Announcement

**Andreas Klein** · 05-05-2014, 08:25 AM

Hello Basti,

thanks to Dietrich we know the statment from Mr. Preuss to this subject:

"Was die Anstecknadel betrifft, so sind diese damals von der selben Herstellerfirma geliefert worden"

**Norm F** · 05-05-2014, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Andreas Klein View Post

Dear Norm,

i think the words and tone of voice you are using here is not fair for Frank and no one deserves it in this way.

Hi Andreas,

Then it's a complete misunderstanding in translation. I mean no disrespect to Frank whatsoever, and none of this detracts from his tremendous accomplishment with his excellent book.

Minor criticisms of small points in the book should not be interpreted as personal attacks, and it's my impression none was intended by Dietrich either.

Time to move on.

Best regards,
---Norm

**Andreas Klein** · 05-05-2014, 09:17 AM

Hi Norm,

thanks for the clarification - so no hard feelings at all

Constructive critic is part of our hobby and i think we all can handel it.

Best regards,

Andreas

**Leroy** · 05-05-2014, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Norm F View Post

....If that's the case, then really the more important dates for the collector are the dates their use was mandated on particular awards, rather than the date the list appeared in PK internal documents in its first form (although that's interesting too).

And since no one has apparently found any paperwork at all on that, we are left (by "observational" methods) to try to figure that out. In the RK field, it is a slippery slope trying to do that, as we already know that award date of a particular cross (even if really proven) may have nothing to do with manufacture date. In the case of Juncker "2" marked crosses and S&L "4" marked crosses, the vast bulk are "Klessheim" crosses (and there were plenty of things from Klessheim which were earlier than 1944, so just being there doesn't really tell you precisely about actual manufacture date). K&Q crosses are marked with the PKZ number only on the loop and there also exist S&L loops marked with the silver content and "4" (presumably intended originally for crosses without PKZ number stamping). Godet/Zimmermann markings are confusing, with Godet generally (when found) on the loop, Zimmermann generally on the cross, but exceptions noted (including stampings of L/21, L/52, etc.).

**Norm F** · 05-05-2014, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Leroy View Post

Note also that Otto Schickle - assigned "L/15" for a very short time before its removal, did not ever have a PKZ number. S&L, which was manufacturing RK's before March, 1941 for the private market, but apparently did not - based on award data we know about so far- supply the PKZ with award pieces until sometime later in 1941, ended up with "L/16", only one LDO number after Schickle - which was, coincidentally, #16 on the October, 1940 PKZ EKII list-

Hi Gentry,

The Schickle story might be significant in narrowing down the date range a bit. Since they were on the PK's EK producers list in October, 1940, yet never marked any product with a PK number, that suggests either: a) they never had a PK number or b) they had a number which dropped off of future lists and the mandate to mark crosses and wound badges with the PK number was some time after July, 1941 when Schickle (and P&L) were disbarred.

So perhaps we can deduce that the mandating of PK number marked wound badges, crosses and higher Orders took place sometime between July, 1941 and the end of 1942 (and may or may not have been different dates within that range depending on the type of Order).

Best regards,
---Norm

**Leroy** · 05-05-2014, 11:41 AM

The Schickle problem is that we don't know if it ever was an "official supplier" of the RK to the PKZ. It may be that any awarded Schickle was from the crosses obtained from retailers after October, 1941.

**Norm F** · 05-05-2014, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Leroy View Post

The Schickle problem is that we don't know if it ever was an "official supplier" of the RK to the PKZ. It may be that any awarded Schickle was from the crosses obtained from retailers after October, 1941.

Fair enough for the RK, but we know from your October, 1940 PK list that they were at least a supplier of the EK and we know they produced LDO approved and marked wound badges as well, so it's still a useful observation that neither are found marked with a PK number.

BTW, what was the source of those two PK lists you posted from 1939 and 1940?

Best regards,
---Norm

**Leroy** · 05-05-2014, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Norm F View Post

Fair enough for the RK, but we know from your October, 1940 PK list that they were at least a supplier of the EK and we know they produced LDO approved and marked wound badges as well, so it's still a useful observation that neither are found marked with a PK number.

BTW, what was the source of those two PK lists you posted from 1939 and 1940?

Best regards,
---Norm

Good point. Perhaps an EK specialist could advise on those.

Those lists were originally posted by Dietrich.

**kraut72** · 05-05-2014, 12:41 PM

Hello

maybe that I mean a half something but these pieces they are in the museum's medal collection today,and the original receipt register is in the archives likewise..

this for me sorry but NOT fiction or hypotesis but fact.

I think this there is a sign of this likewise the Bundesarchiv.

**Leroy** · 05-05-2014, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by kraut72 View Post

Hello

maybe that I mean a half something but these pieces they are in the museum's medal collection today,and the original receipt register is in the archives likewise..

this for me sorry but NOT fiction or hypotesis but fact.

I think this there is a sign of this likewise the Bundesarchiv.

So you are confirming 100% the use of PKZ numbers on pieces delivered to the Hungarian Embassy in early May, 1942?

**kraut72** · 05-05-2014, 02:38 PM

of course

8. May 1942

**Leroy** · 05-05-2014, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by kraut72 View Post

of course

8. May 1942

Thanks! Good information.

**Norm F** · 05-05-2014, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by kraut72 View Post

The German one of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs arranged the passing on the
Berlin Royal Hungarian embassy 1942 May 8. More were a manufacturer in the collection consisting of the 72 pieces,it is not possible to know it that there were fresh or depository purchases....

for example:

KC only, L/12
OL and OLS only, 1 type Godet L/50
IC 2, 132 Franz Reischauer
III.Order of the German Eagle, 21 Godet
Medal Order of the German Eagle with Swords/bronze, 30 Hauptmünzamt

Originally posted by Norm F View Post

The Schickle story might be significant in narrowing down the date range a bit. Since they were on the PK's EK producers list in October, 1940, yet never marked any product with a PK number, that suggests either: a) they never had a PK number or b) they had a number which dropped off of future lists and the mandate to mark crosses and wound badges with the PK number was some time after July, 1941 when Schickle (and P&L) were disbarred.

So perhaps we can deduce that the mandating of PK number marked wound badges, crosses and higher Orders took place sometime between July, 1941 and the end of 1942 (and may or may not have been different dates within that range depending on the type of Order).

So on the topic of PK number marking, if we put all this together so far we have:

1) Dietrich's observations suggesting late 1942 for the DK, RK and Oakleaves.
2) kraut72's observations of the Hungarian Embassy exchange of May, 1941 showing the LDO marked RK and Oakleaves in May, 1942 (consistent with Dietrich's observations for those orders), but PK number marked EK2 and Order of the German Eagle suggesting an earlier date for those two.
3) The Schickle info suggesting anytime after July, 1941 for the EKs and wound badges.
4) Existence of PK number marked Tombak wound badges.
5) The PK kept numbered lists of EK2 providers as early as October, 1940.

And the incomplete picture that emerges so far is:
1) The PK number list could have existed at any time in the office of the PK, but not mandated for marking until a particular date which could have varied for each type of award.
2) The Schickle evidence suggests no PK award marking before July, 1941.
3) Evidence from the Hungarian embassy exchange suggests EK and Order of the German Eagle was being PK number marked by May, 1942.
4) No evidence to date for marking of DK, RK and Oakleaves before the end of 1942.
5) PK marking of wound badges could have begun anytime after July, 1941 but certainly before the complete transition away from Tombak (whenever that was).

I think this has been a useful exercise. One might speculate that PK number marking regulations started from the "bottom" with wound badges and worked their way up through the EKs and on to the higher Orders. And no matter how long the PK kept numbered lists of "Lieferanten", the requirement to actually mark awards with PK numbers appears to have begun later than the requirement for LDO number marking.

Best regards,
---Norm

**Leroy** · 05-05-2014, 04:14 PM

Just an observation: The delivery to the Hungarian Embassy, in May, 1942, of an RK and Oakleaves with "L" markings only tells us that those particular pieces were manufactured at some point between March 1, 1941 (the LDO number institution date) and October 31, 1941 (the cutoff date of private sales). It does not mean anything, one way or the other, as to whether a requirement for PKZ marking of such type items had been put into effect before May, 1942. We only know that those particular pieces did not have the markings.

**Norm F** · 05-05-2014, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Leroy View Post

Just an observation: The delivery to the Hungarian Embassy, in May, 1942, of an RK and Oakleaves with "L" markings only tells us that those particular pieces were manufactured at some point between March 1, 1941 (the LDO number institution date) and October 31, 1941 (the cutoff date of private sales). It does not mean anything, one way or the other, as to whether a requirement for PKZ marking of such type items had been put into effect before May, 1942. We only know that those particular pieces did not have the markings.

Of course. All we can do is come up with time ranges that fit the current observations as a "working theory", and hope to hone it further as more evidence and observations come up to create more clarity.

Best regards,
---Norm

Announcement

The Deumer oval crimp PAB... missing link finally found!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread