Hollow Beco u-boat badge

[John R.]

The fake F.O you show is really a red herring in all this I think

I agree. I simply do not like the catch on the FO posted.

However, I think the Juncker comparison is also a Red Herring.

John

[John R.]

To continue along the "other Beco" badges line of thinking, it would be good to study them.

In addition, I think study of the "Beco" mark, which I think we have done, might shed some light.

Norm, thanks for all the research even if we are probably not going to agree on this and many of us know, you have your hands full right now professionally.

John

[Norm F]

Hi Norm,

The fake F.O you show is really a red herring in all this I think- if you get into the detail we could say the setup also is similar to the first pattern Juncker u-boat- (I think likely they have copied from that badge)- so now these can be doubted too?

The unmarked Beco badges all share common features in the setup that the fake FO doesn't have- a very obvious tooling mark to the round wire catch; the cut to the end of the pin; the horizontal striations to the pin....

Hi Patrick,

Too many points in one post but I'll try to break it down. I'll first mention that the Juncker U-Boat does not use the setup on the fake Orth badge. Juncker used a plain cylindrical barrel hinge. The fake Orth has a cutdown block hinge. No KM badge has that kind of hinge other than the solid unflawed "unmarked Beco".

You're quite right that the straight main pins on the "unmarked Beco" badges are subtly different from the fake Orth with regards to the striations (not so much the cut end which varies). They're obviously the the same "generation".

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

I fully agree that the die scenario I propose is unlikely but by no means impossible. Logically, this could well be what has happened to cause the stepped flaw we see.

...whereas I think it would be either impossible or prohibitively impractical to repair both an obverse and reverse die that have been split asunder in the manner of my previous schematic. For now, we'll just have to disagree on that point, and perhaps a tool and die maker could comment?

To your counter theory I would pose the following question- what would be the need to newly produce a reverse die from a damaged obverse one?

If the obverse die had cracked then it stands to reason that it was being used in production- as such there must have been a functioning reverse die already in use.

We have no evidence that there ever existed an unflawed obverse and reverse die set for the hollow badge since no hollow badge of this design has appeared without the linear flaw on both obverse and reverse.

If the obverse cracked into two pieces (perhaps from P&L in 1941), then it's my assumption that it would no longer function and would have to duplicated (either cast or duplicated on a pantograph) to make a new die which exhibits the flaw. After that, if one were really determined to make a hollow badge (as someone apparently was), one would have to make a negative of that one for the companion die.

Is that a logical or profitable exercise for someone like Boerger & Co., a wartime manufacturer and supplier to the retail market, rather than simply ordering a new obverse die from Wissmann? Not really, but by Occam's razor, seems to be the case, which is why I question whether Beco was really the maker.

Also, logically and by decree, the hollow struck badges must be the earliest in the timeline or at least run concurrently with the solid badges and we have evidence from two other manufacturers who produced hollow and then solid backed versions of the u-boat.

I fully agree that there is some relation between these and the so called 'angry bird' badges which are again extremely scarce and feature variations in the setup.

Right, but it makes no sense to me to have a timeline the begins with no unflawed version but starts with a flawed unmarked hollow that has the identical setup as the "Angry bird", then proceeds to the flawed solid version worthy of marking "Beco" and finally ends on the solid unflawed "unmarked Beco" with a different setup, no longer worthy of their mark.

Or, if you decide that the unmarked solid version was someone else's product (whose?), then Beco only made a flawed version, both hollow and solid, and by coincidence the reverse hardware on on the hollow version is identically tooled as the "Angry bird" example.

There is no elegant unifying theory for the hodge-podge of observations when it comes to these badges, whereas illogical and improvised solutions abound in the post-war market when no consistency was required.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Perhaps these are indeed evidence of early war 'cottage' production and we know that it was not uncommon for pins and catches to be supplied externally to several regional producers. So maybe they bought these pin assemblies in from elsewhere?

That's certainly possible since we see different setups used on other makers' products like S&L and Deumer, although it helps that we see consistent patterns of use across various product lines.

But I'm also reminded of post-war fakes (notable many of Staegemeir's products over the years) that exhibit variant setups. Not to muddy the waters but here are four fake Imperial U-Boat badges attributed to Staegemeir and his suppliers which have different setups applied.

[Norm F]

No KM badge has that kind of hinge other than the solid unflawed "unmarked Beco".

Best regards,
---Norm

I have to correct myself, there's one other type of KM badge with a cut-off block hinge which I'm embarrassed to say, slipped my mind, and that's the Beco-marked Minesweeper! But there seems to be some difference in the "fit and finish" of the hinge-pin. The curved profile of the base looks a little different but that might just be a feature of the hinge block being cut off at a slightly different level.

Also, although not a KM badge and I don't know anything about EK1s, this "L/57" EK1 has a similarly cut-down hinge block.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

It may be useful to involve the other Beco attributed KM badges in this thread also to see what variations exist in setup of those and identify if any other common traits to the 'angry bird' or of course the fake F.O.

To continue along the "other Beco" badges line of thinking, it would be good to study them.

So, here are all the Beco-attributed Destroyer badges I'm seen posted over the years. As with the Beco U-Boat, the obverse design is the same as P&L, but in this case several other makers use the same obverse design, probably obtaining the working tools from a common die maker like Wissmann. The first three have the same "Beco" stamp as the U-Boat badges and show some minor variations in hardware. They all have somewhat poor obverse design and lesser quality finish and all have gilded reverse.

The two unmarked examples have a different hinge configuration and silvered reverses.

[Norm F]

T
In addition, I think study of the "Beco" mark, which I think we have done, might shed some light.

John

The "Beco" mark is vanishingly rare. Aside from 3 U-Boats, 3 Destroyers and 15 Minesweepers, the only other award I've seen with that stamp is a single example of the Gallipoli Star.

Across those four awards, the "Beco" stamp is very consistent, and certainly in its favour is the fact that we haven't seen it used spuriously on any other makers' badges or on any obviously fake badges.

So despite all my musings about the odd features and inconsistencies of the Beco-marked and unmarked badges and the loosely associated "Angry bird", it's still possible that some or all of them were a wartime pet project of Boerger & Company.

To come full circle, as said in the beginning, there's still much unknown about these rare badges.

Best regards,
---Norm

[John R.]

Norm,

If the cut off block hinge is unusual for KM badges outside of the MS Beco badge, and you accept the Beco marked MS badge, then you have to accept the hollow Beco U boat badge.

Not a coincidence.

John

[Norm F]

Norm,

If the cut off block hinge is unusual for KM badges outside of the MS Beco badge, and you accept the Beco marked MS badge, then you have to accept the hollow Beco U boat badge.

Not a coincidence.

John

Hi John,

The hollow U-Boat doesn’t use the cut-off block hinge, only the Beco-marked Minesweeper and the unmarked unflawed solid U-Boat with the straight main pin. More to the point, if one accepts the Beco-marked Minesweeper, then it follows that the flawed Beco-marked solid U-Boat is likely acceptable and by extension possibly the flawed unmarked hollow (although the step deformity remains unexplained). But, I don’t unconditionally accept any of these badges at present, including the marked Minesweepers — I await further evidence.

Every other badge manufacturer who used the same obverse designs as these “Beco” badges, mass produced them and also produced Heer badges. These should have been readily available tool sets. So why Beco, who never made any other war badges, should choose to produce a small run of poor quality KM badges is another mystery.

Schwerin was the only other maker who produced only KM badges (not Heer or Luftwaffe) but Schwerin had a special relationship to the KM pre-war, mass-produced and produced their own unique design, not “off-the-shelf” designs like those used for the “Beco” badges.

Best regards,
—-Norm

[BubbaZ]

Norm,
Thanks a lot for your analysis and comparisons. This is extremely useful

I would extend what John has said and put it like this: if someone accepts marked tombak Beco Minesweepers and Destroyers then should also accept all tombak Beco u-boats (solid marked, solid unmarked and hollow), since these all come from the same workshop (most likely Beco, as these share hardware and maker's mark known from other Beco products).
BTW, the flat wire catch on the first Destroyer in post #52 looks exactly the same down to the characteristic tool mark as the catch on hollow u-boat and 'angry bird' u-boats.
Cheers,
Hubert

[Patrick W]

Hubert

That's a great spot- I had overlooked it but you are correct- the flatwire catch on the first destroyer does have what looks like half of the same 3 dot tooling mark. Also note that destroyer 2 has the central line flaw to the round wire catch as seen on all of the known unmarked, unflawed solid back Beco u-boats.

So in terms of the hollow u-boat, we have same catch, same hinge block and same pin on other Beco products, the only anomaly now is the head to the hinge pin..


Norm, just for completeness sake I will add that you have overlooked another badge in your analysis of the cut hinge block in use on KM awards- the cupal FLL destroyer- the majority of the few known examples have this. Again these are early and likely experimental badges that feature a variety of setups. These could sit in the same category as the mysterious Beco badges due to low numbers and also great variety indicating small production and experimentation.


It would also make sense that this type of hinge attachment was abandoned as the soldering point would be only half the size as when the block was uncut and laid flat. The last cupal FLL destroyer I found was pretty much mint but the hinge and pin were broken away.

[Patrick W]

It is absolutely correct to compare other awards made by Boerger to seek to understand this and Norm has rightly shown an EK1 that shows the same form of setup as the unmarked unflawed u-boat badges.

Please look at Stefan's super EK1 DNA site and you can see the variety of setups utilised on Boerger EK1's- again you will see the same elements you find on the u-boats and other Beco KM badges-

https://www.ek1-dna.de/l-57-boerger---co.,-berlin.html

Note also the crosses with round wire catch showing the line flaw to the catch.

The pin on the 1914 EK1 at bottom is the same as on the hollow Beco u-boat

[Patrick W]

Every other badge manufacturer who used the same obverse designs as these “Beco” badges, mass produced them and also produced Heer badges. These should have been readily available tool sets. So why Beco, who never made any other war badges, should choose to produce a small run of poor quality KM badges is another mystery.

Hi Norm,. I don't think it was a question of choice- they made KM awards and also EK's, spangen etc because they obtained the contracts to do so after showing prototypes. They may well have produced some army or Luft awards and had those declined. The bulk of their production was clearly early- we have a lot of 1st pattern EK clasps and then the 2nd pattern clasps are very rare. Also they produced some zinc KVK1s later in the war but there are no attributed early KVK1's as far as I know. Strangely they had a contract to produce mini DK stickpins but not the full size award.
I should imagine there are early unmarked badges and crosses out there that were made by them but we have listed as unknown maker currently.

Schwerin was the only other maker who produced only KM badges (not Heer or Luftwaffe) but Schwerin had a special relationship to the KM pre-war, mass-produced and produced their own unique design, not “off-the-shelf” designs like those used for the “Beco” badges.

This is not actually that unusual when you look across the other fields- just as a quick example, OM, Deutschbein and JMME only produced Luft awards, the first 2 certainly being much smaller producers and OM having an entirely unique design for their pilot.

[John R.]

Hi John,

The hollow U-Boat doesn’t use the cut-off block hinge, only the Beco-marked Minesweeper and the unmarked unflawed solid U-Boat with the straight main pin.
—-Norm

OK, got confused, but does not change my point. John