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

[Andreas Klein]

Trevor has a very good thread in the Crosses forum where he goes into the evidence why Godet didn't produce much themselves, but rather purchased from other makers. Quite impressive bit of forensic work.

As you have probably noticed i look at the whole area of badges and try to back up everything up with those stupid german documents ot of the Bundesarchiv.

If Godet didn't produce much themeselves than please explain me why they are listed by Mr. Doehle beginning with 09.09.1939 as maker and why C.F. Zimmermann ist not listed as maker at the same time?

Do you really believe that Mr. Doehle would support the third party suppliers with a list of "the firms which i gave a production order" and would include a retail seller on it.

[Panzercracker]

My new addition: An unmarked Grossmann EK2

--kEN

[Norm F]

As you probably know Mr. Conze from Wilhelm Deumer was one of the founding members of the LDO and thererfore i think he knew enough to teach his workers how and with which number they had to mark a Deumer product.

I'm not disagreeing but I'm just saying I don't know the true situation. The evidence that Grossmann marked the wound badges and EK1s "11" isn't any stronger than the evidence that Deumer marked them.

Stefan has a set of an "11" marked EK1, apparently indistinguishable from an "L/11" marked cross, found complete in a Deumer marked LDO case. The Grossmann theorists say it must have been added later while the Deumer theorists say it was always together. Who knows? We'll have to wait for more evidence to prove whether or not Grossmann made and marketed their own EK1.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Panzercracker]

Why don't you ask him? He's been there 10yrs now. Anyway, here's the thread: http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...=11+ek1&page=2

--Ken

so 5tefan? or a other Stefan?

[Panzercracker]

...which brings us back to the EK2 and the "master list"... http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...=554105&page=3 **Notice the 11 marked ones (including "unmarked), under Grossmann, in the EK2 list, are clearly labeled as Grossmann. ***Further, you can't dispute that the unmarked Grossmann EK2 I've shown, doesn't match any of the marked EK1 by DEUMER (atleast in the thread I just posted in #107), so Grossmann ONLY produced an EK2. Rare maker, with a CONSISTENTLY rare "line up" of products. NO question.

--Ken

[Norm F]

... on my badges the "L/11" and the "11" are not of the same shape and size ... the "11" features another digit design and the "L/11" stamp is from overall smaller size.

For the record I agree with this. On close examination the "11" mark is clearly different from the numerals "11" within the "L/11", so the "L/11" is not made from the "11" plus a separate "L" stamp. The "L/11" and the "11" are created by two different tools. But neither does this help us along any further in our understanding...

Best regards,
---Norm

[Panzercracker]

Too much "ado" to the maker marks IMO, but it's been a long day for me again! Anyway, I think I brought up a valid point, by bringing up the EK2 "master list" because you can "marry" the "marked 3" DEUMER EK2s, as well as, their unmarked ones, with their EK1 brothers (by their die charactersitics). You can't do that with the Grossmann EK2 (from that "list" anyway..ha..ha..). As far as sharing of hardware and dies (later in the war) from the wound badges, I leave that to the floor of a wound badge expert. Last, the crimp style on the marked Grossmann IABs simply, don't match up, with the crimps seen in this thread. So, IMO, based on observation, Grossmann was largely a lower production run maker, and probably started producing badges later than most makers.

--Best,
Ken

[Dietrich Maerz]

George Stimson and myself concluded in our "Iron Cross 1. Class" book that "L/11" and "11" for the EK1 is with very high propability Deumer. A possible misunderstanding of the numbering system in the beginning of the LDO time.

Frank Thater came several years later in his "Das Eiserne Kreuz 1. Klasse" to the same conclusion.

Dietrich

[Graeme]

Hi Guys

Just to let you all know, that I am going to tidy this thread and remove all off topic posts. So if a few posts disappear you know it's me.
Keep to the badge discussions please, and all can have an opinion.

regards
Graeme

[Thomas Durante]

For the record I agree with this. On close examination the "11" mark is clearly different from the numerals "11" within the "L/11", so the "L/11" is not made from the "11" plus a separate "L" stamp. The "L/11" and the "11" are created by two different tools.

Hi Norm,

No one said they are the same stamp, only that they are similar shape and size. They are also the same "style" as the Deumer stamp. Much in the same way that Trevor observed that the different L/50 Godet marks are in the same shape, size and style as the different makers that Godet bought from.

[Thomas Durante]

Ofcourse, one could argue that "the numeral 1 is very basic and its no coincidence that an 11 and an L/11 look similar". But in reality there is quite a bit of variation to be found in maker marks that contain the number 1.

[Panzercracker]

I thought this thread very interesting.... http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=704942 **Has a believable 11 maker mark, on a "Vienna design" GAB. Notice the "style" of the chest feathers on this GAB, which are in line with the "style" on Grossmann marked IABs. Too bad there aren't more, but worth noting again. IMO, if Grossmann were to produce a PAB, it would be more "in line" with the "Vienna" design types.

--Ken

[Bruce Simcox]

Hi Tom......

the different makers that Godet bought from.

I am under the impression that this is still speculation.

[Thomas Durante]

When you take into account all the variations that are to be seen, then I start to think that the similar shape, size and style of the L/11 and the 11 marks might not be coincidence after all. They have alot more in common than not IMO.

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

I am under the impression that this is still speculation.

Hi Bruce,

I don't think there is firm documentation to support this per se, but alot of circumstantial evidence. I believe Andreas asked Trevor to explain this more in detail, and hopefully he will post it here. If not, then the discussion will be in a separate thread in the Crosses forum and I will provide the link when it begins.

Tom