Announcement

**Andreas Klein** · 05-11-2014, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Leroy View Post

It seems more and more likely, at least to me, that (even if unproven at this point) the PKZ numbers were an "internal list" always known, from their inception, to the PKZ and the manufacturers involved, but not directly publicized by notices or announcements in industry trade papers (which is why we don't see listings in Schwert und Spaten or Uniformen-Markt of either the numbers or of requirements to use them on particular pieces).

I look forward to additional developments.

Agreed .... LDO was for the private marked and PKZ for infernal use so there was imo no need to pubslish it to everyone.

**Leroy** · 05-11-2014, 06:41 PM

Just a random question: Why have a list of numbers unless they were meant to be used, immediately upon assignment, to mark certain awards manufactured under contract to the government?

**Norm F** · 05-11-2014, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Leroy View Post

Just a random question: Why have a list of numbers unless they were meant to be used, immediately upon assignment, to mark certain awards manufactured under contract to the government?

Hi Gentry,

Not sure rumination on this question can lead to anything concrete. The PK list of EK2 providers you posted from October 1940 showed S&L as number 8, but we sure don't see S&L EK2's marked "8", so there just didn't seem to be any connection between numbered lists of makers and markings on awards early in the war. Maybe it just gradually evolved from some kind of internal accounting system to a required marking system as things got more complicated?

At any rate, this has turned into a really useful discussion topic I think, even though it has no relationship to the theme at the start of the thread. This topic of PK numbers was begun by Dietrich in post #127 on page 7, so maybe it would be good if the Mods separated this topic off into its own thread from that point with a more descriptive title like "Time of Introduction of PK Numbers?".

Best regards,
---Norm

**Leroy** · 05-11-2014, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Norm F View Post

Not sure rumination on this question can lead to anything concrete. The PK list of EK2 providers you posted from October 1940 showed S&L as number 8, but we sure don't see S&L EK2's marked "8", so there just didn't seem to be any connection between numbered lists of makers and markings on awards early in the war.

The lists from 1939 and 1940 were provided to illustrate my comment: "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."

We see companies move up or move out over time, but we still see companies "bundled" in a way that suggests what I said (i.e . Deschler ended up "1" on the PKZ list and "L/10" - the first LDO number - on the LDO list, while Juncker ends up as "2" on the PKZ list and "L/12" on the LDO list, Deumer is also high - "3" on the PKZ list and "L/11" on the LDO list - while S&L becomes "4" on the PKZ list, but is "L/16" - behind Schickle's "L/15" - and Schickle vanishes by July 1941 and never has any spot at all on a PKZ list. I believe this does suggest the "connection" I mentioned.

In any case, however, I agree that we should not speculate further without additional data. There is plenty of time to slay this dragon.

**Andreas Klein** · 05-12-2014, 02:12 AM

Hello Gentry,

i think the list out of the letters yor are mentioning are of no help for the number system in general. I know some of them and sometimes it is sorted from A to Z, than the same list a few weeks later is listed totally different.

... and finally i know the lists without any numbers in it (makers are seperated with a simple "-" from each other).

The biggest list i've ever seen had 35 makers on it.

But i think that the first 10 LDO numbers and the first 10 PKZ numbers were connected. I donÄt know were it wrote but in the book about Deschler, Munich there is a nice note saying that Deschler had a good connection to Berlin and it was always sure that Deschler was the number one - so i think it is no coincidence that Deschler got the first PKZ and the first LDO number.

**Leroy** · 05-12-2014, 06:06 AM

Thanks, Andreas! I think the lists do show the "process" (especially with the numbered list) used to eventually arrive at the organized "master lists" which became the LDO and PKZ lists we are familiar with today. As you have mentioned, the idea was to keep the number of companies supplying the private market small, and when you look at just those two pages (and I'm sure there are many more), especially the numbered one, and then see how some companies "dropped away" and never went on to an LDO number, or advanced (as did S&L) "up" the list to be in the top (with Deschler, Juncker, Deumer), I think you can see the movement towards what they ended up with.

On another note, it would be very helpful if researchers in this field would cooperate with each other and share information instead of spending time either actively attacking or purposefully ignoring each other. Nimmergut and the others didn't pull the lists out of thin air.

**Thomas Durante** · 05-12-2014, 07:54 AM

Hi guys,

I agree, and to bring this full circle with regards to this thread, the earlier we find the PKZ numbers then the more likely that the "L/11" and "11" marks on the wound badges are a possible mistake rather than 2 separate makers. If the LDO and PK numbers came out around the same time, or in close proximity, then it stands to reason that its possible mistakes were made early on with these numbers and which badges to apply them to (government contract versus private sale).

Tom

**Andreas Klein** · 05-12-2014, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Thomas Durante View Post

Hi guys,

I agree, and to bring this full circle with regards to this thread, the earlier we find the PKZ numbers then the more likely that the "L/11" and "11" marks on the wound badges are a possible mistake rather than 2 separate makers. If the LDO and PK numbers came out around the same time, or in close proximity, then it stands to reason that its possible mistakes were made early on with these numbers and which badges to apply them to (government contract versus private sale).

Tom

Why?

I think the other way has more chances: if they came close together and the firm of Wilhelm Deumer as founding member of the LDO (!) was involved into the process than they for sure know about the correct markings.

I don't think that a worker of Deumer would have start to mark the products without a permission and a "go" from Conze as leader of Deumer. And how close Conze to the LDO/PKZ was needs no discussion.

**Thomas Durante** · 05-12-2014, 08:47 AM

Hi Andreas,

My reasoning for a possible mistake was laid out earlier in this thread, starting at post 100, before we got onto the tangent about the PKZ number timing:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...=735474&page=7

Part of my reasoning for a possible mistake was that if the PKZ and the LDO numbers came out around the same time, then its possible some workers had it mixed up in the beginning. Now that we can see that the PK numbers were earlier than previously thought, the "mistake" theory becomes more plausible in my opinion.

Tom

**Norm F** · 05-12-2014, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Thomas Durante View Post

Part of my reasoning for a possible mistake was that if the PKZ and the LDO numbers came out around the same time, then its possible some workers had it mixed up in the beginning. Now that we can see that the PK numbers were earlier than previously thought, the "mistake" theory becomes more plausible in my opinion.

Tom

I agree with Andreas on this one, if the "11" was mistake it is more likely if only the LDO marking system was in place at that time. If the worker was aware of both systems he would (in my view) by less likely to make a mistake with so much at stake, whereas if ONLY the LDO system was in place then it would have seemed inconsequential to leave off the "L" -- people would still know that "11" was Deumer's LDO number and not Grossmann.

But I guess this is a region of speculation for which we cannot have a consensus.

Best regards,
---Norm

**Andreas Klein** · 05-12-2014, 09:21 AM

Hi Tom,

and i allready answered to it earlier in this thread .... i think your idea had more chances if we would find more miss-marking with similiar numbers (like 4 and L/14) but it seems that only the founding member of the LDO didn't know how their system worked.

Btw we speak about badges which were in direct control of the PKZ .... would they accept such a false marking?

I can't say it for sure but i have documents when thousands of needed eastern fround medals were send back to the maker because they didn't like the quality of them.

I have seen another document by Klein & Quenzer where they run into problems to put 50.000 IC2 into paper packets .... they had 50.000 packets in stock but could't use it because the packets where not namend with their name on the backside - and due to official orders packets had to show the name of the firm.

So it's hard to believe that they wouldn't have cared in such a miss-marking even at the start of the war.

**kraut72** · 05-12-2014, 09:53 AM

Hello

My opinion, open one new topic with JUST one thema LDO-PKZ contra,recontra,etc,etc

this just missing information...

**Norm F** · 05-12-2014, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by kraut72 View Post

Hello

My opinion, open one new topic with JUST one thema LDO-PKZ contra,recontra,etc,etc

this just missing information...

I agree. In fact, this long thread could be split into three different topics:

1) the original topic discussing Giel's oval crimp PAB (posts 1 to 64)
2) the Deumer/Grossmann connection (posts 65 to 126)
3) the introduction of the LDO and PK number systems (posts 127 to the present)

with a few outlying posts near the "cross-over" points that might need inclusion in the adjacent group.

Best regards,
---Norm

**Thomas Durante** · 05-12-2014, 11:50 AM

Hi guys,

Fair enough, I can see both points of the issue. The fact that both maker marks are about the size, similar font shape and in the same location on the badge, etc. still seem like a big coincidence to me, not to mention the similarities in the die characteristics of the badges by these two makers etc.; I admit that chalking it all up to a mistake is highly speculative.

Thanks

Tom

**Giel VW** · 09-23-2014, 04:52 AM

Hi guys

Just returned from Germany and was able to have contact with a man who recently found a small hoard find of badges. Among them where 10 ek1 clasps (one marked L/11, all the other ones unmarked L/11), there was a lot of cloth as well, but the most fascinating find were a bunch of PAB's in LDO packages. Or maybe better... oval crimp PAB's in L/11 maker marked packages!

I was able to grab one of them!

For me the last piece of the puzzle Deumer made the oval crimp PAB.

Giel

Attached Files

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