2 x IAB what maker?

[Dietrich Maerz]

The firm of Otto Schickle never made a Knights Cross with zinc core. Both known models (unmarked and L/15) have an iron core and a Neusilber frame.

It is true that in the early days some companies used non-iron cores. On the field of the RK this was Juncker with the very early models and the unknown manufacturer of the 3/4 Ring RK, who used copper. After the introduction of the LDO the manufacturing control was tighter for sure. But as late as July 1943 (!!) the PKZ had to remind manufacturers that the core of any Iron Cross needed to be made of iron and three companies were reminded to do so or the manufacturing license would be removed.
The well known zinc-cored Knights Crosses with zinc cores are the post-war B-Types made by S&L.

I have no idea about badges. Attached is an article, dated 3/42, that talks about the switch from the earlier material (most likely Tombak) to zinc. Unfortunately no war badges are mentioned.

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

I agree with Tom on the material issue. There is for sure a huge difference between the high level orders of the Third Reich, like the Order of the Iron Cross and the Order of the War Merit Cross, and a war badge. The one group was "Orden und Ehrenzeichen", the other group was "Kampfabzeichen". One were orders and decorations, given out by the highest authorities. The other group were proficiency badges in huge numbers, given out "automatically" after the numerical fulfillment of certain tasks. Regulations and production numbers are wide apart!

[Norm F]

I already showed the document showing when zink was accepted in combat badge production as replacement for war important resources - and it was after schickle was out.

Attached is an article, dated 3/42, that talks about the switch from the earlier material (most likely Tombak) to zinc. Unfortunately no war badges are mentioned.

Hi Guys,

Yes, that's the article Andreas mentioned that he had posted before. At that time the date was stated as May 1942, not March 1942, unless Dietrich has some confirmation otherwise?

Anyway, here's the translation in a previous thread:
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...64#post6030064

As discussed already, there is no mention whatsoever about combat badges in that article (or any other article on zinc production), nor is there any indication that zinc was forbidden prior to that date. And as mentioned, Schickle definitely used zinc cores in his marked EK2s (many posted prior). Also, the article from 1942 recommends a galvanic brass undercoating to allow a better finish, a practise that is observed on some later zincers but that is never observed on "Schickle-design" zinc badges.

This discussion on the introduction of zinc is simply a restating of previously expressed opposing viewpoints, but with no new documentation either way. Perhaps of interest to the newcomers anyway.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Dietrich Maerz]

... At that time the date was stated as May 1942, not March 1942, unless Dietrich has some confirmation otherwise?

It is from Schwert und Spaten, X. Volume, Number 3, March 1942, page 27.

[Norm F]

It is from Schwert und Spaten, X. Volume, Number 3, March 1942, page 27.

Thanks Dietrich, that's very interesting. From Andreas' previous posting, the exact same article with the same typesetting was published in "Deutsche Graveur Zeitung und Stempel-Zeitung" three months later in May, 1942.

That's a considerable time delay and shows us that for any given article that we see, we can't be certain how long before that the information first appeared elsewhere. Likewise we sometimes see articles in Uniformen-Markt on new war badges that were actually first announced some months prior.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Andreas Klein]

Due to the fact that "Schwert und Spaten" was the official announcement paper from the LDO and PKZ we can be sure that it gives as the earliest possible official timestamp.

[PKAliebhaber]

So its quite interesting that this hollow zinc badge in the "Mayer-Design" schould be sure made by Schickel Why it should?
Why they should use Zinc before the order??? Why we see this badge in zinc quite often? Why the hollow tombak brothers should be made by schickel? Because of the catch?
Interesting that this hollow one matches his tombak hollow brothers 100 % (incl. Hardware) but Schickel was out of order at this time

Why some people can be so sure we see a "Schickel made Badge" then seeing this hollow tombak and zinc IABs?

[Hans N]

Due to the fact that Schickle's tool were sold no one can say you for sure who made this nice IAB.

Andreas,

have you found some new information regarding this matter since there has only been mentioned that the remaining Schickle stock was to be sold. Nothing however about the tools.

[Andreas Klein]

Hi Hans

No there is no detailed information what happened to their tools. After the production of ww2 award's had been forbidden for schickle he wrote a letter to his customers that he still sells ww1 award's.

As reaction to that the pkz confirmed in schwert und spaten that schickle had no license for any award anymore and won't get one back.

So I think that their tools had been sold too.

[Thomas Durante]

So I think that their tools had been sold too.

Or destroyed.

Tom

[Norm F]

So I think that their tools had been sold too.

I guess one could speculate in either direction but the wording of the original announcement from the PK on July 1, 1941 certainly isn't very encouraging for others to use Schickle's tooling...

"Der Staatsminister und Chef der Präsidialkanzlei des Führers hat der Firma Otto Schickle, Pforzheim, Zerrener Straße 35, mit sofortiger Wirkung die Herstellung und den Handel mit Orden und Ehrenzeichen, die nach dem 30. Januar 1933 gestiftet sind, sowie deren Verkleinerungen, ebenso die Anfertigung von entsprechenden Stanzen untersagt. Verboten sind der Firma ferner die Anfertigung und der Vertrieb von kombinierten Verkleinerungen, in denen Orden und Ehrenzeichen der vorbezeichneten Art enthalten sind, sowie die Anfertigung und der Vertrieb von Ordensschnallen jeder Art, die ganz oder zum Teil Bänder der vorbezeichneten Orden und Ehrenzeichen enthalten. Wer Anfertigungen der genannten Art weiterhin von der Firma Schickle bezieht, macht sich strafbar."

"The State Minister and Chief of the Presidential Chancellery of the Führer has prohibited the firm of Otto Schickle, Pforzheim, Zerenner Strasse 35, with immediate effect, from the manufacture and trade in Orders and Medals which were founded after January 30, 1933, as well as the miniatures, and likewise the manufacture of the corresponding dies. Further forbidden by this firm are the manufacture and distribution of combination miniatures in which orders and decorations of the aforementioned type are included, as well as the production and distribution of medal bars of all types which contain the ribbons of the corresponding Orders and Medals in whole or in part. Whoever continues to receive further manufactured goods of the mentioned type from the firm of Schickle is liable to prosecution."

Best regards,
---Norm

[Andreas Klein]

Norm, the document speaks of new tools which were forbidden to construct for them. It doesn't say anything about the existing tools. They were based on the existing license of schickle and were accepted by the pkz in the before ldo area.

If they were allowed to sell the awards produced by them why not the tools itself?

[Norm F]

If they were allowed to sell the awards produced by them why not the tools itself?

I don't know, but that announcement was quite specific:

"The company Otto Schickle, Pforzheim, has received approval to bring to market their products in medals and decorations of the Third Reich which are still in stock through the mediation of the Leistungsgemeinschaft der Deutschen Ordenhersteller (LDO), which will carry out the quality check. The LDO has entrusted the implementation of the selloff to the Pforzheim Chamber of Commerce."

It quite clearly states Schickle's "noch auf Lager befindlichen" or "remaining stock" in Orders and Medals and says nothing about dies and production equipment, so we are left in the dark on that point.

I'm quite willing to accept the possibility the tooling survived, just that we have no proof. So I'm content with the term "Schickle-design" for the zincers rather than just "Schickle", but I draw the line on categorical claims that they cannot be made by Schickle since that cannot be stated based upon the available evidence. Furthermore, when it comes to the Kriegsmarine "Schickle-design" zincers, whoever made them used the same reverse setups used by Schickle on Tombak badges (including the "P-catch" without the use of a catch plate - unusual on zinc badges).

Best regards,
---Norm

[Andreas Klein]

"The company Otto Schickle, Pforzheim, has received approval to bring to market their products in medals and decorations of the Third Reich which are still in stock through the mediation of the Leistungsgemeinschaft der Deutschen Ordenhersteller (LDO), which will carry out the quality check. The LDO has entrusted the implementation of the selloff to the Pforzheim Chamber of Commerce."

... and with what kind of tools where those remaining stocks produced? With tools which were ok and accepted.

Attached is a wound badge which would be identified "for sure" made by Schickle. But instead a Schickle maker mark it has a L/52 maker mark for Zimmermann, Pforzheim and now we can speculate if:

- Zimmermann put an L/52 stamp on a 100% Schickle made badge

- Zimmermann put their own L/52 marked needle on a Schickle badge without needle

- Zimmermann made the whole badge using Schickle's tools

[Andreas Klein]

Setup