Thanks Norm. I will have to study the information you provided for a bit.
John
John
-
-
To be clear, I'm not saying these production observations indicate post-war production. I'm just suggesting they are features of a smaller production setup like a jeweller or custom shop rather than a production line in a large factory. This is also in keeping with the small numbers seen and that they do not seem to be have been issued as official award pieces.
Such operations could be wartime or post-war, whereas consistent production line production was less likely to be post-war.
My original point is that we know very little about Boerger & Co.'s production or history, and when it comes to these rare badges we tend to make a lot of assumptions (some of which may not be true in the end).
Best regards,
---NormComment
-
I bought it so will get you some closeups and hopefully we can sort this out in the near future.Comment
-
Sometimes we have to go with our experience in how wartime badges appear. I think it is a good piece. Looking forward to images when you get it and your impressions. JohnOriginally posted by Patrick W View PostComment
-
Excellent! As John says, looking forward to it.Originally posted by Patrick W View Post
Best regards,
---NormComment
-
For reference, this is the other mysterious type of unmarked "Beco-design" U-boat badge about which little is known.
This type lacks the linear flow and has hand-sawn/filed margins both inside and out. They all have a sawn-off block hinge and straight wide pin.
I've only seen these four examples posted over the years and Hubert's is the only one with a flat-wire catch, all others having a round-wire catch.
Best regards,
---NormComment
-
Here are better images of my unmarked Beco.
Cheers,
HubertComment
-
Ok Guys, well here she is....
In hand absolutely an original wartime badge in my opinion- very nicely gilded and tones with the high points being polished.
I would suggest actually that this type of hollow badge is the earliest type of this BECO design which would make sense and put the hollow production from this maker in line with some of the others known- Deumer, Schickle
I will go on to explain my reasoning....Last edited by Patrick W; 03-19-2020, 09:23 AM.Comment
-
The flaw we see does indeed represent a crack in the die and on the badge actually presents as a 'step' on obverse and reverse. So when viewed from the front the top section of the badge above the crack is actually set noticeably lower than the lower section.
As already explained to produce a hollow struck badge like this, a male and female die are required. As the step is there on the reverse also but presented as opposite from the obverse, it would indicate that both dies have suffered a catastrophic failure causing a crack right through them at the same axis.
It would seem then then that perhaps they have been repaired or clamped together somehow resulting in a slight mis-alignment. It must have become clear fairly swiftly that the integral strength of the badge was impacted and it would break easily across this stepped axis.
Maybe that is why we have only seen two of these so far? Correspondingly there must have existed hollow examples without the flaw produced prior to the die failing.
This then would explain why we find solid back badges that have this flaw evident. They continued to use the damaged obverse die but created a new solid reverse die which meant the badge was sufficiently robust to last.
I would suggest then that the obverse die has been re-cut or a new one created to eliminate the crack at some point later in production as clearly this was a visible quality issue and potentially their contract could be at risk. So the entirely unflawed pieces with solid reverse are the last production.
Here are the steps seen on the obverse- the swastika had some post striking hand finished to try and elimate some the sharp line visibleComment
-
Here are the reverse steps- the section of badge above is slightly elevated above that belowComment
-
Great analysis and photos. I had no doubt about the badge from the beginning and this just confirms you have a great hollow back--and rare of course.
I agree with your thoughts that all hollow backs came first in production, solid reverse afterwards.
Great find. JohnComment
-
Thanks for the better photos, Patrick. Interesting theory, but still a real mystery as far as I'm concerned.
The step deformity is really interesting, and means we're not dealing with a simple crack or fissure in a die, which poses a very different possibility. As you know, a production die is a thick solid block of steel which means: a) it's very unlikely that both the obverse and reverse die could undergo a cataclysmic crack through the entire thickness of both dies to create a step deformity, and b) even if that were possible, repair of the dies would be highly unlikely.
Instead, it seems even more likely now that the reverse die was constructed from a flawed obverse die. Another distinct possibility is that a fractured badge with slight displacement was used to cast a new flawed obverse die.
There's no evidence that Beco was ever contracted by the KM for awards. In all cases, the Beco-attributed awards are vanishingly rare and if wartime then certainly they would have been limited production runs for private purchase (and not likely to be profitable). That's also consistent with the fact that they never bothered to produce a trimming die and every badge is hand trimmed.
It's also strange that Beco would even make a hollow version. As mentioned previously, the Beco marked badges are the Petz & Lorenz obverse design, and, since Boerger & Co. didn't come up with the design themselves the theory is that they acquired some of P&L's products after P&L's production was shut down by the Präsidialkanzlei in August, 1941. The Destroyer and Minesweeper "Beco" badges are also based upon Pforzheim designs. P&L made only a solid version of the U-Boat and Schickle and Deumer had transitioned to solid by that time, and we know from the Wissman/S&L correspondence that all war badges had to be solid construction certainly by early 1942.
All that is to say, why bother going out of one's way to make a reverse die from a flawed obverse die for an unofficial hollow version, unless maybe someone specifically commissioned the project?
Lots of unanswered questions remain about the mysterious and rare Beco-attributed KM badges.
Best regards,
---NormComment
-
Norm,
You are relentless. It looks absolutely compatible with other hollow back examples in appearance and overall "feel".
Would you please recap which companies lost their licenses to produce war badges and what your reference is for that conclusion. I believe you, just want to summarize here.
Just a couple, correct?
Also which companies produced hollow backs, including this one. Is it possible that Petz could have produced this one early after the badge design was approved?
JohnComment
-
Hi John,Originally posted by John Robinson View Post
The two firms "Otto Schickle, Pforzheim" and "Petz & Lorenz, Unterreichenbach" were the only two companies known to be explicitly forbidden from producing 3rd Reich awards.
Schickle announced their assigned LDO number L/15 on March 1, 1941 only to have it revoked by a Präsidialkanzlei decree 3 months later on June 3, 1941 (described in Dietrich's EK1 book on page 161). The July 1, 1941 Uniformen-Markt issue announces "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."
Although two weeks later:
“The company Otto Schickle, Pforzheim, has received approval to bring to market their remaining stock in medals and decorations of the Third Reich 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 sell-off to the Pforzheim Chamber of Commerce.”
For P&L we know this occurred around the same time in the months preceding August 1, 1941 since the announcement in Uniformen-Markt on that date mentions that the decision had been communicated to P&L sometime before then and that P&L had subsequently violated that decision by continuing to distribute their catalog which listed "several examples of improper wares". P&L had also received permission to sell off their stock (like Schickle) but it was then revoked due to their violation of the decree.
Best regards,
---NormComment
-
The only two known makers of hollow-back wartime U-Boat badges were Deumer and Schickle. Both were major badge manufacturers listing the U-Boat badge in their early wartime catalogs, both companies produced both hollow and solid versions with matching reverse setups, and both used a trimming die for efficient reliable mass production.Originally posted by John Robinson View Post
Petz & Lorenz also pictured the U-Boat badge in their catalog and also used a trimming die for efficient mass production. The solid P&L badges have reverse setups like other P&L products but different from the hollow "Beco-attributed" badges. Furthermore, in addition to the use of a trimming die, the P&L U-Boat has a solid swastika unlike the flawed hollow badges with their hand-trimmed swastikas and margins. So aside from the same obverse design, I don't think the flawed hollow badges show any features suggestive of P&L's production style.
Best regards,
---NormComment
Comment