L/10 marked minesweeper

[Norm F]

Thanks Norm!

your points are very valid and clear.

I mixed things up: the L/57 clasp was a Petz & Lorenz clasp.
But according to the books P&L were not allowed to sell their stock.
Obviously that is not true.
Schickle did, I know Schickle ek1 clasps with an L/18 mark.


here's the Mayer made cross, marked L/50

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...0+Mayer&page=2

Only a handful of these exist, and the L/50 mark has nothing in common with the Godet mark.

I am not trying to make a questionable item original, but I don't want to throw it out yet because the marking is a-typcal for Deschler.

Regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

Of course, don't throw it out!

Two things. First, regarding P&L, the announcement in Uniformen-Markt from August 1, 1941 states that "the permission for the firm Petz & Lpremz to sell off their remaining stock through the mediation of the LDO had to be provisionally withdrawn". The inference there is that they had the permission up to that time and also could have their permission re-instated if they met the necessary provisions. Certainly P&L products are seen with other maker marks on them like L/18 and L/52, so there's no doubt in my mind that their products were indeed distributed to other makers, whether by sale or expropriation.

Second, you have an excellent point about the L/50-marked "Godet" EK1s which appear to be a case of Mayer (and Zimmermann) making and supplying awards to Godet and marking them in advance with an "L/50" but in a font that matches their own marks instead of Godet's. That does suggest a viable theory for your Minesweeper which hearkens back to what I said in post #2 about the style being similar to Mayer's L/18 mark; theoretically your badge could be one of the Schickle leftover stock items that was acquired by Mayer and then marked "L/10" with a Mayer tool for supply to Deschler. The finishing job in that case could be by either firm (just not Schickle).

Complicated theory, but logical.

Best regards,
---Norm