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

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Norm,

1. Several makers still using tombak combined with PK numbers suggesting 1941/1942 production (common to find such as Hauptmunzampt (30), Brehmer (13), etc.).

2. PKZ number (65) on Wound Badges possibly dating to 1942.

3. Heavy Zimmermann German Cross (considered to be very early) marked 20.

4. Possible 7-marked (Meybauer) German Cross. Mentioned by Nimmergut as a maker, but they were banned from DK production in May 1942 (Dietrich's DK book, page 236).

5. Many, many EK2s have PK number in the loop, suggesting that numbers were in effect before "late 1942". (Andreas' post #142)

6. LDO numbering system uses a prefix, suggesting another code was already in effect necessitating a way to differentiate.

7. Many PKZ numbers (135) compared with few LDO numbers suggest the LDO system was of lower importance.

8. Exchange of German and Hungarian decorations/orders at the Hungarian Embassy have several PK-numbered awards indicating PK numbering existance before May 1942. (Post #143)

Admittedly, some of these are speculative, and maybe some others can be thrown out as being "suspect".

From this, I don't see why its not possible that both camps can be correct, and that the PK list was mandated at different dates for different awards as Gentry suggested (1941 for WBs, 1942 for DKs, 1944 for RKs, etc.).

Norm, also please keep in mind that no one here is saying that the PK numbering system was definitely in affect in 1941. Only that it could be earlier than "late 1942".

Tom

[Norm F]

Admittedly, some of these are speculative, and maybe some others can be thrown out as being "suspect".

From this, I don't see why its not possible that both camps can be correct, and that the PK list was mandated at different dates for different awards as Gentry suggested (1941 for WBs, 1942 for DKs, 1944 for RKs, etc.).

Norm, also please keep in mind that no one here is saying that the PK numbering system was definitely in affect in 1941. Only that it could be earlier than "late 1942".

Tom

Hi Tom,

I agree, it's reasonable to entertain the theory the PK system was in place earlier than late 1942, but I was hoping for some more concrete observations of verifiably earlier products bearing the PK number. Dietrich's observations for the DK seem more sound then the observations presented so far for other awards, but I agree the use of the PK numbers could be from different dates for different types of awards, especially when you consider they were never required at all for war badges.

Like you say, many items on your list are speculative rather than observational, and in fact the only reasonably strong point is the appearance of PK numbers on several makers' Tombak wound badges, although if I'm not mistaken Andreas' maintains the transition to zinc for wound badges did not occur until 1942 which is a far cry from March 1941.

But absolutely we must keep an open mind.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tom,

I really don't want to be part of this anymore, but that is just not right:

Heavy Zimmermann German Cross (considered to be very early) marked 20.

Zimmermann was the 4th supplier after Deschler, Godet, and Juncker and a 4-rivet German Cross is never, ever very early but comes rather after the 2nd manufacturing instruction which was issued in first half of 1942. So the earliest possible time is around mid-end 1942.

Possible 7-marked (Meybauer) German Cross. Mentioned by Nimmergut as a maker, but they were banned from DK production in May 1942 (Dietrich's DK book, page 236).

It honors me that you quote my book but please quote complete. This cross is a complete piece of fake and I included it for the reason of being complete. To use this cross (which nobody has ever seen in real life!) as a pro-1941 PKZ number is not very adviseable. See the "Spanish Cross "4"-rule".

Many, many EK2s have PK number in the loop, suggesting that numbers were in effect before "late 1942". (Andreas' post #142)

How that suggests a use before 1942 is not clear to me? Could you explain? Many, many EK2 and EK1 and all the Spange EK1 have no PKZ numbers. There are more EK2 with PKZ-numbers that those without, but that has to do with the demand and the accelerating award numbers, not with a linear and even ditribution over time or whatever is meant with the statement.

I also note that point #1 is clearly (IF one believes that "42" - NOT 1942 - is indeed a date) 1942 and not 1941 and could be 31. December just as well as 1. January 1942.

But go on with your assumption and let us see where it leads in the connection with your last post when I so rudely diverted the thread (for which I am extremely sorry!):

If a firm like Frank & Reif could mis-spell their own name, then is it really hard to believe that mistakes were made with a newly-instituted numbering system? Add to the confusion that a totally separate, but very similar PK numbering system was instituted around the same time, then its almost inevitable that mistakers were made, especially in the beginning. I am not saying that is definitely the case with Deumer/Grossmann, but it must be a scenario to consider unfortunately. I don't say they are stupid, just that mistakes can and will be made.

[Thomas Durante]

Hi guys,

To my list we could add that some brass and zinc core PKZ-marked EKs can be found with zinc and or brass cores (Orth and W&L). Most agree these are "early" crosses. How early, I really don't know but its worth mentioning.

Again, I fully admit that the list has much observation and speculations that not everyone may agree with. For me (and me alone), there is enough here to suggest possibly an earlier PK numbering system. At a minimum, I just don't agree with the notion that anyone can say, with such conviction that a PK list in 1941 is "flat out wrong".

In 2007, the thought was that there was no PK numbering system in existence before February 1944.

In 2009, it was thought that it was in effect by late 1942.

Over the last few years it has evolved to possibly "mid 1942".

Not disparaging any of this excellent research, but it just shows how new information can change our theories. It is not a bad thing at all and no one should be offended, but rather is a necessity in our hobby where we have so few pieces of the original puzzle to work from.

Tom

[Norm F]

At a minimum, I just don't agree with the notion that anyone can say, with such conviction that a PK list in 1941 is "flat out wrong".

Hi Tom,

I suppose inevitably someone has to get in the last word but to be fair, when Dietrich said Frank's statement was "flat out wrong" it was in the context of Frank agreeing that he had made an unsubstantiated statement that he could not support with any proof. I could say "Hitler wore white underwear on the day he came to power" and statistically it may very well be true but since it's unproven you could argue it's "flat out wrong" to make such a statement.

It was "wrong" for Frank to make a statement without reference or corroborative evidence even if it eventually turns out to be true some day (although many authors do this all the time) because it provides an air of proven truth to what should have been stated as just one theory.

Okay, let's move on...or maybe we're done?

Best regards,
---Norm

[Leroy]

Is this about Frank Thayer or whether or not PKZ numbers could have existed before 1942 (even if they were not mandated for marking use until later)?

Rather than write something new (which I don't have the time or inclination to do tonight) the below is a sort of recap of some thoughts I had on this subject last year in another thread:

Here are 2 PKZ lists of approved suppliers of the EKII, the shorter one from September, 1939 and the longer one from October, 1940. (Although the LDO was technically formed by the time of the second list, no LDO numbers had yet been created or assigned.)

It is interesting to me that, in both lists (neither of which is in alphabetical order, and the later one of which is actually numbered, a choice which perhaps has significance), the top positions are occupied, and in the same order, by the same nine firms. (On one of the EKII lists, and not on the other, Berliner Gold - u. Silberschmiede and Maria Schankl appear in the 10th and 11th positions.)

In the PKZ list we "know", however, these are the "top positions":

1- Deschler
2- Juncker
3- Deumer
4- S&L
5- Wernstein
6- Zimmermann
7- Meybauer
8- Hoffstatter
9- Liefergemeinschaft Schmuckhndwerker Pforzheim
10- Forster & Barth

Some firms which appeared on the 1939 and 1940 PKZ lists in the "top tier" were either eliminated from, or fell way down in, the PKZ list we've come to know [Paul Kust (#6), Paulmann & Crone (#7), Grossmann & Co. (#9), Berliner Gold- u. Silberschmiede (#10), and Maria Schankl (#11)]. Interestingly, none of these firms were assigned LDO numbers, either. (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- and advanced from being number 8 on the EKII lists to number "4" on the PKZ list we know. There are no "L/16" marked RK's from S&L.)

I fully realize that the 1939 and 1940 lists are just for the EKII only and that the PKZ numbering system has, so far, only been demonstrably "pushed back" to sometime in 1942. It does SEEM, however, that some extrapolation is possible between these EKII lists and the PKZ numbers, and that there was co-ordination and "cleansing" in the process of creating the early set of LDO numbers (by March, 1941) and the PKZ numbers list. In turn, this leads me to believe that it is entirely possible that both PKZ and LDO numbers came into existence at, or at least very near, the same time, and because the PKZ dominated the LDO (and issued far more numbers than the LDO ever did) the PKZ numbers may have even preceded the LDO numbers (although when exactly the PKZ numbers had to be actually applied to particular pieces is a different story.)

[Andreas Klein]

To my list we could add that some brass and zinc core PKZ-marked EKs can be found with zinc and or brass cores (Orth and W&L). Most agree these are "early" crosses. How early, I really don't know but its worth mentioning.

There was a statement in 1970 by the allready mentioned Mr. Preuss that Steinhauer & Lück produced the knight cross with a zinc core only for private market sales. These production had been outside the control of Mr. Doehle and was done before the LDO was formed and controlled the quality of the award production for the private market.

It's interesting to know that these crosses came with a more orange ribbon than the red ribbon and after the LDO was formed one of their next steps was to regulate the production of the ribbons which had to be red too.

To all: Please take this just as information for "early crosses". We should not open the next discussion of good and bad knight crosses here in this thread.

[Panzercracker]

Gotta question for Andreas. It appears as though Grossmann was involved in manufacturing the EK2 early on, but did they merge with Ferdinand Hoffstatter? The L/19 EK1 appears to be based on Grossmann's EK2. **Or have I got this backwards? Hoffstatter didn't produce a "magnetic" EK1, so maybe they stopped for some reason??, and, Grossmann took over where they left off, but produced only the EK2 ??

--Ken

[BassD]

After Grossmann was "arisiert" and Hoffstätter take them over i am sure (personal opinion) that they work close togehter... in which way? I don't know

[Panzercracker]

They must have collaborated somehow in the EK series because the Grossmann EK2 frame and core are the same as the L/19 "non-magnetic" EK1. But, no magnetic Hoffstatter EK1 were produced. So, is it possible that Hoffstatter started 1st and quit, then gave their die to Grossmann for production of the EK2?

--Ken

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Ken,

as said Grossmann / Hofstätter were different firms but with the same head because owner of both was Ferdinand Hofstätter. Therefore i'm quite sure that Hofstätter supported their "Grossmann label" with the needed tools or got needed stuff from them.

And yes it is possible the Hofstätter quit (temporaly).

I can underline this idea with a letter from Mr. Ferdinand Hofstätter to Dr. Doehle written in 1944:

In 1944 there was the plan to produce the "SS-Zivilabzeichen" and Hoffstätter tried to get an production order by Doehle for this award. In this letter Hofstätter wrote that the firm of Ferdinand Hofstätter had always been a skillfull award making firm but their output of awards had been limited in the past years due to the fact that Ferdinand Hofstätter was producing alot of equipment for the army instead.

Now (1944!) he would like to go back to the roots and start to produce (more) awards again.

[Panzercracker]

Now, that brings some clarity to the situation: Ferdinand Hoffstatter was the Boss of both firms. Nuff said. I did not know they began producing equipment, which says a lot right there.


--Ken

[Norm F]

Is this about Frank Thayer or whether or not PKZ numbers could have existed before 1942 (even if they were not mandated for marking

Hi Gentry,

Indeed the topic is the PKZ numbers but in that context it needed to be cleared up that Frank's written pronouncement on the date of their initiation was fairly arbitrary.

Thanks for posting those EK list makers -- very interesting. It's quite possible that the PK list was simply a private (i.e. non-publicized) ever-evolving list of suppliers that existed from the beginning in the PK for accounting purposes, and that the numbered order had no particular relevance to the manufacturers themselves until such time as they were notified to include the number on their products (wound badges and higher orders).

The LDO numbers, in contrast, were very public from the date of their inception since they had to be included on all products for public sale, and were thus mentioned also in companies' catalogs, confirming their approval status.

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).

Best regards,
---Norm

[Andreas Klein]

... that Frank's written pronouncement on the date of their initiation was fairly arbitrary.

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.

Simply use the search function of the WAF and go to 2007 when i said that i think that the PK numbers came in "1942". I was called flatly wrong too because it was at this date for sure that the PK system wasn't introduced before 1944.

Now in 2014 with the ongoning reseach work from Dietrich it is backed up that this statement i made was true.

It's quite interesting which smoking guns are demanded from Dietrich, Frank and the rest when it comes to basic knowledge but when it comes to connecting unmarked badges to a certain maker than nothing is needed and 99% amount of specualtions is suddenly accepted as evidence.

[BassD]

still waiting for the proof that only ONE company make their own set ups.

Till i have no proof for that it was not serious to make connections via set ups how it happened in this thread and in many other. Together with the docs from HMA Wien and the PK, Wissmann and other who shows that they produced dies for other firms we can not serious make connections without more knowledge how the systems worked, how the collaborated together and many other things