Opening the mystery box: Rettenmaier, maker of combat awards and lots more!

[Nordmark]

Guys,


what I don´t understand is, how you can connect this document to the flatback badges? The doc says, "Heeresflak oxidiert", also the regulations say, the Heeresflak had to be darkened. Now we have flatback Heeresflaks that were obviously "glanzverzinkt" and "oxidiert". Why aren´t the "glanzverzinkt" badges mentioned on the ordering form, if Rettenmaier was the maker? It seems to me, that this doc shows, that Rettenmaier was one of the maker that followed the regulations.

This document proves (in my personal opinion, I don´t know how my fellow collectors and WAF-guys see this), that this whole maker debate is a bit ad absurdum. The doc clearly shows, that this one firm (one firm of dozens!) was able to produce and supply a huge amount of Heer/SS and KM badges and crosses. Don´t you think that this might be the case with a lot of other makers, that are not part of the usual suspects, like Deumer, S&L, Juncker, S&H etc.?


Regards,


Daniel

[Giel VW]

Ok guys lets end the personal attacks right here again. Thanks

[Andreas Klein]

Well, said Daniel and i can only underline every word you wrote - perfect hit on the nail of the problem

[Thomas Durante]

Tom, you were writting down guesswork and that has nothing to do with research.

Ofcourse Andreas, it was just a lucky guess.

I must be the luckiest man on earth, I'm heading to Vegas!

Tom

[Jelle M.]

Simply use logic and ask yourself why the iron crosses and the wound badges from Rettenmeier are maker marked while the combat awards (including all 3 grades of the CCC !!!) are all unmarked. This is not the behaviour of a firm which has it's own unique tools .... that's behaviour of working with a master tool.

How do you explain that major jewelers (Assman to name one) had their own unique badges and produced identical badges with and without maker mark??

[kenneth wolfe]

Why aren´t the "glanzverzinkt" badges mentioned on the ordering form, if Rettenmaier was the maker

@ Nordmark

It's one thing to offer something that is not to regulation (glanzverzinkt) it's an entirely different thing to advertise it.



This to me is common business practice. Maybe these were in demand and the firm recognized this and gave soldiers what they wanted.


Given the fact that they could lose their contract, why would they advertise these?


They probably displayed the regulation ones and kept the unofficial versions in the back. Some soldier comes in to the shop asks for the badge and the dealer says I have one that's super shiny but it's technically not regulation. The soldier buys it, where's it around and one of his buddies asks "hey where did you get that shiny version at?" The buddy tells him where he got it and goes and gets one for himself and the cycle continues through word of mouth

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Nightstalker,

i can't "explain" it because i don't know and I'm not sure that an unmarked badge which looks like an marked Assmann badge was really made by Assmann itself.

I know that alot of people believe it but we don't know it.

Please take into account the time, manpower and resources which were needed to make a production die and than ask yourself why a maker should run two toolsets at the same time: one with his maker mark and one without it.

I don't know it and to me the only logical conclusion is that the unmarked die was probably shared with some other makers. Perhaps with a subcontractor working for Assmann or a totally different firm which wasn't able to produce a own toolset and therefore bought it from Assmann.

We have documents from the Hauptmünzamt Wien (Maker 30) in which they sold tools to FLL for example .... so what is indetified as unmarked 30 badge (because it looks like the maker marked version) could be a badge made by FLL for example.

[kenneth wolfe]

Or Assmann purchased a second die from a competitor that didn't need it or could use it efficiently

The possibilities are infinite


@ Andreas: I agree with you that we really don't know. We would like to prove something definitively but unfortunately within this field of collecting there are no absolutes

[Thomas Durante]

I don't know it and to me the only logical conclusion is that the unmarked die was probably shared with some other makers. Perhaps with a subcontractor working for Assmann or a totally different firm which wasn't able to produce a own toolset and therefore bought it from Assmann.

Andreas, the reason I don't believe this is the case is that I can't think of two different makers that used IDENTICAL dies. Lets forget all the unmarked badges for now.......can anyone show one example of two makers using IDENTICAL die sets? I cannot.

For instance, we know of 4 different CCC makers that use the "vienna design" (Souval, Hobacher, Deschler, UK #1). All 4 of these CCCs are 99.9% identical, but tiny differences show they all come from different die sets. That is what makes me think that no 2 tool sets are ever the same, even if created from a single master set.

Tom

[Norm F]

@ Andreas: I agree with you that we really don't know. We would like to prove something definitively but unfortunately within this field of collecting there are no absolutes

That's why in the KM world, for unmarked badges we generally list a maker as "attributed" and in the books you'll see attribution couched in the terms "possibly" or "probably", thereby recognizing the burden of circumstantial evidence but without 100% certainty.

It's the best of both worlds in providing a useful reference moniker and highlighting the research to date, yet recognizing there's always more to learn.

Knowing what we know from all the discussions not only in this thread but all past threads on this topic, and seeing a cohesive complete line of unmarked KM zinc badges with consistently the same production methods (filing techniques, surface texture, finish and hardware), I'm comfortable with applying the moniker "Rettenmaier-attributed" to the KM badges. It's the best term so far based on currently available evidence, and if it changes in the future based on new information (e.g. Deschler-attributed or whatever), that's fine too.

Best regards,
---Norm

[kraut72]

Ofcourse Andreas, it was just a lucky guess.

I must be the luckiest man on earth, I'm heading to Vegas!

Tom

Tom

I welcome Rick Harrison and Chumlee

[Thomas Durante]

Why aren´t the "glanzverzinkt" badges mentioned on the ordering form, if Rettenmaier was the maker? It seems to me, that this doc shows, that Rettenmaier was one of the maker that followed the regulations.

Daniel, the glanzverzinkt Rettenmaiers could be from a different time period from the catalog. The catalog list is only a snapshot of what was available in July 1944. Also, not all makers followed regulations. JMME LW badges are but one example of this, they left their wreaths completely silver when the regulations were clear that the wreaths should be darkened.

The fact that we have many, many combat badges that are unmarked despite the LDO regulations also proves that not everyone followed the rules to a "T".

This document proves (in my personal opinion, I don´t know how my fellow collectors and WAF-guys see this), that this whole maker debate is a bit ad absurdum. The doc clearly shows, that this one firm (one firm of dozens!) was able to produce and supply a huge amount of Heer/SS and KM badges and crosses. Don´t you think that this might be the case with a lot of other makers, that are not part of the usual suspects, like Deumer, S&L, Juncker, S&H etc.?

In my opinion, no. All these flatback badges are linked together by many factors (rough reverse, flat profile, hand filing, finish, base metal, hardware setup, etc.). To me, this is very important to link all these badges to a single maker, whoever that may be. If you and I were both give IDENTICAL tool sets and told to put an IAB together, I can guarantee there would be differences in the end product.

Who this one maker turns out to be is less important to me. It doesn't have to be from the group of usual suspects, although they should always be good candidates. The fact that forensically I went with Rettenmaier last year as the maker of the flatbacks should be evidence of this fact. I think you will agree that they aren't one of the "usual suspects". Before then, Rettenmaier was only really considered a maker of the EK1s and not much more than that. But I saw enough similarities on their EK1s to put it together, even though Rettenmaier seemed "out of the blue" for some people when it came to combat badges.

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

i can't "explain" it because i don't know and I'm not sure that an unmarked badge which looks like an marked Assmann badge was really made by Assmann itself.

Please take into account the time, manpower and resources which were needed to make a production die and than ask yourself why a maker should run two toolsets at the same time: one with his maker mark and one without it.

Actually Assmann ran 4 die sets at the same time (i.e., GABs). All marked Assmann so there is no question who made them. On their CCCs, Juncker used at least 4 die sets, same with FLL. All maker marked, so there is not disputing this.

Why they needed multiple dies of the same badge can still be debated, but it is a fact that many makers did this.

Tom

[Bruce Simcox]

Hi Giel......

......Thank you for starting this most provocative of threads. I can see that the usual disagreements about manufacturers are still alive and kicking. I do not mean any disrespect to anyone by saying this.

Great paperwork you have obtained, it will doubtless go a long way in solving some unanswered questions.

I really enjoy seeing something on paper, and accompanied by badges discovered together. I can only pray that the provenance is indisputable in this case.

Definitely worthy of our attention.

[John R.]

Thanks Giel, very interesting observation. Thanks for the posting the information.

John