Monster GAB S&L opinions

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Tom,

nearly every question you are asking was discussed allready in the past and because of the Steinhauer letters to Wissmann and the documents of the German Bundesarchiv there is no need to discuss it in detail once more.

You have ignored the surfaced evidences in the past and you will ingore it in the future --- it's ok ...

I only post a little summary for the starter who perhaps has missed them.

But where we disagree is that I think the third-party supplier S&L used, must not have supplied many other makers with hardware because S&L hardware is quite unique. Sure we can find another maker or two that used a similar hinge or catch, but the majority of other makers used different hardware.

Based on you point of view this statment is correct. Because of the fact that you link every unmarked combat badge (which isn't made by Schickle or Petz & Lorenz) to Steinhauer & Lück there is indeed no room for any other maker of the third reich using such a hardware

There is no unique S&L hardware because they never produced setup hardware by their own ... that's a fact and there is no room for speculations.

It's another fact that S&L bought their dies for the combat badges in Pforzheim and we don't know how many other firms did it in the same way ... so what you call a S&L badge could be a badge from any other maker too, so your unique S&L setup isn't unique - it was used by a unknown number of Wissmann customers too.

So you can see your setup on other Lüdenscheid based makers too ... to bad no one can name them.

Its these questions that lead some of us to believe that S&L made their own hardware. But even if they didn't, and they used a 3rd-party supplier that you suggest, ...

I do not "suggest" a third party supplier for S&L ... i know it because of real documents - no guesswork, no forensic.

... then it must be that whoever that supplier was didn't supply many other makers because the S&L hardware is unique (57er scrape).

THAT supplier delievered the setups for combat badges to 1/3 of all makers with production orders in 1942 - no guesswork, no forensic .... the own words of Mr. Doehle dated the 4th of July 1942.

[Nordmark]

Hello Tom,



why was the hook moved? I can clearly see that is was removed, and another one was placed on the lower part of the badge. The badge received its finish after that procedure. But why? I did not have my coffee yet...



Regards,


Daniel

[Thomas Durante]

Because of the fact that you link every unmarked combat badge (which isn't made by Schickle or Petz & Lorenz) to Steinhauer & Lück there is indeed no room for any other maker of the third reich using such a hardware

Hi Andreas,

There are plenty of marked combat badges out there, so why don't we find this exact same hardware combinations on some of these other makers badges? If some supplier, supplied hardware to 1/3 of the badge makers, then it stands to reason that we would see this hardware on 1/3 of the badges out there, marked and unmarked alike. The fact that we don't see this proves that there is more to the puzzle then period documentation can show us.

There is no unique S&L hardware because they never produced setup hardware by their own ... that's a fact and there is no room for speculations.

I do not "suggest" a third party supplier for S&L ... i know it because of real documents - no guesswork, no forensic.

I believe you Andreas!
Can you show us the document that says S&L didn't produce their own hardware? I know the Wissmann letters talk about dies, but does it say anything about hardware. I don't recall ever seeing a clear translation of the Wissmann letters, so if anyone can post it here I think it would help.

THAT supplier delievered the setups for combat badges to 1/3 of all makers with production orders in 1942 - no guesswork, no forensic .... the own words of Mr. Doehle dated the 4th of July 1942.

Can you show this letter Andreas, I would love to see it? Or atleast post the exact wording of this letter so we can discuss it in detail.


@Nordmark, I don't know why S&L put the catch in the middle, but then moved it down to the correct location. It may just be a coincidence that it was put in the exact same spot as the 1957er GABs, but to me it makes the GAB that started this thread have more in common with the 1957er badges then it does with wartime GABs. But that is just speculation on my part, it could just be a coincidence, but I thought it worth mentioning.

Thanks guys

Tom

[Andreas Klein]

If some supplier, supplied hardware to 1/3 of the badge makers, then it stands to reason that we would see this hardware on 1/3 of the badges out there, marked and unmarked alike. The fact that we don't see this proves that there is more to the puzzle then period documentation can show us.

Simply stop linking every unmarked badge to one and only maker ... than you have the makers you are missing with the same Hardware. I don't know how many customers Wissmann had but i'm quite sure that it was more than S&L.

Can you show us the document that says S&L didn't produce their own hardware?

Steinhauer & Lück
Hochstraße 47 - 51
58511 Lüdenscheid

Can you show this letter Andreas, I would love to see it? Or atleast post the exact wording of this letter so we can discuss it in detail.

Das Bundesarchiv
Potsdamer Straße 1
56075 Koblenz

[Norm F]

Interesting, looks like a copper coated zinc piece. That's a first for me from this maker. I'm curious to see the additional pics as well

Hi Guys,

Regarding the copper undercoating, here's a zinc S&L-attributed Coastal Artillery Badge posted by BubbaZ which also has a copper undercoating. Although this badge with this setup is not uncommon this is the only example to show up to date with this copper undercoating like that GAB. I don't know what it means but it seemed interesting and worth mentioning in this thread.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Thomas Durante]

Simply stop linking every unmarked badge to one and only maker ... than you have the makers you are missing with the same Hardware. I don't know how many customers Wissmann had but i'm quite sure that it was more than S&L.

Can you show an example of two different makers that share 100% the same exact die? Pick any badge you like, can you show two makers that share 100% identical die characteristics? There are plenty of maker-marked badges out there, so shouldn't be hard if your scenario is correct and Wissmann supplied identical dies to other firms.

I would contend that if Wissmann supplied dies to two different makers, these dies cannot be 100% identical. There would be minor differences, even from the same mother die which would be an indication that two different makers were supplied with similar dies. That is the case with the "vienna-design" PABs, GABs, IABs. There are 14 different makers that can be identified, all using very similar dies, but each different in their own little way.

We don't see that with the S&L IABs or GABs, PABs or CCCs. They are all identical to eachother. That is why I am so adamant about this type of badge only coming from a single maker (S&L). Regardless of the many different hardware setups, the obverse die characteristics are always 100% the same. That indicates a single maker in my opinion.


@Norm, thanks for the follow up, good to see another copper-coated zinc S&L badge added to the mix. Now, all we need to determine is if they are wartime-produced badges or not and we can all get along

Tom