opinions for this Zerstörer badge ???

[xx2008]

Hi, I would like to have your opinions for this Zerstörer badge, is it a good one?

[BubbaZ]

Hi,
Looks like original tombak O. Schickle Destroyer badge but with refinished obverse (at least eagle and ship/waves repainted).
Cheers,
Hubert

[Don Prince]

Would the wire type pin be normally blunt?

[BubbaZ]

Would the wire type pin be normally blunt?

Yes.
Enclosed pls find another Schickle example featuring blunt ended main pin.
To be honest I am not 100% sure they both are Otto Schickle. They might well be Petz & Lorenz. Who knows?
Cheers,
Hubert

[Norm F]

Hi Guys,

As far as I'm concerned both of these posted examples are the Petz & Lorenz Destroyer. The obverse design differs from the Schickle catalogue whose design matches the L/15 marked example in Gordon's book.

And the Petz and Lorenz catalogue pictures this exact type of badge complete with the distinctive flaw in the bow wave.

Furthermore the minesweeper badges with this same setup have an unusual finish which involves a silver undercoating on the Tombak before the gilding is applied -- a feature that is also apparent on the P&L-attributed U-Boat badge.

Which leads an intriguing question about the badge posted by xx2008 (odd name...). I'd like to see closeups of the finish around the eagle to see if we can tell if this is a silver undercoating that never had gilding applied to it?

Mind you, it also seems odd to see two mint examples of this badge come up recently (the xx2008 badge and the Philipp-Militaria badge) supposedly from a company that went out of business in 1941...I feel more comfortable about the one in this comparison which is from John T.'s site.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Would the wire type pin be normally blunt?

Hi Don,

They're always blunt on these Destroyers, but they can be either blunt or sharp on the Minesweepers with the same setup.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Re-posting xx2008's images from the host server so they're not lost to the thread later.

[Norm F]

.

[BubbaZ]

Hi Norm,
Agree with all you have said about these Destroyers - definitely made by P&L. Gordons book tells it all Unmarked badge posted by xx2008 is described on page 66, and Schickle Destroyer, sharing Mayer obverse design, on page 51.
Looks like B.H. Mayer used only Schickle dies for both Minesweeper and Destroyer badges and not P&L after both companies went bancrupt in 1941?
Provided there is a rule that each maker producing Destroyers made also Minesweepers - where is P&L Minesweeper then? Or maybe designs are so similiar that it is hard to tell them apart in situation where both firms used same reverse hardware?
What makes you think that Minesweepers you've posted above are P&L and not Schickle? Sorry if I am speculating.
Cheers,
Hubert

[John R.]

Back to the badge at the top, it is a nice Petz and Lorenz example but unfortunately, somebody painted it. I normally do not recommend trying to see if a paint job will come off, but any result is better than this.

If he stripped the badge of the paint, it would go to the tombak base metal which I think would be better than what has happened to this badge.

Any ideas?

John

[John R.]

What makes you think that Minesweepers you've posted below are P&L and not Schickle? Sorry if I am speculating.
Cheers,
Hubert

I think the hinge system is the main way to call a badge a Shickle. Very unique. Well, much of this is speculation Hubert and in the end, what is most important is if the badge is period or not. The badge at the top is period, at least under that coat of paint. John

[Norm F]

Hi Norm,
...
What makes you think that Minesweepers you've posted below are P&L and not Schickle? Sorry if I am speculating.
Cheers,
Hubert

Hi Hubert,

The attribution of the minesweepers with this setup to P&L is based on a combination of several features which I'll try to clarify (even though it's off the topic of the Destroyer a bit).

You may recall from our threads on GCA, these minesweepers were discussed and the possibility of Schickle was raised. There is indeed a Schickle wound badge with the same setup. However, B.H. Mayer also used this setup from time to time on other badges -- i.e. it was a setup available to makers in the Pforzheim area, including neighbouring Unterreichenbach.

The setup on these minesweepers does not match the Schickle U-Boat which has a wider hinge and rounded catch -- that U-Boat setup is a direct match to Schickle's more common classic wound badge setup, and most people are satisfied with that attribution as described in Gordon's book.

Now, the P&L catalog is key to this discussion. As you know the U-Boat in that catalog differs from the Schickle catalog and is a complete match to the P&L attributed U-Boat with the classic P&L Sports Badge setup. So we're comfortable calling that U-Boat badge a P&L. Here's the thing --- that P&L U-Boat has a very unusual type of finish. Unlike any other Tombak U-Boat badge maker, those badges often have an undercoating of silver metal applied to the tombak badge before the gilding is finally applied on top. Therefore when looking at various degrees of wear you can see gilding when mint, silver metal when moderately worn and raw brass-coloured tombak when heavily worn.

There's only one other KM tombak badge with this unique silver undercoating -- and that's these minesweepers with the round wire pin setup. Furthermore this exact same complete setup is seen on the Destroyers shown in this thread with the bow wave flaw that directly match the P&L catalog.

The obverse design of these minesweepers is the most common and widespread (Type 2) obverse design used for minesweepers so its no surprise that it matches both the P&L and Schickle catalogs. But it's the other features as stated that lead to the P&L attribution -- it's unique finish matching only the P&L U-Boat, and a pin system matching the P&L Destroyer from the catalog.

So where is the real Schickle minesweeper? It's most likely hidden amongst the unmarked Mayers, exactly like the Schickle Destroyer which matches the Mayer completely in design and hardware.

(Sorry to others for the lengthy message. As Hubert knows, we minesweeper geeks get carried away. )

Best regards,
---Norm

[BubbaZ]

Hi Norm,
Not too long at all!
Thanks a lot for clarification
It makes sense to me now. L/15 marked Destroyer shown in Gordon's book was a clue to solve this puzzle as I see it
Cheers,
Hubert

[Norm F]

...
It makes sense to me now. L/15 marked Destroyer shown in Gordon's book was a clue to solve this puzzle as I see it
Cheers,
Hubert

Hi Hubert,

The L/15 marked "Mayer-like" Destroyer doesn't really contribute to the P&L Destroyer attribution discussion other than to say that a Schickle Destroyer is already accounted for and therefore Schickle wasn't a candidate as a maker for the Destroyers with the wave flaw in this thread. But anyway we already knew that the Destroyers with the wave flaw matched the P&L catalog and not the Schickle catalog.

The other thing gleaned from the L/15 Destroyer was that Schickle and Mayer Destroyers are indiscernible from one another in the absence of a maker's stamp, and therefore it's likely that the same situation applies to their minesweeper badges.

Best regards,
---Norm

[John R.]

Here's the thing --- that P&L U-Boat has a very unusual type of finish. Unlike any other Tombak U-Boat badge maker, those badges often have an undercoating of silver metal applied to the tombak badge before the gilding is finally applied on top. Therefore when looking at various degrees of wear you can see gilding when mint, silver metal when moderately worn and raw brass-coloured tombak when heavily worn.
Norm

While off track, here is a P&L U-boat badge which might help understand what Norm is talking about. John