Announcement

**Dietrich Maerz** · 05-02-2014, 08:01 PM

For me (and not only for me) it is absolutely clear that Godet bought the RK parts from C.F. Zimmermann. And since Godet Knights Crosses are extremely rare and the Zimmermanns not so much, it would be very strange would it be the other way around. The same happened with the EK1. Zimmermann is also known for supplying parts of the GC to Otto Klein, Hanau.

Dietrich

**Bruce Simcox** · 05-02-2014, 09:05 PM

Hi Tom......

......Thanks for mentioning that link inclusion. I am looking forward to it, if or when it comes. However, this harks us back to the DRGM issue. Streptile stated very clearly that the screwback EK1 was not a product of Meybauer.

Originally posted by Thomas Durante View Post

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

If I'm not mistaken this is predicated on the belief that there may have been some confusion about the LDO marking system. I don't see how this could be possible when taking into account the following statement by Andreas

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.

The whole point of the LDO marking system was the inclusion of the letter L followed by the numeral/numerals denoting specific manufacturers.

Is there any indication of any other manufacturers omitting the L, at any time?

Is it really a mystery which factory(Deumer/Grossman) each of these WBs were constructed in when they are so clearly marked?

I see the numerals as being similar, but what does that really show?

If it can be demonstrated that the 11 and L/11 are from the same manufacturer then I can embrace it; as illogical as that seems given the LDO marking guidelines in place.

**Panzercracker** · 05-03-2014, 12:37 AM

Maybe, we've been looking in the wrong direction??, trying to prove and/or disprove the Daisy 2 PAB as a Deumer. How about we look into another direction, and demonstrate one, of the many unknown "Vienna" design PABs to be a Grossmann. I don't have access to the other site, and I don't have a book. But I'm pretty sure the backside and the hardware on this GAB (see post #102), might, point you chaps in the right direction. I looked at the "Rocky PAB" and it's a "possible", but doesn't have "die indentations" like the one on this 11 marked GAB. Hope I'm getting warmer...

--Ken

Attached Files

gab.jpg (115.3 KB, 95 views)

**Hans N** · 05-03-2014, 03:34 AM

Hi guys,

it seems that i need to keep my cake hole shut in the future since i get quoted like this in this interesting topic

Here is some more fuel to your discussion, early bunt Deumer SWB

Attached Files

**Hans N** · 05-03-2014, 03:35 AM

A early Deumer bunt GWB

Attached Files

**Hans N** · 05-03-2014, 03:37 AM

A Deumer BWB

Attached Files

**Hans N** · 05-03-2014, 03:40 AM

A Deumer 3 marked BWB

Attached Files

**Hans N** · 05-03-2014, 03:42 AM

A Deumer 3 BWB with a mm variation. None of these has those extra berries

Attached Files

**Panzercracker** · 05-03-2014, 03:44 AM

Thanks Hans. I've been waiting all night for these... Now for the Grossmann. Drum roll please...

--Ken

**Hans N** · 05-03-2014, 04:22 AM

A odd idea popped up in my head when i looked at this one
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...2&postcount=74

It is possible that it has been re-struck for some reason, could be delivered to one or the other and then re-struck. This is one explanation to the combination of faint L/11 AND the "Grossmann design". The double striking evidence is present on the reverse in the helmet...

As i stated in one of the linked threads: It´s obvious that some kind of cooperation was in place between Deumer and Grossmann. Perhaps this is the reason why the IAB/PAB/GAB different designs link/theory exists as well...

**Andreas Klein** · 05-03-2014, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by Norm F View Post

... 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,

please check the attached detail photos and how the stamp has damaged the surface of the badge ... it clearly shows a square damage done by a onetime strike with the stamp. Btw look how close the "/" is to the first "1". That isn't possible in this perfection with two strikes. The stamp has only a size of a few milimeters and isn't that big as it looks on our high res pictures.

Attached Files

**Andreas Klein** · 05-03-2014, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post

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

Hello Dietrich,

and you all made the correct logical conclusion out of the status quo of research we had at the time when your fantastic books were written - no doubt. As you know as good as me we don't stop to dig deeper in german documents and based on newer findings we have to re-ask if our former conclusion are still correct/up to date or if we reach another status quo on certain makers.

A possible misunderstanding of the numbering system in the beginning of the LDO time.

About this conclusion i have in the meantime my doubts und would like to explain it why:

There is a famous picture of the LDO founding published in "Uniformen Markt". This picture is listening all firms which were present when the LDO was founded. Listed are:

- Mr. Conze for Wilhelm Deumer, Lüdenscheid
- Mr. Gießener for Ferdinand Hofstätter, Bonn

And now the circle to Grossmann, Wien:

The firm of Grossmann was a jewish firm and therefore disspossed by the Nazis! It was given to the firm of Ferdinand Hofstätter, Bonn but still active under the "Grossmann" label. If we now take into account that Hofstätter and Deumer were part of the founding members of the LDO it's imo hard to believe that one of the founding firms (Deumer/Grossmann (Hofstätter)) was so stupid no to understand their own qualitty label for marking the products.

**Leroy** · 05-03-2014, 06:53 AM

Just a side inquiry: With all this "research" and all these books published, whose work is based on actual conversations with the surviving companies and/or their surviving employees?

**Dietrich Maerz** · 05-03-2014, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Andreas Klein View Post

If we now take into account that Hofstätter and Deumer were part of the founding members of the LDO it's imo hard to believe that one of the founding firms (Deumer/Grossmann (Hofstätter)) was so stupid no to understand their own qualitty label for marking the products.

Andreas,

there is evidence that the companies did not understand the system correctly in the beginning. This is a scan from my (May/June 1941) S&L catalog. They did not understand the "/" and were also a founding member of the LDO. There is also still the question of "L 15" and "15" for Orth in Wien ....

Dietrich

Attached Files

Scan263.jpg (49.2 KB, 93 views)

**Andreas Klein** · 05-03-2014, 07:46 AM

Hi Dietrich,

to me such letters are no evidence that the makers were stupid persons. Perhaps this letters had to be send to the customers by official orders (you have to tell the customers about your LDO number) or it had been simple "newsletters". Btw i don't know if the "/" was a must have because Souval did write "L58" until the end of the war.

And if i read the wording from our friend Otto Schickle than it sounds to me like "look how proud i am".

Attached Files

Schickle-1_Seite_2.jpg (100.4 KB, 96 views)

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