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

[Leroy]

Dietrich - Thanks for showing that clip from the Journal (which also supports the order for DK's). Was Mr. Preuss, by saying 1943 instead of 1942, just mistaken?

I have also heard that Preuss had interesting converstions with Kleitmann, and that Kleitmann's notes were acquired by Nimmergut and used in his book series.

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Dietrich,

do you have the first article from issue 22 to whom the answer from Preuss belongs too?

[Dietrich Maerz]

He said 1943 but there is evidence it was earlier, like late 42, as I said already in post #127. I don't think that in 1977 it was of a huge significance for him whether it was late 42 or early 43. Maybe his recollection even signalled late 43. But he did not say "1941" or "together with the LDO-numbers" or even "before the LDo-numbers."

(And you might also note that he only talks about German Crosses in Gold. There are a lot of people who believe in the pre May 1945 existence of German Crosses in Silver made by S&L. Well, not Mr. Preuss....)

[Leroy]

(And you might also note that he only talks about German Crosses in Gold. There are a lot of people who believe in the pre May 1945 existence of German Crosses in Silver made by S&L. Well, not Mr. Preuss....)

Of course, it is your language, but I would not restrict his comment, as he indicates that the last large order was the German Cross in Gold and Silver, and then he says (in the next and separate paragraph, by the way) that on the morning of July 20, he and Dr. Doehle discussed the order for the DKiG and the Pioneer of Labor, so he seems to be intermingling awards. Perhaps Dr. Doehle was changing quantities and tossing in the Pioneer of Labor. Who knows? It's not like we have him here to ask follow-up questions.

[Thomas Durante]

I don't think that follows? If anything, one could argue that if the PK numbers didn't yet exist (as Dietrich's research suggests), then the mistake of leaving off the "L" for the LDO number was more likely, since there was no other system to confuse it with at the time.

Hi Norm,

I am not sure I follow you here. If we are to consider the 11 & L/11 being a mistake, then obviously both numbering systems had to be in effect. Both the Deumer and Grossmann WBs are made from tombak, which we know was being phased out in 1941 and certainly by mid 1942 as evidenced by the documents Andreas has shown previously. PK numbers can also be found on quite a number of tombak WBs (Brehmer & Hauptmunzampt quickly come to mind ), so wouldn't that also suggest the PK numbers earlier than "late 1942"?

Tom

[Norm F]

I am not sure I follow you here. If we are to consider the 11 & L/11 being a mistake, then obviously both numbering systems had to be in effect.
Tom

I just meant if there was only one numbering system in existence at the time, the "L" is superfluous to the meaning. So the LDO says to a member, "Your LDO number is 11". Indeed, the maker should stamp "L/11" but while everyone is getting used to the new regulations some workers are allowed to stamp "11" not realizing the "L" was important. Until Mr. Conze trains back to Lüdenscheid and bangs some heads together to set them straight. If the PK number system was also in place at the time, then anyone would realize the inherent confusion that result from leaving off the "L", making it less likely that such an error would be allowed to persist.

But this is a highly speculative thread, on both sides of the discussion, and we honestly can't say for sure whether just one company or two were involved in the otherwise identical L/11 and 11 marked wound badges and EK1s. For this discussion we don't have the luxury of a "smoking gun" like we do in the case of double-marked Schickle/Zimmermann and Schickle/F&B products combined with period announcements of Schickle's sell-off.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Andreas Klein]

I just meant if there was only one numbering system in existence at the time, the "L" is superfluous to the meaning. So the LDO says to a member, "Your LDO number is 11". Indeed, the maker should stamp "L/11" but while everyone is getting used to the new regulations some workers are allowed to stamp "11" not realizing the "L" was important.

Hi Norm,

i think this thought is most unlikely. The LDO was the right (helping) hand of Mr. Doehle and the Präsidialkanzlei and he was still the leader when it comes to awards. So i think that verything was clear between them.

Anyway in "Uniformenmarkt" issue 01.03.1941 there is is an article included about cases/packets and the markings of awards. This article says that they are proud to announce that the makers got their code and should use it after 01.03.1941 and for example every award which comes with an attaching loop (like the iron cross 2nd class) should be marked with the code stamped in this loop.

It's common thought (which i share) that the article is probably speaking mainly about the LDO code but please have a look at the iron crosses 2nd class and how many are marked with an PKZ code inside the loop.

Do you really thing that all those crosses were produced after late 1942 because the makers had to wait from 01.03.1941 to late 1942 to get a PKZ number?

Please have a look at the paper packets for the IC2 too ... the mentioned article is saying that - starting with 01.03.1941 - the makers name could althought found by a stamp on the backside of the packet.

I think to find a paper packet for the IC2 with maker name on the backside is not a hard job ... does it sounds logic that the packets were correctly maker marked while the badge inside came unmarked for more than 1 year?

Taking into account that orders for the iron cross familiy had been directly under the control of Doehle i would think that he had an interest to get the marking system for the PKZ at once started (at the same time).

[kraut72]

In the course of the exchange of the official German and Hungarian honours more pieces Pkz codes with a already.But more LDO,or unmarked pieces....

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


For me but these may have been depository pieces.

Ergo the Pkz codes already "possible"very early spring 1942 februar/march

but not impossible already end 1941

[Dietrich Maerz]

Taking into account that orders for the iron cross familiy had been directly under the control of Doehle i would think that he had an interest to get the marking system for the PKZ at once started (at the same time).

It is very interesting to see that even you Andreas, who is extremely adamant in using only documents as a firm basis for anything, is blowing them into the wind the moment it doesn't fit into his believe system. Just a "little food for thought" regarding how fast and what interest Doehle had and how it developed.

- the very first DK (12 rivet) have no LDO nor PKZ
- the second model, Deschler 6 rivets, has no markings
- the third model Deschler, 4 rivets, has no markings at the beginning
- the first Godet DK had no marking
- both first models of Juncker have no marking
- the first model of the second type Juncker has no marking
- the second model of the second type Juncker (Cupal!!!!) has no marking
- the first model Zimmermann is marked "L/52"
- the first awarded set of Oakleves with Swords and Diamonds is marked "L/50"
- the first (and up to mid 43) Swords are "L/50", and so are the Oakleaves

The very first version of a Herstellungsvorschrift for the DK dates into the first half of 1942 (Patzwall). That was the time when the change-over to four rivets was prescribed and it is safe to assume, based on the numbers of companies and unmarked models produced by them, that the production time of those unmarked models was relatively long. During that time there was no PKZ number and the latest member of the group - Zimmermann - with his first model (a 4 rivet Tombak example), is marked with "L/52". The first version of the Herstellungsvorschrift, which mentions Cupal as a material for the base plate, was issued in 1943. Most of the later models are Juncker "2", Deschler "1", Zimmermann "20", Klein "134" with Cupal back plate. There are some "heavy" models with PKZ marking which fits perfectly into the timeline: "first Herstellungsvorschrift mid 1942" - "inroduction of the PKZ end 42/beginning 43" - "Herstellungsvorschrift Cupal".

And that is not even touching the history of the Knights Cross ....

To believe that the PKZ numbers were introduced in March 1941 (or even earlier), late 1941, or early/mid 1942 is equal to ignoring all the evidence above just to make something else "fit."

Mr. Preuss might have been off by some time, but he was for sure not off by years. The PKZ numbers were introduced late 42/early 43 as witnessed by the documents and timelines of several high level orders, handled exclusevly by the PKZ, for that there is enough factual, documentary, and even forensic evidence.

Dietrich

[Leroy]

"kraut72" seems to be indicating that the May,1942 exchange of German and Hungarian decorations/orders at the Hungarian Embassy contained pieces some of which were marked with LDO numbers and some of which were marked with PKZ numbers. If that is so, then PKZ numbers were in existence by May, 1942. Andreas has indicated on multiple occasions that Wound Badges had PKZ numbers even before that date.

Preuss says, when talking about the German Cross, that PKZ numbers came in 1943. If he is talking about PKZ numbers in general, then he appears to be simply wrong, which would be surprising for someone in his position. If, however, he is talking about specific application to DK's, he could be exactly right and his memory does not need to be questioned.

Why is it not possible that PKZ numbers were created in 1941 (or even earlier), but that their mandated usage on different decorations came at different times?

[Dietrich Maerz]

So you too have no interest in original documentation and hard facts? Interesting!

If we want to go down that road that Dr. Doehle introduced the PKZ numbers for different orders and medals (but only for those handled by the PKZ, I hope that is known ..) in such a way that it fits the personal believe system of the one who needs it, that is a creative way out.

So I claim for the RK, the OL, OLmS, DKiS, DKiG, and EKs the introduction date of end of 1942/beginning of 1943. If someone wants to know why, he can read my above posts. And yes, I read about the "132" in May 42 in Hungary and all I can say is: regarding the probability of this one!

For those who don't see it like me, there are enough speculations by a lot of people to the contrary. Ailsby with an introduction date of 1936 or so comes to mind. That perfectly fit to one of his fake Eagle Orders. And if you want it later, Gordon Williamson mentioned mid 1944. Of course, nobody comes with hard facts, only hearsay, rumors, assumptions, and speculations. But for some that is just good enough!

Dietrich

[Norm F]

Why is it not possible that PKZ numbers were created in 1941 (or even earlier), but that their mandated usage on different decorations came at different times?

Hi Gentry,

That's an intriguing thought, and it would blow everything wide open. If one goes with that theory for a while, then the PK numbers could have always been in place, then mandated for marking of the DK, RK and oak leaves in late 1942, and never mandated at all for combat badges.

But so far in this thread we've seen no official documentation actually mandating the use of the PK number on anything. Am I missing something, are there any explicit published regulations regarding the requirement to display the PK numbers and if so what date did those pronouncements appear?

Best regards,
---Norm

[Andreas Klein]

It is very interesting to see that even you Andreas, who is extremely adamant in using only documents as a firm basis for anything, is blowing them into the wind the moment it doesn't fit into his believe system. Just a "little food for thought" regarding how fast and what interest Doehle had and how it developed.

Hello Dietrich,

i wasn't blowing something without thinking in the wind. To be honest i thought about not to post anything in public to this timeline discussion anymore because i was aware about the reaction on it and i think it doesn't fit into this ongoing discussion.

I did it because i had several questions after yesterday via PM and can stand to what i answered there in public too.

I'm quite sure that everything you wrote is true and correct for the german cross but for me this is a rare award with only 4 makers involved at is start and i have my doubt if we can compare them to the rules of a mass award. For an award which was only produced by 4 makers and without a production for the free market i could do my quality control easily with an unmarked german cross on my desk.

May i remind you of the "1942" marked wound badge by Klein&Quenzer - this is a clear forensic evidence against the "1943" of Mr. Preuss. If Mr. Preuss wanted to say "late 1942" than he would have said "Ende 1942" or perhaps "Anfang 1943" but he said "im Jahre 1943" and uses words/grammar which i as german would use if i want to say "mid 1943". But that is my very own personal opinion.

I also have to say that as native german speaking that i have my doubts how the letter from Preuss is to understand in general. Preuss is answering to an article which was written about the german cross and the whole answer from him is a correction of errors which he found in the article about the production of the german cross.

Therefore i have my doubts that he is suddenly speaking about the general PKZ/LDO marking system and to me it sounds more that this part of his answer is only for the german cross too.

But again this is how i understand it and another reader can come to another conclusion. If we both would live in the same city we could catch a beer and talk about it but there are some miles between us so we have to think out loud in public. I don't say that you are wrong or that i'm right. It's so far just a thought to be discussed.

Perhaps the article which caused the correction by Mr. Preuss can tell us more.

Do you have issue Nr. 22 with this article?

If not it's no problem ... i'm allready in contact with an german archive who should have it and perhaps we both can have a look at the whole story (article and answer of Mr. Preuss) in a few weeks.

Perhaps it will help us in our timeline problem. If not the search has to go on.

Best regards,
Andreas

[Leroy]

So you too have no interest in original documentation and hard facts? Interesting!

Actually, I seem to sometimes have more interest than you.........

But so far in this thread we've seen no official documentation actually mandating the use of the PK number on anything. Am I missing something, are there any explicit published regulations regarding the requirement to display the PK numbers and if so what date did those pronouncements appear?
---Norm

Norm - Perhaps Dietrich will answer you with specific examples illustrated by copies of the official documents you ask about.

[Leroy]

For those who don't see it like me, there are enough speculations by a lot of people to the contrary. Ailsby with an introduction date of 1936 or so comes to mind. That perfectly fit to one of his fake Eagle Orders. And if you want it later, Gordon Williamson mentioned mid 1944. Of course, nobody comes with hard facts, only hearsay, rumors, assumptions, and speculations. But for some that is just good enough!

Dietrich

You have been down this road hand-in-hand with Mssrs. Ailsby, Williamson, et als, yourself.