, it is a question of the quality too. Simply compare the hollow zink IAB with it's tombak brother - there is a massive difference between them. The quality of the zinc made one is much lower than the tombak one.

Why if both came from the same die at the same time? Wouldn't be the quality equal to each other? The zinc ones show the traces of long used dies and worse base material.

Attached Files

**Andreas Klein** · 07-03-2013, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Norm F View Post

Also, from April to June, 1941, the KM introduced the Blockade Breaker, Fleet Badge, Auxiliary Cruiser, 1st Pattern S-Boat and Coastal Artillery Badges. B.H. Mayer produced all these awards but only in zinc and always marked them L/18. They are all uncommon so we see no mass production of KM awards from Mayer at all from April, 1941 onwards. All of Mayer's own KM badge production used characteristic setups different from the Schickle design badges. So all evidence suggests zinc production was adopted quite early in Pforzheim, probably prior to April, 1941 and before Mayer made the newly introduced KM badges.

Introduced yes but does this prove that B.H. Mayer or any other Pforzheim maker got a production order at the same moment?

The wound badge was introduced 1939 and Klein & Quenzer who became a mass producer for it got their first production orders around 1942, so the introducing of a certain badge doesn't mean that this is the key for a beginning production run of a maker.

**Norm F** · 07-03-2013, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Andreas Klein View Post

The idea of a brief trial run is only guesswork

Your assertion in post #46 that "We know for sure that zinc was introduced into combat badge production around 1942" was also only guesswork (and incorrect). And if the solid Schickle-design IABs weren't a brief run then why are they so extremely rare?

Originally posted by Andreas Klein View Post

... and it's not only a question of the used material, it is a question of the quality too. Simply compare the hollow zink IAB with it's tombak brother - there is a massive difference between them. The quality of the zinc made one is much lower than the tombak one.

Why if both came from the same die at the same time? Wouldn't be the quality equal to each other? The zinc ones show the traces of long used dies and worse base material.

The production quality of the feinzinc Schickle-attributed Minesweepers easily rivals the Tombak versions but of course the zinc is less durable, finish on zinc has poorer longevity and exposed zinc is not as pretty as exposed Tombak. Having said that, the Minesweeper (and the IAB) are plentiful large-run badges so you would expect some die wear even within the Tombak production.

Best regards,
---Norm

Attached Files

**Thomas Durante** · 07-03-2013, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Andreas Klein View Post

The idea of a brief trial run is only guesswork ... and it's not only a question of the used material, it is a question of the quality too. Simply compare the hollow zink IAB with it's tombak brother - there is a massive difference between them. The quality of the zinc made one is much lower than the tombak one.

Why if both came from the same die at the same time? Wouldn't be the quality equal to each other? The zinc ones show the traces of long used dies and worse base material.

Hi Andreas,

I don't think we can draw such conclusion of "quality" based on the 1 zinc hollow Schickle/Mayer IAB you posted. It appears to be a ground dug example with zinc pest, which could explain the poor quality.

It is very hard to find to find hollow zinc examples of these IABs, and the solid example is next to impossible to find. Contrast this with the plethora of hollow tombak examples we find. This fits the Schickle scenario perfectly in that whoever made these IABs was quite prolific early in the war, but stopped production right around the switch to zinc, i.e. mid 1941.

Tom

**Andreas Klein** · 07-04-2013, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by Norm F View Post

Your assertion in post #46 that "We know for sure that zinc was introduced into combat badge production around 1942" was also only guesswork (and incorrect).

I will come back to that later - nice try

And if the solid Schickle-design IABs weren't a brief run then why are they so extremely rare?

Rarity has nothing to say .... for example a silver grade JFS IAB is rarer than a bronze grage JFS - whyever.

Having said that, the Minesweeper (and the IAB) are plentiful large-run badges so you would expect some die wear even within the Tombak production.

Not nessearily .. early in the war the makers could easily replace a worn out tombak die with a new one, later in the war within the zinc production they had to use what they had and tools were longer used as in the early tombak days.

It is very hard to find to find hollow zinc examples of these IABs, and the solid example is next to impossible to find. Contrast this with the plethora of hollow tombak examples we find. This fits the Schickle scenario perfectly in that whoever made these IABs was quite prolific early in the war, but stopped production right around the switch to zinc, i.e. mid 1941.

Rarity of something is relative and could be caused by the number of placed orders .... anyway as you agreed some post above B.H. Mayer switched to the Vienna design, so the number of makers using the former Schickle design became less so it is no surprise that it is harder to find such a badge.

**Norm F** · 07-04-2013, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by Andreas Klein View Post

Originally posted by Norm F View Post

Your assertion in post #46 that "We know for sure that zinc was introduced into combat badge production around 1942" was also only guesswork (and incorrect).

I will come back to that later - nice try

Hi Andreas,

I'm puzzled. Are you saying that the solid S.H.u.Co. '41 IABs weren't actually produced until 1942? And are you saying that your research proves that Schickle, who clearly used zinc cores in his EK2s, could never have made zinc combat badges in 1941?

The physical evidence suggests zinc was introduced in different times in different cities -- Schwerin in Berlin still used Tombak in their KM badges in 1942 and was exclusively using zinc in 1943. Meanwhile F&B and Mayer in Pforzheim and the Vienna makers never used Tombak in their KM badges at all. You could argue that perhaps Mayer and F&B never made KM badges at all until after 1942 but that would be a guess too.

Best regards,
---Norm

**Andreas Klein** · 07-04-2013, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Norm F View Post

Hi Andreas,

I'm puzzled. Are you saying that the solid S.H.u.Co. '41 IABs weren't actually produced until 1942?

No, i don't say that ... but November 1941 is still to late for a firm which was closed in July 1941.

And are you saying that your research proves that Schickle, who clearly used zinc cores in his EK2s, could never have made zinc combat badges in 1941?

I wouldn't give to much on that zinc cores because i'm quite sure that producing a full badge out of zinc is different than stamping a core.

Anyway perhaps we should have a look how many L/15 marked (please no attributed ones) combat badges we can find. Have you seen an L/15 marked KVK or WB so far made from zinc for example?

The physical evidence suggests zinc was introduced in different times in different cities

I think you have now given to you the explanation for the "SHuCo. 41" in the area of Oberstein by yourself. So an massive IAB out of zink which was perhaps made 1941 in Oberstein is not a valid evidence that the Pforzheim area started to produce massive zinc IABs in 1941 too.

**Norm F** · 07-04-2013, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Andreas Klein View Post

...an massive IAB out of zink which was perhaps made 1941 in Oberstein is not a valid evidence that the Pforzheim area started to produce massive zinc IABs in 1941 too.

Originally posted by Andreas Klein View Post

We know for sure that zinc was introduced into combat badge production around 1942 when Schickle was long out of business, so it can't be made by them.

But Andreas, surely you must see the double standard you are applying here? On the one hand you say the known zinc production in 1941 in Oberstein is "no valid evidence" for early zinc production in Pforzheim 190 km away, and on the other you assert "for sure" that zinc cannot have been used by Schickle, yet show no valid evidence yourself to support that statement.

Best regards,
---Norm

**Hans N** · 07-04-2013, 12:41 PM

Well i know of one EK II makermarked L/15 that has a zinc core...

**Thomas Durante** · 07-04-2013, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Andreas Klein View Post

.... anyway as you agreed some post above B.H. Mayer switched to the Vienna design, so the number of makers using the former Schickle design became less so it is no surprise that it is harder to find such a badge.

Hi Andreas,

You know better than that, nice try though

! This is NOT what I said, so maybe wishful thinking on your part. Here is my exact quote:

Yes, it is possible that the pillow-crimped badges could very well be made by BH Mayer.

It could be that when Mayer switched to solid, zinc production they took the opportunity to crimp in their reverse hardware.

I don't discount the notion that Mayer could have made the pillow crimp IABs, PABs, WBs, etc. I don't think we can say that they definitely made them based on a single L/18 marked wound badge, but it is certainly a piece of the puzzle and should be something to consider.

It is not far fetched either, as we know that BH Mayer switched designs of their badges during the war, case in point would be their U-boat badges. After using the Schickle-design obverse (whether they made it themselves or this was leftover stock from Schickle who can be sure?). But on their solid-zinc badges they switched to a different obverse design.

So yes, it is possible that BH Mayer made the pillow-crimp badges, why not? Certainly not definite though and there is certainly not enough "forensic" evidence to start calling them BH Mayer IABs IMO.

As far as zinc production in 1941 in Pforzheim, I think Hans pretty much answered the question already (and so did Norm earlier), we known of L/15-marked EKs with zinc cores. Furthermore, we know of Petz & Lorenz EKs also with zinc cores, so zinc was certainly being used in prior to these companies loosing their license.

Tom

Announcement

Mayer Silver PAB

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread