Zimmerman U-Boat & Petz and Lorenz Minesweeper find

[John R.]

I am presuming no such thing. I do not have a definitive answer, Norm does with a theory.

The fact remains that the 4 cutout arms are only associated with Zimmerman, it is never found with the "early" Schickle hardware, and I have no reason to believe there was a sell off of a dismantled Schickle company in the first place.

The facts are as stated, the rest is supposition.

The idea Zimmerman just happened to notice the cutouts and liked them makes little sense. I do not have an answer since it is impossible to discover right now.

I accept that what Norm demonstrated has merit for discussion, but to now say these are Schickle badges with a Zimmerman stamp I do not find fully compelling.

John

[BubbaZ]

and I have no reason to believe there was a sell off of a dismantled Schickle company in the first place.

Hi John,
Here is PK announcement about sell-off of Schickle stocks Norm and I were refering to. Are you saying that this is not enough to assume that it really took place?
Cheers,
Hubert

[Varsity]

Great Article Hubert, thanks for sharing.
This is backing up your theory for sure

Hi Jim,

Can you please post a close up of the Cap Tally the sailor is wearing from the photo. It appears to be a named Tally but exactly Its not clear.

Thanks mate
JustinC

Hi Justin,

It's a 'Kriegsmarine' tally.

Regards Jim

[John R.]

Thanks Hubert but I should clarify that I am sure that when any company went out of business, then or now, as much of the company that could be used by other companies would be sold to satisfy debts or provide additional income to the owners of the sold company.

That would be normal.

It is the source of the obverse U-boat die for all three companies that I am questioning in this specific case, not where the general equipment of the former Schickle company went.

It is a nice neat theory that all of the Mayer-Zimmerman-Schickle badges came from Schickle if I am understanding the theory correctly, but it is possible that several production dies were in existence made from the master artisan die and sold to each company from an unknown source.

This is the problem when we have several maker marks on what appears to be the same badge, at least the same obverse badge. It is much easier when we are not confronted with the problem.

Naturally, we also have issues (and I am probably going to disagree with you here too) with completely different badges that have the same maker mark on them.

Were these borrowed from another maker unmarked to satisfy a temporary shortage by the one maker or was the die bought and then used by the other producer and stamped?

Of course, the true answer to all these questions is very simple, it is just that we do not know that answer conclusively. We are using logic, but logic does not always work. Similar to saying the sun moves from east to west relative to the earth, or does it?

John

[BubbaZ]

it is possible that several production dies were in existence made from the master artisan die and sold to each company from an unknown source.

Hi John,
Possible but considerably less likely than the Norm's theory. Since it would also mean that:
- Mayer had to abandon his succesful Schickle-design dies when shifting into zinc, completely changing designs and reverse hardwares at the same time for his new U-boats, Destroyers and Minesweepers... for what reason?? and started to mark all his badges from that moment with no exceptions...
- Zimmerman had to suddenly quit making U-boats and Destroyers instead of just turning into zinc...

And where to put Schickle-design unmarked zinc Minesweepers which IMO were also produced by Schickle and by Schickle only?

More logical to say - they never had Schickle-design dies hence:
- Mayer developed his own dies when he entered into KM awards production during zinc era;
- Zimmerman just sold on private market what he acquired on Schickle sell-off and was never active in this area again.

Cheers,
Hubert

[Norm F]

...
The fact remains that the 4 cutout arms are only associated with Zimmerman, it is never found with the "early" Schickle hardware, and I have no reason to believe there was a sell off of a dismantled Schickle company in the first place.

Hi John,

For accuracy's sake, that is not a fact. The four cutout arms version is clearly also associated with Schickle since it's shown in his catalog and bears hardware used routinely on other Schickle products and which never appears on other Zimmermann products.

...
I'm fine with calling the unmarked badges "Schickle-design" rather than "Schickle" given the small element of doubt, but to call them "Zimmermann" or "Mayer" is also incorrect and misleading. And for now, the best description for the few L/52 and L/18 stamped examples in my view is "Schickle-design, marked by Zimmermann" or "Schickle-design, marked by Mayer" in both cases for the private purchase market.

As mentioned above, I'm satisfied if we just stop calling the 4-cutout variant a "Zimmermann" since that is misleading. The terminology proposed above should satisfy both Schickle-convinced and unconvinced collectors alike.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Here is PK announcement about sell-off of Schickle stocks Norm and I were refering to.

With regards to the PK announcement in the July 1941 Uniformen-Markt that Hubert attached, it's important to note the translation:

"The company Otto Schickle, Pforzheim, has received approval to bring to market their products in medals and decorations of the Third Reich which are still in stock 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 selloff to the Pforzheim Chamber of Commerce."

It quite clearly states Schickle's "noch auf Lager befindlichen" or "remaining stock" in Orders and Medals and says nothing about dies and production equipment, and it further states the LDO will carry out the quality check. So it's logical to expect that a purchaser of these LDO-approved awards from a "disbarred" producer would now mark them with their LDO number for resale.

Best regards,
---Norm

[John R.]

So there's no really good reason to ascribe the unmarked versions to Zimmermann (nor Mayer) -- just a historical tendency in the hobby based upon the few L/52 marked examples before further research in the last few years. It's really quite interesting that both of these badges are from the early makers (Schickle and P&L) both of whom were driven out of the market in mid-1941.

Best regards,
---Norm

Norm, not sure I am following you above. We are talking about Mayer and Zimmerman and Schickle--what does Mayer and Zimmerman have to do with P&L?

John

[John R.]

Secondly, are you getting agreement or not about this theory from Gordon and others if they are commenting?

John

[Norm F]

It's really quite interesting that both of these badges are from the early makers (Schickle and P&L) both of whom were driven out of the market in mid-1941.

Norm, not sure I am following you above. We are talking about Mayer and Zimmerman and Schickle--what does Mayer and Zimmerman have to do with P&L?

John

Hi John,

My comment there was just referring to the two badges posted by Jim at the top of the thread - the P&L Minesweeper and the Schickle-design U-Boat - two badges from the same era from makers who lost their licences in 1941. It wasn't anything to do with the Schickle/Mayer/Zimmermann discussion really. Sorry about the confusion.

Although now that you mention it, some P&L combat badges are also found rarely stamped L/18 by Mayer, and we no longer attribute those badges to Mayer - a very similar situation.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Secondly, are you getting agreement or not about this theory from Gordon and others if they are commenting?

Hi John,

In the one internet discussion with Gordon on this topic a while back, his views were virtually the same as yours, but his final comments at that time were as follows (quote):

"I was agreeing that there is no proof of Zimmermann making the cut out swastika version, BUT my point is that so far Zimmermann is the only firm for which we have definite evidence that they marketed them.
I'm perfectly happy to accept that Zimmermann may well have bought these badges in and simply marked them with their own LDO number for retail sale. But the fact is, as things stand at the moment, neither L/15 or L/18 stamps have ever been encountered on one of these.
If such a badge ever turns up, fine, we can discount Zimmermann as the sole retailer of this time."

So in the end he focused more on who retailed these badges rather than who actually manufactured them, and we agree on that point.

Best regards,
---Norm

[John R.]

OK, lots of research and connecting the dots went into this thread from both points of view.

The problem is the classification of those badges not marked and accepted Mayer or Zimmerman and you are now wishing to call them Schickle I guess.

I do not like the idea of now calling them Schickle and will continue to classify them as Mayer and Zimmerman, mark or no mark.

I am not the final say on this (or much else I guess) but it is food for thought for the community at this point in how we want to call them.

It is also a problem, and a big problem in my eyes and the reason I am bringing it all up, is future collectors posting their "Schickle" or using the search engine for their "Schickle" when what they have is a Mayer or Zimmerman as far as the database goes and they cannot find it.

Changes like these have unexpected consequences so I think it is important if you and others who like the theory wish to call them something else than what they have been called in the past have a linked name, such as Mayer (Schickle design) or something like that to keep the reference badges in the database relevant.

John

[Norm F]

OK, lots of research and connecting the dots went into this thread from both points of view.

The problem is the classification of those badges not marked and accepted Mayer or Zimmerman and you are now wishing to call them Schickle I guess.

"Schickle-design" as opposed to "Schickle" is a perfectly acceptable term, based upon the Schickle catalog. The individual collector can draw their own conclusions about which maker had a hand in them. Although let's face it, if Zimmermann hadn't marked a handful of such badges L/52, based on all the other historical and forensic evidence no one in a million years would have ever connected this lone Tombak U-Boat to the firm of Zimmermann. All the other evidence would have screamed "Schickle", in a voice much louder than that which currently makes us quite comfortable with the Tombak "Juncker" U-Boat or the Tombak "Deumer" U-Boat or the Tombak "S&L" U-Boat.

It is also a problem, and a big problem in my eyes and the reason I am bringing it all up, is future collectors posting their "Schickle" or using the search engine for their "Schickle" when what they have is a Mayer or Zimmerman as far as the database goes and they cannot find it.

John, I'm sure you agree that trying to protect the search function can't stand in the way of true progress in our understanding. Prior to your attribution of Deumer's Tombak U-boat, previous threads on those badges wouldn't mention Deumer and would not show up in a "Deumer U-Boat" thread search, but that didn't stop us from changing the name from Hymmen-like to Deumer. And as it stands now, if one wants to search for information on a true zinc L/18 KM badge, they're presented with a barrage of Tombak Schickle-design badges irrelevant to their search. That's why your great work in the pinned threads with links to discussion threads like this is so important for access to key information.

Best regards,
---Norm

[John R.]

Although let's face it, if Zimmermann hadn't marked a handful of such badges L/52, based on all the other historical and forensic evidence no one in a million years would have ever connected this lone Tombak U-Boat to the firm of Zimmermann. All the other evidence would have screamed "Schickle" -Norm

Exactly Norm. The operative word is "no one" I guess. But it would have still been true.

So to clarify your position, what would you call an unmarked "Zimmerman" and an unmarked "Mayer" of this design?

I would call them Zimmermans and Mayers as at least the retailer if not the maker, since we just do not know who had the dies for these badges or who made them is my issue.

Perhaps it is similar in some respects, using your arguments, to the Schwerin Berlin marked Juncker badges in this case--not sure. I am of the opinion that they were retailed by Schwerin Berlin for some reason and that the stamp is not a postwar addition since we seem to agree that Juncker made those U-badges. Or, somehow Schwerin actually had the die for that badge, not sure, and the unmarked "Junckers" were really Schwerin Berlin all along.

Fortunately, we do not see the SB U-boat badge with other maker period stamps on them since so many are unmarked, but since so many are, you wonder sometimes why? In your theory of the Schickle, I guess here again you could state that the badge was made by SB and unmarked since it was retailed by other firms during the war.

John

[John R.]

With regards to the PK announcement in the July 1941 Uniformen-Markt that Hubert attached, it's important to note the translation:

"The company Otto Schickle, Pforzheim, has received approval to bring to market their products in medals and decorations of the Third Reich which are still in stock 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 selloff to the Pforzheim Chamber of Commerce."

It quite clearly states Schickle's "noch auf Lager befindlichen" or "remaining stock" in Orders and Medals and says nothing about dies and production equipment, and it further states the LDO will carry out the quality check. So it's logical to expect that a purchaser of these LDO-approved awards from a "disbarred" producer would now mark them with their LDO number for resale.

Best regards,
---Norm

Norm, it is not logical to think that the badges would have been scooped up (with the Zimmerman people noticing the 4 segmented legs in one box of course and liked them so much they only took those) and the dies left in this liquidation assuming they had the dies in the first place. It is just as possible, again using your logic, that the dies were not mentioned since (1) they were destroyed or (2) they sold them without mentioning it in the notice or (3) they never had them.

John