Two IAB's Need Help Identifying Unmarked One

[horsetrainer]

Two IAB's Need Help Identifying Unmarked One? One is maker marked for Adolf Schwerdt. The other has no markings and I am wondering if someone can identify this maker? Many thanks!

[horsetrainer]

Last photos

[rbminis]

The one on the left is Alois Rettenmaier, the one on the right is known as, AS in Triangle.
Ralph.

[Stepdale]

I agree with Ralph. In addition, the identification of the AS in a triangle maker as Adolf Schwerdt is based on an old publication and has since been discredited. It is a Gablonz maker, very possibly Adolf Scholze though that has yet to be proven 100%.
Dale

[Thomas Durante]

I can only agree with Ralph and Dale, both fine originals by Rettenmaier and Adolf Scholze. Nice examples with great finish remaining.



Tom

[Bruce Simcox]

Hi horsetrainer

.....,.Here are some facts concerning Adolf Sholze and his maker mark. This information has been available for over 10 years so I do not understand why some collectors are still mistakenly referring to the AS in triangle maker mark as Adolf Sholze.

The following information is from member Skip's inquiry back then.

Hi Robert,

Just talked to a Hr. Gottstein who has worked for Adolf Scholze the last 40 years and is now going into pension. He also investigated into the firms past history and told me a few details about the founding of the company in early 1900. Nowadays they are more technical design but also deliver stuff to the automobile industry
There logo is, and always has been "A.S."

Skip
Quote:
Guys,

just finished talking with Hr. Gottsteins son. They looked very carefully at this logo and even did some research around other firms in their area. Nobody has seen, or knows who this logo belongs to.
The son also confirmed that Scholze has only ever used the "A.S." logo on their products.
So back to the drawing board on the AS in triangle.

Skip

Read the following lengthy, but fascinating, thread(2005-07)

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...highlight=Skip

I hope this clears things up for you. As I mentioned above, for some reason this solid evidence keeps being ignored, or perhaps forgotten, so I believe it does no harm to repeat it again for the sake of accuracy.