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

[Thomas Durante]

Thanks Dietrich. The discussion is regarding the Wound Badge, so I believe it is relevant.

Thanks also for the clarification on the regulations above as well.

Tom

[Dietrich Maerz]

Regarding the Wound Badge and the marking it then needs to be mentioned that between the 1. September 1939 and end of 1942 all official Wound Badges ordered and distributed by the PKZ had no number at all, neither LDO nor PKZ.

[Andreas Klein]

Andreas,

That regulation as for the private purchase only (konzessionierte Händler) and refers only to the LDO numbers. Also, there is no difference between private or official sale - a sale is a sale.

Hi Dietrich,

do we speak of the same document ?

My documents says the following:

"Jeder konzessionierte Hersteller (!) erhält also ein Kennzeichen, dass er außer auf der Verpackung als Stempelaufdruck auf jedem einzelnen Orden einzuschlagen hat."

Only order (such as the Iron Cross, War Merit Cross, German Cross) and SOME badges, such as the East Medal and the Wound Badge were handled by the PKZ.

Agreed and that's why i wrote that i don't know how it was monitored who delivered what.

[Thomas Durante]

Regarding the Wound Badge and the marking it then needs to be mentioned that between the 1. September 1939 and end of 1942 all official Wound Badges ordered and distributed by the PKZ had no number at all, neither LDO nor PKZ.

Dietrich, where do these dates come from? I think I read somewhere recently that the PK numbers date from 1941? With the LDO numbers being instituted in March 1941 as well, then shouldn't the FLL Wound badges (if they exist) be marked either by an LDO or PK code starting in 1941?

Thanks

Tom

[Andreas Klein]

Regarding the Wound Badge and the marking it then needs to be mentioned that between the 1. September 1939 and end of 1942 all official Wound Badges ordered and distributed by the PKZ had no number at all, neither LDO nor PKZ.

For the records: the PKZ numbers 65 and 30 were in use on the wound badges in early to mid 1942.

[Winston]

On that list of Rettenmaier...first it seems there is also something written on the backside as there is a note to turn the page...second I wonder why there is a maximum number of items to be ordered,from a manufacturer I would expect the opposite-a minimum order size. I also find the labeling Orden-Original irritating for a manufacturer,where if not from a manufacturer would you expect an original from?

[Andreas Klein]

Perhaps because of the overall supply shortage late war? Perhaps the makers had lowered stocks and all LDO shops should have the chance to buy everything.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Hi Dietrich,

do we speak of the same document ?

My documents says the following:

"Jeder konzessionierte Hersteller (!) erhält also ein Kennzeichen, dass er außer auf der Verpackung als Stempelaufdruck auf jedem einzelnen Orden einzuschlagen hat."


Agreed and that's why i wrote that i don't know how it was monitored who delivered what.

Yes, that is the same document and it is clearly in regards to the LDO which again is only regulating the private sales of decorations. The LDO number has nothing to do with the PKZ (other than Dr. Doehle approving the LDO-licensed companies). And the PKZ had nothing to do with Kampf- und Taetigkeitasabzeichen.

Dietrich

[Andreas Klein]

Yes, that is the same document and it is clearly in regards to the LDO which again is only regulating the private sales of decorations. The LDO number has nothing to do with the PKZ (other than Dr. Doehle approving the LDO-licensed companies). And the PKZ had nothing to do with Kampf- und Taetigkeitasabzeichen.

Dietrich

Well, Dietrich it's your opion that this was only meant for the LDO numbers ("Kennzeichen" is a common german word and can mean both number systems) ... i and several other have another opion but i think we should not run another number system discussion here because this is of no importance for the question we are discussing here.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Dietrich, where do these dates come from? I think I read somewhere recently that the PK numbers date from 1941? With the LDO numbers being instituted in March 1941 as well, then shouldn't the FLL Wound badges (if they exist) be marked either by an LDO or PK code starting in 1941?

Tom,

you read that most likely in the book from Frank Thater. What he calls a fact is flat out wrong and he has no document behind that. He just made it up, for whatever convenient reason.

For the records: the PKZ numbers 65 and 30 were in use on the wound badges in early to mid 1942.

Well that is what you deduct from the number "65" on a Wound Badge which also has the number "42" on it. That the PKZ numbers were introduced in 1942 is in my opinion correct, but not beginning 1942 nor mid 1942 but rather end of 1942. We had discussed this already and I will not bore the people with my reasoning which is based on multiple examples of the German Cross. I will only say this much: a number "42" (if it is a year) can be machined into a die on 1. January 1942 or 31. December 1942. Both is 1942 and to fix a part of the year without heuristically embrace other undisputablea facts of other areas of the Phaleristic is just not right.

Additionally, there is the written statement by the VP of S&L Mr. Preuss made in 1977 that the numbers were introduced in 1943. Why would he say so if it wasn't so for him?

Fact is this: it is WRONG that the PKZ numbers were introduced in 1941 and it is also WRONG that the PKZ numbers and the LDO numbers were introduced at the same date. And it is completely wrong what was postulated up to several years ago that the PKZ numbers were introduced mid 1944.


Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

Well, Dietrich it's your opion that this was only meant for the LDO numbers ("Kennzeichen" is a common german word and can mean both number systems) ... i and several other have another opion but i think we should not run another number system discussion here because this is of no importance for the question we are discussing here.

We should not discuss it here, but it should also not stand like that. All I can say is this: study the distribution channels of the Kampf- and Tätigkeitsabzeichen then you will see that there was no requirement of any markings for the millions of distributed medals. Or do you think that 95% of war badges have been distributed wrong (only marked on the case or bag, like you say) despite the fact that the regulation you posted clearly states that the number has to be added to the reverse or the ring of the decoration? Something that can be seen on the very few badges with an LDO number - because what you quoted was only in regards to private sales. Can't be clearer as it is and it really doesn't matter how many people think otherwise. It is sometimes extremely hard to argue against reality. And the reality is that 95% of all war badges neither have a PKZ nor an LDO number. Guess why?

Dietrich

[Andreas Klein]

We should not discuss it here, but it should also not stand like that. All I can say is this: study the distribution cahnnels of the Kampf- and Tätigkeitsabzeichen then you will see that there was no requirement of any markings for the millions of distributed medals. Or do you think that 95% of war badges have been distributed wrong (only marked on the case or bag, like you say) ...

No, i can only say that the Kampfabzeichen were not under the direct control of the Präsidialkanzlei and i can only say that that so far we could not find a single document in the german Bundesarchiv with some information who controlled them and how they controlled it.

So everything we writte about Kampfabzeichen is guesswork ... we can only look into documents for other "minor" awards like the 1938 medal or the eastern front medal and look if we can find something there.

There we have the information about the marking on the packets for example.

...despite the fact that the regulation you posted clearly states that the number has to be added to the reverse or the ring of the decoration? Something that can be seen on the very few badges with an LDO number - because what you quoted was only in regards to private sales. Can't be clearer as it is.

Well, perhaps you remember our disccusion in in the SDA. There we had a statistic saying that 99% of the maker marked war meritt cross 2nd class feature a correct PK number in the ring.

So we have a similiar marking system for the PK numbers ---- but more interesting is the point that these crosses were made from tombak and tombak was not longer avaiable for the war meritt cross because of regulations dated May 1942. So they were produced earlier .... and marked with a system published in 1941.

Fact is this: it is WRONG that the PKZ numbers were introduced in 1941 and it is also WRONG that the PKZ numbers and the LDO numbers were introduced at the same date. And it is completely wrong what was postulated up to several years ago that the PKZ numbers were introduced mid 1944.

I think the words "fact" and "wrong" are not good to underline a personal opinion when it comes to that subject. You have your opinon with good arguments, i and other people - including Frank Thater - share another opinion. That's the only fact ---- and that's true Neither you or we have a final document as solution for the problem, so that we all have to interpret the sources we have.

But Dietrich let us stop here and agree that we don't agree .. we can continiue via phone, mail or at the Kassel show but should not confuse the readers of the Rettenmaier thread.

[Nick Carraway]

It would be useful to have a separate thread to list exactly what we know, what we think, and what we do not know regarding the marking of war badges.

[Norm F]

Gee, I blinked and three more pages of posts appeared in this thread!

It is interesting to compare the pricelist shown at the beginning of this thread with these "official" pricelists shown by member BassD on another forum some time ago.

Public domain, so here are larger non-watermarked copies a bit easier to read, including the cover page for the November, 1944 issue of DUZ (Deutsche Uniformen-Zeitschrift).

[Norm F]

.