Daisy IAB??

[Thomas Durante]

Hi guys,

I saw this IAB sales thread, and thought it was a funny name for an IAB with no daisy to be seen on it. Can anyone point out the daisy on this IAB?

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=691259

Thanks

Tom

[Nordmark]

Hello Tom,



thank you for that posting. I would like to quote you, if I may:

In the days before we knew the maker of these, we referred to them as the "Daisy IABs", which there were two patterns.

I don´t know about you, but I indeed still don´t know the maker. It also seems a few other collectors named these IAB "daisy" in the past:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...rchid=11052993

Please proof that S&H made them, without your "forensic evidence" of needles, hooks and scratches. If you can do that, I will gladly name them S&H.



Thanks again.



Daniel

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Nordmark,

I believe they were made by Schauerte & Hohfeld or Deumer, but I respect that others do not, so I don't expect you to call these S&H's or Deumers.

Why not call it an IAB by Unknown Maker then? Why call it "daisy"; seems confusing especially since there is no daisy on them.

Thanks

Tom

[Nordmark]

In the days before we knew the maker of these, we referred to them as the "Daisy IABs", which there were two patterns.

Why did you call them "Daisy" then?

[Thomas Durante]

Because "forensically" they are connected to the daisy PABs. But you don't believe in forensics, so why do you call them daisy??

Tom

[Nordmark]

In the days before we knew the maker of these, we referred to them as the "Daisy IABs", which there were two patterns.

Sorry chief, epic shot in the foot...

[Thomas Durante]

Waiting for your answer........

[Nordmark]

Waiting for your answer........

I´d advise a cup of tea then.

[Thomas Durante]

No good answer is there?

Your hypocrisy is entertaining Nordmark, thanks for the good laugh this morning when I saw your sales thread

Tom

[Giel VW]

Hi guys

There is a very big problem we are encountering now imo. We can't deny the fact any longer that some just choose to call everything "unknown" as long as there's no maker on them. In some cases I can respect that, like in the eternal discussions about Schickle/Mayer/F&R I feel that one can draw his own conclusion calling it either Schickle or possible Schickle or just unknown maker. If there's not enough evidence in something you can choose to be a diehard skeptic.

But you can't just turn around and let go of all what we have found which is out of the question, and this just to enlarge and pay respect to a group of diehard skeptics. If you do not see that this is a Deumer combat award with all what we have found to proof this then one still doesn't understand the complete timeline of badges and their makers.

Saying it is Daisy just shows that you want to go back in time, sit on the safe shore and form a group with ultra skeptics that can watch those who time and time again find the red line between makers.

[Thomas Durante]

Saying it is Daisy just shows that you want to go back in time, sit on the safe shore and form a group with ultra skeptics that can watch those who time and time again find the red line between makers.

No Giel, its worse than that. Some people want to deny that forensics can help us, but yet use those same exact forensics to call this IAB a Daisy! It makes no sense, there is no logic in that. Either you believe in the forensics or you don't. If you believe in the forensics, you would call this a Deumer or a Daisy. If you don't believe in the forensics, then you should call this an Unknown Maker.

I can and do respect those that do not agree with the forensics. But if you don't believe in the forensics, then stand behind what you believe. Don't go half way and call this a Daisy, call it an Unknown Maker. You can even give it a cute nickname, but at least make it something that is on the badge so other collectors will not be utterly confused

Tom

[Nordmark]

...

[Graeme]

Hi guys

There is a very big problem we are encountering now imo. We can't deny the fact any longer that some just choose to call everything "unknown" as long as there's no maker on them. In some cases I can respect that, like in the eternal discussions about Schickle/Mayer/F&R I feel that one can draw his own conclusion calling it either Schickle or possible Schickle or just unknown maker. If there's not enough evidence in something you can choose to be a diehard skeptic.

But you can't just turn around and let go of all what we have found which is out of the question, and this just to enlarge and pay respect to a group of diehard skeptics. If you do not see that this is a Deumer combat award with all what we have found to proof this then one still doesn't understand the complete timeline of badges and their makers.

Hi Giel

We definitely have a big problem, and the problem is that some guys that believe in the new connections, such as Deumer as you have mentioned, are totally opposed or UNWILLING to say such badges are "possibly Deumer". This simple statement would make the connection, but not be so arrogant as to state it without the definite proof.

No Giel, its worse than that. Some people want to deny that forensics can help us, but yet use those same exact forensics to call this IAB a Daisy! It makes no sense, there is no logic in that. Either you believe in the forensics or you don't. If you believe in the forensics, you would call this a Deumer or a Daisy. If you don't believe in the forensics, then you should call this an Unknown Maker.

I can and do respect those that do not agree with the forensics. But if you don't believe in the forensics, then stand behind what you believe. Don't go half way and call this a Daisy, call it an Unknown Maker. You can even give it a cute nickname, but at least make it something that is on the badge so other collectors will not be utterly confused

Tom

Tom

I think for some of the guys that call such badges a "daisy", they probably feel that this was the first nickname given, and until conclusive proof of another maker arises, why would they change that. So for those initially calling these daisies, they also knew that they were unknown makers.. Calling it Deumer, takes away the "unknown" for those that do not agree with the connection. There is a distinct difference in calling it a Daisy or a Deumer, one is unknown, the other named.

From my personal point of view, if a connection is made to a maker such as Deumer, then it is fine to keep that maker in the frame until proven not to be the maker.. but without definite proof it would not hurt to say "possibly" occasionally.

I am getting a little bored of the "forensics" word to be honest. You already mentioned that the daisy IAB was linked to other badges by certain similarities.. and that was before "forensics" started appearing in every thread. So the art of linking badges in this way has been around for some time. I don't see collectors disagreeing with these "forensics", they just don't jump to all the same conclusions.

Has Daniel upset you? It seems you opened this thread to take a pot shot at him

regards
Graeme

[Thomas Durante]

Has Daniel upset you? It seems you opened this thread to take a pot shot at him

On the contrary Graeme, he was having a little trouble selling his IAB, so I figured I would help out with some free publicity

You're welcome Daniel

Tom

[BassD]

maybe some people have another point of view what "forensic" means. If it was "forensic" to make connections via needle systems and fnish, scratches and so on... than i have an totally other view of "forensic"

Not to have a look on productions methods, the basics of producion and a lot of other things was irresponsible. Has some of the forensic guys ever saw an Exenterpresse or Friktionsspindelpresse in real when they are in production? Must the material warm or cold? And why warm or cold? Can i use the thame die for zinc and tombak? How does the Spritzgussverfahren realy works? The systems of getting orders for making awards. How you can get zink and tombak (Bezugsscheine) for the production. And there are thousand other questions like this. No, all not important. If i look how the first connections to the Deumer and S&H PABs was made... ui year realy forensic. Or that Schickle was banned because he was jewish... year also such a big forensic story without care about the basics.

So many connections are made without the knowledge of the basics... important what Greg write... why don't you call ist "possible" by Deumer. The non-fornsic guys have no problem to say that Deumer produce IAB or other combat awards. The only difference is that we say: we can not say how it looks like. But we have no problem to have a number of unmarked badges. Because we must no fill a newsletter every month with new forensic highlights. I asked myself what all the forensic guys will make in the future if there are no unmarked badges out there. Must be very boring.

the non forensic guys or group of diehard skeptics (how Giel call them) are more relaxed than it seems, because we know that we only know a little percent of the big puzzle. But we have no problem with that. But this little percent (after readings original docs, asked old firms, look at the pieces, look in the production) shows us that it was not possible to make serios "forensic" only when you have to look at the badge. Ok some of the forensic guys are such expertes... they can do that. Some of them can smell the marker It was up on every collector by himself what he called forensic. I find it more interesting to look in old docs that shows me that one firm deliever needle systems to other 24 (big) firms for IAB and WB and make also the needle systems for EK and KVK 1. Klasse, PAB, GAB, German Cross etc. After reading that, a connection via needle systems here in WAF or GCA (before i was banned like so many others) makes me only laughing