Why would they start with a hollow sub badge?
-
-
Hi Andreas,Originally posted by Andreas Klein View Post
I appreciate our discussions but you have an unfortunate manner of sometimes presenting opinion as fact.
You know as well as I do that a notice stating future badges should be made out of zinc instead of Tombak is not the same as stating that zinc badges were not made prior to that date. Someone had to be an early adopter and who better than a large supplier of official award pieces.
And you also know that the S&L correspondence with Wissmann in early 1942 makes no mention whatsoever about zinc production but instead reminds Wissmann that these awards must be produced in solid form (as S.H.u.Co's already was in 1941).
You have no proof that S.H.u.Co.41 badges started only in December -- that is a month you picked out of a hat to support your theory.
Of course I've never seen a zinc combat badge marked L/15 -- I've never seen any KM badge of any kind marked L/15 other than a single Destroyer badge despite the fact that we know he produced them. And of course no badge supplied to the Kriegsmarine every bore an LDO number since LDO numbers were only on those destined for the private purchase market --- like all of Mayer's zinc KM badge production which was a totally different design from Schickle's.
Anyway, I was careful to explain in this thread that it is unknown who produced the identical zinc version of the Schickle U-Boat. But there is nothing to rule out Schickle himself as a good candidate because a) the badges are identical to the Tombak version b) the hardware usage patterns are typical of Schickle and c) the zincers are not very common and show no signs whatsoever of any die wear -- they are crisp in detail and made of high quality Feinzink unlike what we see with late war Juncker zincers.
If this discussion continues further I'll separate it out into a separate thread since it is not my intention to re-state everything mentioned earlier in this U-Boat classification thread.
Best regards,
---NormComment
-
Norm,
Thank you for all of this hard work. I really appreciate the presentation. I took your breakdown and tried to find corresponding types in Weber and Skora's number classification as that is also becoming a popular way of cataloging badges. Would you agree with these correlations? First I present your classification followed by what I believe is W&S's equivalent.
Type 1.........No equivalent
Type 2.1......1.10
Type 2.2......1.15
Type 2.3......No equivalent
Type 2.4.1...No equivalent
Type 2.4.2...1.14
Type 2.4.3...1.13
Type 2.4.4...No equivalent
Type 2.4.5...1.12
Type 3.1......No equivalent
Type 3.2......1.16
Type 3.3......Vol 3, p.28, Schickle variant 7
Type 3.4......No equivalent
Type 1.17 and 1.18 are attributed to Mayer's design but to me the die characteristics are different and should not be included in this classification.
I would appreciate your opinion.
JAndrewComment
-
Hi JAndrew,Originally posted by JAndrew View Post
Excellent idea to tabulate the correlation to the examples in the book.
One slight correction to Type 2.1 which should be 1.11 instead of 1.10. The rest looks fine.
Type 1.........No equivalent
Type 2.1......1.11
Type 2.2......1.15
Type 2.3......No equivalent
Type 2.4.1...No equivalent
Type 2.4.2...1.14
Type 2.4.3...1.13
Type 2.4.4...No equivalent
Type 2.4.5...1.12
Type 3.1......No equivalent
Type 3.2......1.16
Type 3.3......Vol 3, p.28, Schickle variant 7
Type 3.4......No equivalent
As you've noted, the book (Volumes I,II and III) doesn't include every single hardware variant but covers the highlights pretty well considering its wide scope and a size of over 1200 pages.
As you point out Type 1.17 in the book on page 98 is indeed completely different from the Schickle design and is in fact Mayer's own "true" design. In the Errata table included in Volume III that badge is re-designated "1.17 B.H. MAYER’S KUNSTPRÄGEANSTALT – VARIATION 1" instead of Variation 5 since all the preceding variations were actually the Schickle design (which are also addressed in the Errata table).Originally posted by JAndrew View Post
Here's Tom Yanacek's previously posted zinc B.H. Mayer for comparison -- dramatically different from the Schickle design.
Best regards,
---NormLast edited by Norm F; 08-14-2014, 09:50 PM.Comment
-
My thought for this is that the hollow backs are very rare plus the Deumer hollow back is reflective of a WW1 U-boat badge due to the unique hardware at the top.Originally posted by Nordmark View Post
So, if the vast majority of badges are solid and only Deumer and Shickle have known hollow backs, it is logical that they were among the earliest of the U-boat badges to be made outside of Berlin. I would speculate that Schickle and Deumer had to switch to a solid format if they hoped to get a KM order, more in line with Schwerin and Juncker.
Naturally, there is no way to absolutely prove where the hollow back fits in the posted timeline, but I think this is the reason KM collectors feel the hollow backs were among the first U-boat badges produced.
JohnComment
-
John,
That certainly makes sense.
Norm,
Thank you. And I hope nobody feels I am criticizing W&S by posting that table. I think their books are great and have darn near worn the bindings of mine out in the short time I have had them. To me it is all complementary information.
JAndrewComment
-
Hi Guys,
Thanks for all the comments so far.
So as not to complicate this classification thread I've moved the very interesting side discussion on the time period of introduction of zinc into a separate thread here:
Time period of introduction of zinc for Awards
Best regards,
---NormLast edited by Norm F; 08-26-2013, 06:52 PM.Comment
-
Another setup variant to be added to the Schickle family is the type described in this thread:
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=771166
It fits between 2.3 and 2.4.1 in the old "Schickle timeline" and is now UC# 4.1.5 in the comprehensive U-Boat classification. Although rare, the same setup can be found on the Schickle-attributed Destroyer as well.
Best regards,
---NormComment
Comment