Well for what it´s worth so far no SHuCo designed IAB has ever been found in tombak
-
Regards
Hans N
Don´t throw away your fake WB´s! Get in touch with me.
I collect them for reference purposes for the benefit of the hobby (for the right "fake" price of course). -
Hi Norm,
Yes, I too have no problem believing that the ShuCo41 die was used in 1941 but we can't exclude the possibility that the die was contracted to be made, in say December 1941, but not delivered and used until 1942.
On the other hand, if we can point to badges that were actually awarded in January 1942, and work backwards from recipient, to delivery to unit, to storage, to delivery from factory, to finishing, to being stamped, to order received from PKZ... then I think it is a much stronger case putting solid, zinc production squarely in 1941. Especially important since the "official" timestamp for solid zinc production, based on the documents, is March 1942. The more solid-zinc badges we can find with award dates before March 1942, the stronger the case is to prove that zinc production was earlier that the "official" times tamp.
TomIf it doesn't have a hinge and catch, I'm not interested......well, maybe a littleNew Book - The German Close Combat Clasp of World War II
[/SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Available Now - tmdurante@gmail.com
Comment
-
Once again: the badge was sold in 2014 together with a document dated 1942. No one knows if badge and document had always been together so we should not pray the new evidence out of it.On the other hand, if we can point to badges that were actually awarded in January 1942,
If the die was made in december 1941 it would have been marked "41" and a few weeks later when you had to wait that the official authorities confirmed your die as "accepted" you had been in 1942 before the production run had started.Personally, I think the S.H.u.Co.41 die would likely have been used in 1941; there's no solid Tombak version from that reverse die and it doesn't make sense to me to make the die in 1941 and not use it until the next year.
And how about a writting mistake like the "Fank & Reif" error which was never corrected. No one would throw away a confirmed die because of a misleading "41" if it should have been "42". I often see myself writting the old year in January of the new year.
Btw we have another IAB maker with a date in the die ... Walter Redo with a "42" in the die, and here we haven't seen a tombak version too, so very late 1941 to early 1942 is for me more logical than anything else.Last edited by Andreas Klein; 08-18-2014, 09:55 AM.Best regards, Andreas
______
The Wound Badge of 1939
www.vwa1939.com
The Iron Cross of 1939- out now!!! Place your orders at:
www.ek1939.comComment
-
I can show this ShuCo 41 IAB with scratched "H.K.L. 30.1.42" from my collection. Also i can show several small groupings with IAB and GAB awardings around January 1942 where a Zinc Badge came with it (sure, no hard facts as they could have been switched but nevertheless)Comment
-
Thanks Alex. So that's several examples suggesting zinc badges were officially accepted already by the beginning of 1942. And the incorporation of the "41" into the S.H.u.Co. reverse die seems to suggest official acceptance as opposed to unofficial experimentation.
In the absence of any official statements on zinc war badges, how early such production actually began before that is still speculation, but I see no reason why unofficial production for the private purchase market could not have begun months earlier than official large scale production.
In the case of Kriegsmarine badges specifically, the zinc versions of the Schickle design U-Boat, Destroyer and Minesweeper are quite uncommon and were unlikely to have been made to fill a large KM order, in marked contrast to the plentiful Tombak versions of the same.
Best regards,
---NormLast edited by Norm F; 08-18-2014, 11:42 AM.Comment
-
But to reiterate, so far we have no "official" time stamp for zinc war badges. The March, 1942 date is the "Schwert und Spaten" announcement regarding zinc KVKs and specific other Orders with no mention of basic war qualification badges.Originally posted by Thomas Durante View Post
And the "unofficial" S&L/Wissmann correspondence from March 1942 only mentions the necessity for solid vs. hollow format -- there's no mention of any base metal regulations.
And regardless of the as of yet undetermined "official" regulation for zinc war badges (if one exists), it's the earliest unofficial use of zinc that interests me. As we know, before regulations are defined manufacturers can do whatever they want.
Best regards,
---NormLast edited by Norm F; 08-18-2014, 11:38 AM.Comment
-
Hi Andreas,Originally posted by Andreas Klein View Post
It's one thing to scribble the previous year on a letter in January 1942, but another thing to carve it into metal.
And we also have the zinc FLL 43 Coastal Artillery badge. I don't think anyone would suggest the FLL 43 Coastal Artillery badge is a typographical error and that the master die was actually made in 1944. Nor would one assume that the year of 1943 in the FLL means that zinc could not have been introduced much earlier -- so the year on the badge doesn't rule out an earlier year of introduction of zinc but just means not later than that year.
But you could be right that "official" recognition of zinc war badges occurred in late 1941 -- it's as good a speculation as any -- but when the unofficial use of zinc began is the other question. Somehow or other, Schickle offended the PK -- how we don't know.
Best regards,
---NormLast edited by Norm F; 08-18-2014, 12:05 PM.Comment
-
It is as easy as to carve "Fank & Reif" into metal .... while your name is "Frank & Reif".Originally posted by Norm F View PostBest regards, Andreas
______
The Wound Badge of 1939
www.vwa1939.com
The Iron Cross of 1939- out now!!! Place your orders at:
www.ek1939.comComment
-
Hi Alex,Originally posted by Alex K. View Post
Thanks very much for the contribution, much appreciated. If its not too much trouble, I think its worth posting both the badge and the document in each case you have in your collection. I think we all understand that badges and documents can be switched over time and would never draw a conclusion based on a single grouping. But the more we can find and document, the better are chances are to paint an accurate picture of when zinc badges started to be produced and awarded.
TomIf it doesn't have a hinge and catch, I'm not interested......well, maybe a littleNew Book - The German Close Combat Clasp of World War II
[/SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Available Now - tmdurante@gmail.com
Comment
-
I just acquired the group that includes this IAB (as referenced by Tom above)
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=754473
I am VERY skeptical of groups of awards and award documents, especially as we sit here in 2014. I have seen too many examples of put-together groups and often have no problems separating the "tin" from the "paper", as it is award documents that typically interest me anyway.
That said, I am quite convinced this is an original grouping. The recipient was awarded the IAB in Belgium for previous service in Russia in January 1942. His unit, 71. ID, was sent back to the Russian Front in the spring and he was later wounded in action - on July 30th - while his division was in the midst of Fall Blau and the summer push to Stalingrad. Additionally, he was also decorated with a EK2 on June 15th. The EK2 is in excellent condition and the BWB is absolutely mint - also included with the group is a Silver Wound Badge, but no document.
So, my guess is that he got is IAB, wore it in the rain and such from the winter of 1942 until h was wounded in July. The badge seems to have that expected wear. The EK is in good condition and was likely sent home, as most were - guys don't seem to have kept their EK2s around as they weren't actually worn. The BWB, as said, is absolutely mint. I doubt he ever wore it as his BWB citation was processed by his Battalion. It is quite possible that his wound was significant enough that his award was upgraded to a silver - perhaps he had to ultimately lose a part of his body. These "upgraded" wound docs were often processed under the authority of hospitals rather than the units as it was in the hospitals where the severity of wounds would be more severe - in other words, the standard BWB was processed for the guy as he left the unit, but a SWB was later processed by an authority that was more "in the know" about the wound or how the wound ultimately became more severe (like an amputation). So, while the SWB citation does not exist, I'm guessing this is the case here as I have seen so many similar examples over the years. The documents tell the story, along with the existence and varying condition of the awards.
Obviously this is no guarantee, but my gut tells me this is right. Food for thought for you guys who know your badges well...Comment
-
more on the coppery base coatings mentioned previously...
Getting back to coppery coatings on zinc badges,it seems to me ,( those coppery coating were obviously added either to help final finishes stick better or to make bronze versions then usually follow'd with some form of clear laquer) sometimes if badges are cleaned by collectors not versed nor knowledgeable in coatings and finishes , especially when found in estates where the badges have not EVER been cleaned . Later as one gets tenure in the hobby , and upon close scrutiny seeking traces of said coppery base coatings, like eluded to in this thread thought to not be used much , traces of final finish may have been inadvertently but ignorantly polished away including the coppery base coat too ...never even noticing the finish was actually there in detectible traces before tying to make the badge look better . If not cleaned then but closely looked at under magnification or in different lighting in digital photos sometimes it still may be found . In fact, after "cleaning" and making it then look zinc flat as it all then has been worn off thusly by the friction from the kinetic energy involved in cleaning (and the use of mild abrasives or cleaning methods of one sort or other)( this is another strong reason supporting why NOT to ever clean zinc badges when found first hand that have never been owned by another collector) after being brought home and put away for decades. Its bad enough the zinc ozidizes on its own and anodes the coatings away,and vaseline does help keep the oxidation at bay.... so,....unless you are viewing badges known to never have been cleaned , it is easy to deduct the coppery coatings were seldom used or found on many zinc badges , when that deduction just may not be true. Only folks who don't clean their things wll have the proof necessary to deduct either way( if stored properly and handled with cotton gloves)as if there ever was a base coating, or always handled on the edges like you did with LP'records to prevent body acid damage to the badges remaining traces of those finishes . I thought the newbys would appreciate this being elaborated on in the course of the zinc subject .Comment
-
-
Followed by a GAB with documentComment
-
And a awarding in December 1941, there were 2 IABs in this grouping one Assmann hollow and one unmarkedComment
-
and this is the unmarked what was with that set aboveComment
Comment