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

[Norm F]

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.

Hi Andreas,

Do you mean this article? I must admit I struggle with the translations, so I'm having trouble seeing the reference to the makers' code and the format of the code.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Dietrich Maerz]

Gentry,
That is true and contrary to the authors mentioned and some people here I have no problem correcting myself. Have a look into my GC book ...
I have no problem acknowledging that new evidence is revising older ones. As a side note, for the appearance of the numbers on the RK that date is still correct.

Norm, the PKZ numbers were only used for orders and medals ordered by the PKZ which were: RK, KVK, DK, WB, East Medal, Eagle Order, not for Kampf- und Taetigkeitsabzeichen. That is why the huge manority is not marked.

Dietrich

[Leroy]

So the DK in 1943, the RK in 1944.....So what is the problem with the statement:
"...mandated usage on different decorations came at different times?

Are there ANY official documents, as Norm inquired about, concerning mandated use of PKZ numbers?

[Dietrich Maerz]

Andreas,
I will send you the article, nothing interesting at all.
There are a lot of unmarked EK2 around just as there are lots of unmarked EK1. Have a look at the award numbers of the EK2, there is no way we can deduct from the amount of marked and unmarked when what ended or what started.

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Norm,

yes that is the mentioned article. I have seperated you the area where he speaks about the markings on the awards itself:

[Norm F]

Norm, the PKZ numbers were only used for orders and medals ordered by the PKZ which were: RK, KVK, DK, WB, East Medal, Eagle Order, not for Kampf- und Taetigkeitsabzeichen. That is why the huge manority is not marked.

Dietrich

Hi Dietrich,

Yes, thanks, I know (and keep reminding combat badge collectors of that ). But the question is was it ever actually mandated in writing for any award, or are we just making assumptions based on the appearance of the PK numbers on the higher orders after a certain date? (which could still be a very fair assumption, BTW.)

Best regards,
---Norm

[Dietrich Maerz]

So the DK in 1943, the RK in 1944.....So what is the problem with the statement:
"...mandated usage on different decorations came at different times?

Are there ANY official documents, as Norm inquired about, concerning mandated use of PKZ numbers?

The reason the PKZ numbers for the RK show up in mid 44 has its reason in the recall in October 41. By the way, is it not interesting that no PKZ numbered pieces were present, only unmarked and LDO marked? That speaks also against PKZ in 41.

I have no documents regarding the PKZ numbers only the reference for use between LDO and PKZ handled medals. LDO numbers were for private retail only, PKZ for medals ordered by them. Common knowledge. I am not home but I think there is something in the Nimmergut opus magnum.

[Leroy]

So you believe the reason there are no PKZ numbered RK's until 1944 is because no RK's needed to be manufactured between October, 1941 and 1944, because the government already had enough in stock due to the "recall"?

[Leroy]

The reason the PKZ numbers for the RK show up in mid 44 has its reason in the recall in October 41. By the way, is it not interesting that no PKZ numbered pieces were present, only unmarked and LDO marked? That speaks also against PKZ in 41.

I forgot to ask: How do you know what was 'present" in the recall? Any "Sedlatzek" crosses?

[Dietrich Maerz]

Yes. And the award dates of the L/12 and unmarked S&L support this. Same with the Oaks and Swords. And that has been discussed numerous times already. Why this all over sudden seems no longer correct must have other reasons ...

[Dietrich Maerz]

I forgot to ask: How do you know what was 'present" in the recall? Any "Sedlatzek" crosses?

I was imprecise. I meant present by the types that were awarded later and we know of. There might have been Sedlatzek crosses, I am, however, not aware of any awards. And you know that very well!

[Norm F]

Hi Norm,

yes that is the mentioned article. I have seperated you the area where he speaks about the markings on the awards itself:

Thanks Andreas.

"

Kennzeichen der Fabrikanten

Jeder konzessionierte Hersteller erhielt soeben ein Kennzeichen (Herstellungsnummer), das vom 1.3.41 ab auf den einzelnen Orden und Ehrenzeichen anzubringen ist, bei einseitigen Originalen und 16-mm-Verkleinerungen auf der Rückseite, unten in der Mitte, bei doppelseitigen Originalorden und 16-mm-Verkleinerungen in Kreuzform (E.K.II, Ritterkreuz, Großkreuz, Zollgrenzschutß=Ehrenzeichen und Ehrenzeichen für dtsch. Volkspflege 1. Stufe) wird die Zahl in den eingehängten Ring eingeschlagen; bei doppelseitig geprägten Originalorden und Verkleinerungen 16 mm in Medaillen- bzw. Kreuzform, soweit sie nicht unter vorstehende Position fallen, wird man das Zulassungszeichen in die Mitte der Unterkante des Ordens bzw. der Medaille eingeschlagen finden. Verkleinerungen 8,5 mm weisen das Herstellungszeichen auf der Rückseite auf. Das Kennzeichen des Herstellers werden wir nun auch auf der Rückseite des jeweiligen Verpackungsmittels finden (Stempelabdruck)."

"

Codes of the Manufacturers

Each licensed manufacturer has just received a code (maker number), which is from March 1st, 1941 to be placed on the individual medals and decorations, on one-sided originals and 16 mm reductions on the back, bottom center, on double-sided original orders and 16 mm reductions in cross shape (EKII, Knight's Cross, Grand Cross, Customs/border security Decoration and German Social Welfare Decoration 1st Class) the number is stamped into the hanging ring; in double-sided embossed original orders and 16 mm reductions in medallion vs. cross shape, as long as not falling under the previously stated condition, you will find the approval number stamped in the center of the bottom edge of the Order or the coin. Reductions of 8.5 mm have the manufacture mark on the back side. The manufacturer's mark, will now also be found on the back of each packaging (stamped)."

And of course, the earlier part of the article makes it clear that they're talking about LDO numbers in this article ("Leistungsgemeinschaft der Deutschen Ordenhersteller), not PK numbers.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Leroy]

I am entirely open to the idea that RK orders just stopped between 1941 and 1944. Roughly 4000 awarded up to the end of 1943 and then roughly another 4000 from the beginning of 1944 to April, 1945. It's possible, I suppose.

But before we go down this long speculative road, it might perhaps be useful for everyone here to know, for a starter, exactly what specific official written records exist regarding RK procurement (from exactly who and by whatever method), the "recall" of crosses, and, most importantly of course, for this discussion, the creation, promulgation, and mandating of use of PKZ numbers. These seem to be areas which are not explored.

I have the feeling that we are in the world of .01% documentation and 99.99% speculation.

[kraut72]

everybody believes in it in which wants,but i it what I caught and i saw it.

I did not revise the black,silver and gold wound badges yet,this question opened yet....

[Norm F]

I have the feeling that we are in the world of .01% documentation and 99.99% speculation.

Hi Gentry,

While this thread is largely speculative, I have to disagree that there are only two categories of discourse. Observational science (observation of the awards themselves) has to count for something beyond pure speculation, albeit short of ironclad documentation. One can argue about the relative proportions in this case, but perhaps would be more reasonably described in three categories as 0.01% documentation, 49.99% observational and 50% speculation, and all three make for an interesting discussion.

(Perhaps a fourth category in this thread would be "confrontational" but that's a category we can hopefully agree to omit.)

Best regards,
---Norm