Mayer Silver PAB

[Hans N]

Thanks Hans, for illustration I think you mean these zinc wound badges here:
Two types of 1914 WB by Otto Schikle

That´s correct Norm

[hoggtannlars]

You do not have to apologize to me Norm F.

I find this discussion very interesting. The reason why I showed the Badge (and others) is that I would like others to be able to use the thread to identify a simular Badge if they need help With that. It may also help somebody to find out what kind of finish this type of Badge might have. It can also help those who are doing Research on the subject.
I have used the WAF much when I have needed help and Pictures and discussions like this have helped me alot to learn.

The reason why I do not thake part in this kind of discussions is lack of knowledge and the fact that I am not to good to Express my self when wrighting in English. But I have no problem Reading English.

This thread have become very useful for me, so please go on.

[Thomas Durante]

And now look at the dealer shops .. badges which had been a few years ago a 200,00 EUR original badge are now the 500,00 EUR unmarked Petz & Lorenz badge.

Yes, this is true in some dealers cases, but I can assure you that this is not the reason why some of us are so enthusiastically trying to determine the makers of unmarked badges. I am not a dealer and rarely sell anything; I am in it for the pure enjoyment of the research and "thrill of the hunt". I cannot speak for Norm's intentions, but I am quite positive he is the same way as me.

And even if some dealers will raise the prices once the true identities of the unmarked badges are determined, so what? That is not a reason to stop all research and strive for the truth. Dealers can ask whatever they want, collectors don't have to pay it.

Its the age old question in this hobby. You see an unmarked badge and you want to know who made it. Very simple. Whether it be Norm or I studying the forensics of the badges themselves to make connections, or Andreas and Basti pouring over the bundesarchiv for original paperwork from the manufacturers. I think both parties can learn from eachother and it is all for good intention, as far as I can tell. When I see the maker connections in Frank's EK1 book with Wiedmann, Friedrich Linden or Petz & Lorenz, etc., I don't suspect that he made these connections to increase his book sales. I think he did it because he legitimately feels there is sufficient evidence to connect these makers to unmarked crosses. Maybe I am naive, but I think that not everyone is in this hobby for the money.

The same can be said with Type A S&L Knights Crosses. Not a single one has ever been found maker marked, yet everyone calls them S&L crosses. Is it because they want to increase the value of them, or is it because they legitamately believe that S&L was the maker based on the forensic evidence? Some may want to increase the value, but I think the vast majority of collectors call them S&Ls because they believe in the science.

Tom

[John R.]

In addition, the classification tables being developed for war badges are extremely helpful even if you did not agree with attributions or care about the attributions--many based on "badge forensics".

For example, the Minesweeper Badge has something like 93 variations and counting. Where before we would say "looks period" or something like that, it was very very tough since other collectors might say is "looks period" but it does not match accepted originals. They did not say it was a fake, but doubt was cast since we did not have a system in place to identify so many unmarked examples. When very experienced collectors left the forum, like Frank, it therefore hurt. The database just was not there.

There just was no where to go to keep it all straight but now there is thankfully.

The other issue was the split of the war badges into service specific forums. I personally did not like the split since I thought we would lose something since maybe an experienced collector in Heer badges would never look at the KM badges and so forth. Therefore a previously unknown KM badge might be posted but the connection of that badge's hardware to a maker might go unmentioned since the experienced Heer collector who did know by experience did not look at it.

Threads like this with collector posts by Tom, Norm, Andreas and everybody else really helps to tie all war badges together for discussion--very necessary to keep the information flowing. Just the discussion process is very important I think to the hobby.

So this thread is very interesting to me, the comments by all parties quite informative, the civility of the discussion continuing to make war badge collecting so enjoyable for everybody even if they do not post or cannot post due to language issues.

I personally did not like to hear that my "Zimmerman, Meyer, Schickle" U-boat badges were now of the consensus that they were all Schickle made or Schickle sold, or whatever, but I understand the theory, the reasoning of that theory, and grudgingly came around to it. The knowledge base keeps getting better and better and I like my badges no matter who made them in the end.

I just want them to be period made.

So thanks to everybody on this thread no matter their position.

John

[Dietrich Maerz]

The same can be said with Type A S&L Knights Crosses. Not a single one has ever been found maker marked, yet everyone calls them S&L crosses. Is it because they want to increase the value of them, or is it because they legitamately believe that S&L was the maker based on the forensic evidence? Some may want to increase the value, but I think the vast majority of collectors call them S&Ls because they believe in the science.

That is not quite correct! The A and B frame are 95% identical, down to microscopic flaws. The B-type frame is marked with "4" and prior to the detection of the A and B type frame there was no difference made or recognized by the collector community. (Some German authors, like Geissler and Nimmergut, still deny the fact and certify post-war B-types as "early war" and "pre-LDO") S&L as a maker of the Knights Cross was never based on forensics but rather on the PKZ stamp "4".
The same applies to all the other makers of the RK but one, the 3/4 Ring RK.

Dietrich

[Thomas Durante]

Yes Dietrich, but 95% is not 100%!! So how can we be so sure that the A type crosses were not made by some other Ludenscheid-based firm using Wissmann-created dies that were 95% similar to S&L's RK dies? There is no master list of RK makers, so maybe the A type crosses were made by Assmann or Hymmen or Friedrich Linden??

This is the same argument that has been used to cast doubt on the S&L connection to these IABs shown below. I think everyone agrees that S&L made this IAB, but did they make all of the ones with this same design? It has been argued that S&L used Wissmann do design this IAB for them, and therefore they could have also provided similar dies to other firms. If you agree with this, then you would have to contend that this scenario is also possible with RKs; that Wissmann designed the dies for S&L, and therefore could have provided nearly identical dies to other firms as well.

For the record, I don't believe in the above scenario. I believe that the IABs with this design were all made by S&L. Likewise, I also believe that the A Type RKs were all made by S&L, even though not a single one has ever been found marked.

Tom

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tom,

With all due respect, that argumentation is completely baseless. I will not go into details because I don't want to hijack this interesting thread - only this much: if you want to make a case for unknown makers using the S&L Knights Cross,you are trying to use the worst possible example. If you would have studied the frames, you would not say something like that. And that is apart from all the documentary evidence. I am sure you will find a better case to make your point (which I do somewhat understand!).

Dietrich

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Dietrich,

I picked the S&L RK specifically to get your attention and bring your considerable knowledge and experience to this interesting discussion.

But I also brought it up because it is a perfect example of how seemingly inconsistent the maker-connections are in this hobby. Ofcourse no one has studied the RKs as much as you, but thankfully I have your excellent book to help me with this endeavor. I don't think you have to go into depth in your explanation here, but very simply take a look at this thread, specifically post #9:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...t=wissmann+iab

Andreas quote for this IAB (the same I show above by the way):

"A nice midwar IAB probably designed by Wissmann, Pforzheim and produced by different makers included S&L"

So very simply, could we not say the exact same thing about the A type "S&L" RKs?

If we substitute RK for IAB in the same quote, are you saying there is 100% no way this sentence can be correct for the A Type RK?

"A nice RK probably designed by Wissmann, Pforzheim and produced by different makers included S&L"

Thanks for humoring me. Again, just for the record, there is NO DOUBT IN MY MIND that the A Type RKs are made by S&L. I am simply showing the inconsistency that exists in this hobby when it comes to maker connections.

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

Now before you answer Dietrich, keep in mind badges like this. One is maker marked for Dr. Franke & Company (F&CL) and the other is unmarked. Obviously, we have connected the unmarked example to F&CL because of the near-identical obverse design. However, it has been argued by some that the unmarked badge "could have been made by other makers that shared a similar die to F&CL, and therefore should be called an "F&CL-Design IAB".

To my eye, these badges utilize an identical obverse die, I would say 99 or even 100% the same. And certainly more than the 95% you mention with the A & B Type S&L RKs, when you consider all the significant differences between the two S&L RK dies like the visual knee flaws, dent row, etc.

Why is there no push to call the A Type RKs the "S&L-Design"? I honestly would like to know why this is the case, more out of curiosity than anything else. Why are some connections fully accepted, but others are just argued to death even though there seems to be a stronger case?

Thanks

Tom

[kraut72]

Tom

apart from the listed facts.....


the some did not remain in untouched original outher carton found other KC prepared by a manufacturer only S&L type

Zimmermann KC never


http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...L+outer+carton

[Thomas Durante]

Hi kraut72,

An excellent point, I am glad you brought it up. The S&L IABs in question have also been found in S&L-marked packets. In the IAB world, this apparently isn't enough evidence to call all these IABs "S&L badges", but rather they insist on calling them the "S&L-Design". So why not insist the same with the A-Type RKs, shouldn't these be called the "S&L Design" as well?

Thanks

Tom

[Chet Sowersby]

I'am sorry to add to the hijacking of this thread. However, Tom your pm box is full.....

Chet

[Thomas Durante]

Hehe, sorry gents, lots of PMs today

Its all clean Chet.

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

and now read my answer again:

The fact that in the area of Oberstein zinc was used allready in 1941 can't be taken as evidence that in other maker areas like Gablonz, Lüdenscheid or Pforzheim zinc was used in 1941 aswell or do you believe that all makers started with zinc in 1941?

Hi Andreas,

Did you happen to see the recent vet grouping that Klaus Butschek posted recently:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...=680318&page=3

It appears to prove Norm's point that zinc production did start in Pforzheim in 1941. In the grouping is a zinc based hollow "Schickle/Mayer IAB" that we are discussing here, along with the award document from December 1941.

This is significant for several reasons:

1. It proves that zinc production started in Pforzheim in 1941.

2. The IAB is relatively low quality, just like the one you showed earlier, proving that such low-quality IABs were made early in the war.

3. Hollow zinc production came before solid zinc production.

4. While there is no real way to determine actually when this IAB was actually produced, there are some clues in the grouping that suggests it was produced many months prior to its awarding in December 1941. There is no soldbuch with the group, but there is a list of retroactive close combat days, starting on August 1st 1941. According to this list, he would have attained the 3 assaults necessary for the IAB in very short order (by August 3rd 1941), and his name would have "technically" been submitted for this award. Its possible he may have even been eligible before this, because CCC days were counted more stricter than IAB days, so he may have had some assaults that counted toward the IAB, but not qualify for a close combat day. But we can see that by atleast August 3rd, 1941 he was eligible for the IAB. That means it took almost 5 months for him to get this award. But that is believable given his circumstances. He was wounded only 11 KM outside Moscow, meaning he was at the tip of the german advance and the furthest away a soldier could possibly get from Germany in 1941. Supplies of all kinds were being shipped there to sustain the front, especially the desperately lacking winter gear. So it is reasonable that a badge like this would have been produced many months before it was actually awarded to a soldier at the absolute end of the supply chain in December 1941.

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

The IAB document and the shell fragments.

Tom