2 x IAB what maker?

[PKAliebhaber]

So after 3 pages of interesting rehash of the old debates, the short answer to casey76's original question from the top of the thread is "no".

Would be so nice if Tom and just some others would accept this and would not jump in in every thread telling new collectors "this and this is the maker"

[Hans N]

Everyone is entitled to a opinion and perhaps it is equally good if "Tom and some others" would be quiet about what´s good and bad as well then....

[Norm F]

Would be so nice if Tom and just some others would accept this and would not jump in in every thread telling new collectors "this and this is the maker"

Frankly, this comment is uncalled for. Casey76 specifically asked for opinions as to the maker of his badge. Tom provided an opinion and Andreas provided an opinion, some debate ensued and others contributed -- that's what the forum is all about.

What is not helpful is comments that snipe at those opinions while providing no rationale or supporting evidence to the contrary, or repeating the same question in different threads after it has already been explained.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Graeme]

Please do not let the banter get out of control.

With certain badges there are differing views among collectors. Everyone has their opinions and not everything is clear cut. These discussion threads can produce a lot of interesting info and great pics.


As a neutral and as a moderator, I feel the need to point out what many members MAY feel frustrated about. It appears that Tom has misquoted Sven. Tom probably believes his comment that one badge is made by Meybauer and the other Schickle, but this is not exactly how Sven described it.

Hi,

the one with the nice finish is attributed to Paul Meybauer, the other one is in B.H: Mayer / Otto Schickle design.

BR
Sven

Hi Carsten,

Sven is right ofcourse, the nicely silvered example is made by Meybauer the other by Schickle.

Tom

regards
Graeme

[Thomas Durante]

Frankly, this comment is uncalled for. Casey76 specifically asked for opinions as to the maker of his badge.

Exactly right Norm, Casey specifically asked for the maker and I gave my opinion; and more importantly, why I believe the maker is Schickle. I completely respect someone like Andreas who doesn't agree with my opinion and gives reasons why he doesn't believe the maker can be identified at this time. What I don't respect is someone that encourages me to just "accept" their opinion, especially when no new evidence is put forth.

It is clear from these threads that we all have our own different threshold of how much evidence is needed to identify a maker. I have a lower threshold than alot of people when it comes to maker connections, and conversely some guys will never be convinced. If you take a good look at our hobby, there is actually very little hard evidence to go on and assumptions are made every day. Every book written in our hobby has some level of assumption; it is the only way to progress. The real benefit of the forum is that we get to challenge these assumptions on a daily basis.

I love these threads because they make the hobby interesting and good, civil discussion is what this forum is all about. And I can't really understand why anyone would get annoyed or frustrated; just offer your opposite opinion and get on with it. I am always open to new evidence, but I see nothing new in this thread that seriously challenges my opinion that these zinc badges were made by Schickle. In my opinion ofcourse

Tom

[Thomas Durante]

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.

Another interesting puzzle piece; solid-back zinc IAB allegedly awarded in January 1942:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=754473

Tom

[PKAliebhaber]

Tom, I know some hollow Buntmetall combat Badges Heer awarded in 1943, and now???? This has nothing to do with the material or the maker. Its a economic thing. So youre exemple just shows that solid back Zinc badge awarded in Jan. 1942? So everything I and some others say - I believe solid zinc come before the hollow zinc.
Everybody can have his or her opinon, but if there are good facts that this cant be right everybody should acceped this.

He asked for a maker and you name some you think without saying, that this is maybe not proofen or 100% safe? So easy is the game? You are a MOD you should give the BEST answer

[Norm F]

So everything I and some others say - I believe solid zinc come before the hollow zinc.
Everybody can have his or her opinion, but if there are good facts that this can't be right everybody should accepted this.

The letter from S&L to Paul Wissmann dated March 12, 1942 was in reference to the PAB, GAB and IAB and states:

"Wir verweisen aber darauf, dass diese Abzeichen bekanntlich jetzt in massiv angefertigt werden müssen und müssen die Gesenke entsprechend danach gearbeitet sein."

"We point out however that these badges, as is well known, must now be manufactured in solid form and the dies must be worked accordingly after this."

The wording certainly suggests that the hollow form was earlier on and that now it had to be solid. Certainly for Kriegsmarine badges the only hollow badges to ever appear were the early Tombak U-Boat badges of Schickle and Deumer and thereafter they were solid for the rest of the war. For the Heer zinc hollow badges to be later than the solid ones, makers would have to have switched from hollow Tombak to solid zinc and then back to hollow zinc. Hard to imagine regulations flipping back and forth like that.

Best regards,
---Norm

[PKAliebhaber]

Norm, Yes from hollow Buntmetall to massiv zinc!!! Date would fit right.

How much Herr combat badges do you know in massiv BM? Just same right? How many do you know in hollow BM???? Yes many -

How often do you see Hollow Zinc combat badges? quite often right? The quality of them are not as good as many massiv zinc badges. If youre theory would fit, how do you explaine the many hollow zinc badges??? All produced between just the pair of months between the order BM to Zinc and this letter hollow to massiv? Sorry this makes no sense!

For all other said thinks, please let answer Tom, if i write Tom, its not nessesary that you qoute and answer it

[PKAliebhaber]

For the Heer zinc hollow badges to be later than the solid ones, makers would have to have switched from hollow Tombak to solid zinc and then back to hollow zinc. Hard to imagine regulations flipping back and forth like that.

Best regards,
---Norm

This Thinking i completly dont understand. Why this would be hard to imagine regulations flipping back? We now that there was some massiv Buntmetall Badges and other materials for Heer Combat Badges (Massiv Wurster GAB, PAB, IAB, .... then just some in Massiv Cupal....
so f.e. we see a massiv BM PAB from Wurster, then the hollow BM Wurster PABs and then many variants of the massiv zinc Form. Youre sentence would be not fitting even in this. I could question you also, why would somebody switch from massiv BM - to Hollow BM - then hollow Zinc and then massiv zinc????


We know like Andreas said the regulations for the Wound Badge which had to be produced thiner and thiner (but under the regulation to produce the Silver and Gold grade only massiv). We see just massiv CCCs and Iam sure they could produce them in hollow or semi hollow too, but i believe it was forbidden, because a CCC is a high award and should be given to the soldier as massiv form - like Silver and Gold WB
We know Numberd GAB and PAB Variants produced in a hollow/ semihollow form till end of war - why? To use less material as possible, even it was also a quite high award, but not as high as CCC. We know f.e. a massiv Form of numberd GAB f.e. which are quite rare and was long in discussion if original or not. A collector i will not name but hes a high MOD here even said, he believe this bades are good and even better in quality as his semihollow brothers. He believes its a earlier variant - the details on the observe all are 100% perfect and the same then the "later" semihollow badges. So why you make a numerd PAB/ GAB in a Semihollow form, then you let produce also all normal GABs/PABs till end of war massiv zinc? I believe you have to use less material to end of war. I believe were was a regulation let swich from hollow BM to Massiv Zinc and then back to hollow Zinc.

[PKAliebhaber]

"Wir verweisen aber darauf, dass diese Abzeichen bekanntlich jetzt in massiv angefertigt werden müssen und müssen die Gesenke entsprechend danach gearbeitet sein."

bekanntlich its the interesting word. it means that it was orderd a short time ago

[Andreas Klein]

bekanntlich its the interesting word. it means that it was orderd a short time ago

Good point

and i can only agree no german would use the wording if he would talk about something which was known for months. The wording of of this letter shows imo that the given information was new to S&L and to the Pforzheim area because S&L underlines it in a letter to the Pforzheim toolmaker Wismann so that he can take care of the changed poduction rules.

[Norm F]

bekanntlich its the interesting word. it means that it was orderd a short time ago

bekanntlich = as everyone knows, as is well-known, as is generally known

[Norm F]

Good point

and i can only agree no german would use the wording if he would talk about something which was known for months. The wording of of this letter shows imo that the given information was new to S&L and to the Pforzheim area because S&L underlines it in a letter to the Pforzheim toolmaker Wismann so that he can take care of the changed poduction rules.

Hi Andreas,

Could be. Official requirement to produce a solid vs. hollow badge could indeed have been recent to that letter, but that doesn't mean it was forbidden to start producing solid zinc badges prior to that date. And all KM zincers were solid anyway - no hollow forms exist.

As an aside, are you agreeing with PKAliebhaber's unusual theory that the progression of Heer badges was solid Tombak --> hollow Tombak --> solid zinc --> hollow zinc? Which would mean makers such as S&L were making Heer badges in hollow zinc at the end of the war? To me, this is quite a radical theory difficult to support with evidence. (Of course no such controversy exists in KM badges where they were all solid to the end of the war.)

Best regards,
---Norm

[Andreas Klein]

bekanntlich = as everyone knows, as is well-known, as is generally known

Hi Norm,

this is a "google translate" solution and based on the wording correct but not for the sense .... believe me: as german i wouldn't write the sentence in the way of S&L if i would talk about an old shoe known to everyone since months.

In the overall context the sentence from S&L has more the meaning of "be careful when you make the tools - they must be for a massive IAB construction".

And all KM zincers were solid anyway - no hollow forms exist.

Was there a real chance to safe material on KM awards? If you compare the size of the german navy to the field army there were much more combat badges for the army needed than for the navy.

In 1944/1945 there was no need for a hollow badge for a nearly non existing part of the army anymore.

As an aside, are you agreeing with PKAliebhaber's unusual theory that the progression of Heer badges was solid Tombak --> hollow Tombak --> solid zinc --> hollow zinc?

I think his line of progression is more like: hollow tombak - solid zinc/tombak - hollow zinc which i underline as well.

Hollow zinc combat badges can be found in masses with worse soldering and worse overall material ... no one can tell me that they were the direct follower of a hollow tombak version in oustanding quality. And a hollow design is the best for saving resources and a high production output.