Announcement

**Philippe DB** · 10-28-2004, 07:03 AM

Hi Guy's,

I also came to the conclusion that the "Trabbi" design probably wouldn't make sense. Partialy because as Frank wrote this design is a leap backwards compared to all other PAB designs so it would only meet the standardisation criteria but for sure not the quality criteria. But then again we don't know what these criteria were and which of them was more important.

Another problem for me would be the sheer volume in wich these badges were made at least one out of 3 PAB's that we encounter seem to feature this design. Hard to believe that they would have only started their production in July 1944.

And a last argument against this possibility is the fact that the "Trabbi" design is related to the F&R and we all know that these badges were arround long before 1944.

Frank you just mentioned the Juncker GAB , but in fact here we encounter the same problem, it's not the Juncker GAB but the "so called" Juncker GAB.

The whole theory stands or falls with us accepting that Juncker was the only or at least predominant manufacturer using this typical set-up. But this isn't the case at least the marked Zimmermann IAB's proof that other companies used this hardware to.

Also we're talking July 1944 what were the chances that by that time the high quality Juncker set-up would still have been available for the simple IAB. Just look at what they were using on the Luftwaffe badges by that time.

I don't know, it's certainly worth while to follow up on this but I'm certainly not prepaired to drop the evolution theory in favour of the 1 designer mutiple makers theory. Both systems certainly were used, with the trabbi design being the best representative of the later. But besides the two badges discussed in this thread there are a lot of other badges on which the set-up evolution is unmistakable.

KR
Philippe

PS: Where does the crappy crimped in "so called Zimmermann" fit in with the quality the Präsidialkanzlei was trying to achieve with this order

**Frank Heukemes** · 10-28-2004, 07:27 AM

Frank you just mentioned the Juncker GAB , but in fact here we encounter the same problem, it's not the Juncker GAB but the "so called" Juncker GAB.

Yes, but in the GAB sector, this setup we think is typical Juncker finds no parallel. It can only and exclusively be found on ONE type badge. Additionally, this GAB considered Juncker does also follow the Juncker evolution (it uses the narrower fatter Juncker hinge on the later GABs together with a Juncker typical catch on a round wire plate). This for me leaves no doubt the so called Juncker GAB is indeed a Juncker GAB. All the evidence speaks for that and nothing speaks against it. In my book I will mention that no PROOF is there that these GABs were made by Juncker (because apparently none of them are marked) but all of the evidence points towards it.

Also we're talking July 1944 what were the chances that by that time the high quality Juncker set-up would still have been available for the simple IAB. Just look at what they were using on the Luftwaffe badges by that time.

Not a valid argument, I think. The late zinc Juncker para badges do exactly use that "precious" Juncker setup. It cannot possibly be an indicator for "early". It cannot be ruled out that in summer of 1944 this setup was still used.

I don't know, it's certainly worth while to follow up on this but I'm certainly not prepaired to drop the evolution theory in favour of the 1 designer mutiple makers theory.

I know it hurts and that article does indeed make us (including me) uncomfortable, because a lot of our theories stand on even thinner ice than before. Just when we thought we brought some order into the chaos, we have to look at things with a new perspective.
As nice as your evolution of the sc-Zimmermann (which we should not really call Zimmermann anymore!) theory was, what about the differences in headlights, die faults and other small things. We thought maybe reworked or different dies, but reading that article, I would persume it is more likely different makers.

PS: Where does the crappy crimped in "so called Zimmermann" fit in with the quality the Präsidialkanzlei was trying to achieve with this order

Actually, it is not crappy viewed under the goals what they wanted to achieve. The obverse is very crisp and does feature 100% the same design. The reverse is done in a good compromise between efficient and good looking. I do not consider these crimped in awards to be crappy ones per se.

Reading through many other articles, it becomes apparent that LDO were indeed very strict and a lot of companies did indeed receive exposure and punishment for delivering badges to private purchase retailers of which they did not have a concession or failed while submitting a design.

It is also stated that companies with problems in that respect should contact the certified die designers/cutters/tool makers approved by the LDO. We knew dies and designs have been shared, but it is good to see it black on white in a contenmporary official announcement magazine.

**Frank Heukemes** · 10-28-2004, 07:49 AM

We will also have to look at Cupal made badges a bit differently. Certainly early (even pre-war badges) were made of Aluminium. Nobody is going to dispute that.
But Cupal made badges may not (all) be as early as we think. Because they are rare and special easily leads us to believe that they all must be "early". Indeed, Cupal was intended to be a "Ersatz"-metall, i.e. a cheaper solution to replace e.g. Tombak. I am pointing this out because advertisement (for manufacturers of awards) by a company which possibly was the sole manufacturer (or one of few but it is the only company advertising Cupal over and over again for many months) of Cupal raw material advertised as late as 1943.
Note the word "Austauschwerkstoff" (replacement material) and the examples of metals it is supposed to replace.

Attached Files

Cupalsmall.jpg (106.1 KB, 253 views)

**Philippe DB** · 10-28-2004, 07:58 AM

Dear Frank,

I'm aware of the rethinking thise article will force us to do and that we indeed will have to look with other eyes at some badges but not at the so called Zimmermann PAB.

If only the observe dies of these badges were provided to other maker, try explaining why the original outlinning of the early (I'm still convinced it's early) Juncker set-up can be found on all of them even on the ones with the crimped set-up.

There also is only one "zimmermann" solid variant that doesn't feature the reverse die flaw, on all the others (crimped set-up excepted), whatever there reverse set-up may be, the flaw will be their.

So unless Juncker passed their obverse and reverse dies arround I don't see why I should let go the evolution theory. An evolution that in the same way can be observed on the marked Zimmermann IAB's, also on the crimped variant the original outlining of the early Juncker set-up is still clearly visible.

KR
Philippe

**Frank Heukemes** · 10-28-2004, 07:59 AM

Also interesting:

as late as 1944, a wide sytem of district managers controlling all private purchase stores in their area were introduced. If you read up older issues, a big concern was always the displays of these private puchase stores. It had to be done in an "honourable way", e.g. displaying honourable war awards, like the EK, next to Vereinsabzeichen (club badges) or mixing them with minor wards of civil life was a big nono. Almost each month, example displays are shown and discussed. Another concern was the look of the store itself, counters, storage, etc. Also the uniform packaging of the awards when sold and their prices.

Also very interesting: absolutely no Luftwaffe awards could be purchased in private LDO stores until January 1945! Before, they were sold exclusively by the "Verkaufsabteilung der Luftwaffe" in Berlin.

**MH184** · 10-28-2004, 08:04 AM

And there you have it Frank, damn you........I wanted to use this in my book

There's your reason Luft collectors why you don't get LDO boxes for the Luft awards.

Very interesting Frank and well done

Kr

Marcus

**Frank Heukemes** · 10-28-2004, 08:08 AM

Dear Philippe,

Evolution theories are fine and they do of course hold many truths. This article will not take that away from us.
But why should Juncker only have passed on the obverse tool exclusively? Or why should every company have felt obliged to use both obverse AND reverse tools, if maybe they had an acceptable solution for the reverse?
Why can the markers for Juncker style hinges be found even on crimped in PAB? Possibly because Juncker did in this case priovide a reverse tool, but the recipient company still used their reverse setup method combined with Juncker´s reverse tooling. Actually, I hate to speculate like this, I am just trying to find explanations for your arguments. An explanation could always be there.

Just one thing is important and should be the essence of this LDO article:

-looking at things with a new perspective
-accepting that the "Zimmermann" PAB is in fact NOT a Zimmermann PAB

**Philippe DB** · 10-28-2004, 08:28 AM

Dear Frank,

First let there be no misunderstanding, I always refered to Zimmermann PAB's as "so called" zimmermann PAB's and have no difficulties what so ever accepting that Zimmermann wasn't the maker of these PAB's.

However going from unknown maker to Juncker is a giant leap for me, certainly because as you know I have my own toughts on what type of PAB Juncker produced.

On the other hand I accept the possibility that obverse and reverse dies could have been provided by Juncker but have difficulties understand how a die flaw could migrate. Well maybe Juncker provided complete badges instead of dies.

You correct it's all speculation, and we won't find an answer to all our question overnight. However you know me well enough to know that I'll be the first to use this information in an effort to look at things from another perspective certainly if it allows us to answer question we were previously unable to

KR
Philippe

**Frank Heukemes** · 10-28-2004, 08:47 AM

Dear Philippe,

I also do not want to be misunderstood: I do NOT want to promote the former "so-called" Zimmermann PAB as the new Juncker PAB. It was just a thought I offered here for discussion. If we will have to look at one IAB and PAB STYLE which could have been created as an outcome of the efforts Juncker undertook as stated in this article (which is the only FACT here), then I see no other IAB and PAB design than those I mentioned which would deserve any further thoughts and our attention.

**Marc Garlasco** · 10-28-2004, 08:58 AM

Gents,

How long do you figure a die was good for? Did it depend upon the metals being used or was it so long-lived as to not be an issue?

Regards,
Marc

**Philippe DB** · 10-28-2004, 09:07 AM

Dear Frank,

I'll never look at set-up variants with the same eyes

Just to make sure I'm looking at this through the same eyes as you do:

We only consider the badges you featured in this thread because they are linked to Juncker via the "classic" Juncker set-up. I'm willing to follow this line of thinking but would this mean that Juncker was indeed the maker of the badges with the classic set-up.

This to me seems very important because it would imply that what ever Juncker was making before June 1944 they stopped making because they switched to the new design themselfs.

KR
Philippe

PS; even before posting this I already reached the conclusion that it doesn't make sense since both designs exited as hollow buntmetall badges so if the above assumption is correct these would have to be Juncker made too

**Frank Heukemes** · 10-28-2004, 09:08 AM

Dear Marc,

They were very long lived. But what do you want to point out?

**Frank Heukemes** · 10-28-2004, 09:14 AM

Dear Philippe,

I agree that the hollow Tombak PABs of the former so-called Zimmermann design are devastating to the theory that these PABs could have been made by Juncker IF we assume the "Porsche" PABs are the Juncker made ones.

so called "Porsche" design = Juncker made does certainly make sense, since these are the earliest nickel silver hollow PABs and official articles in 1940 (along with Klietmann) point out that the first PABs were made of nickel silver and by Juncker. These are facts (first ones made by Juncker, in hollow form and made of nickel silver).

**Marc Garlasco** · 10-28-2004, 09:16 AM

Frank,

I am just trying to understand how pervasive die-flaws are. A long-lived die certainly helps us in this area.

Thanks,
Marc

**Frank Heukemes** · 10-28-2004, 09:20 AM

I'm willing to follow this line of thinking but would this mean that Juncker was indeed the maker of the badges with the classic set-up.

Dear Philippe,

There is at least proof that Juncker used this setup and even later in the war as the maker mark on this zinc Heer Flak shows (Jacques Calero collection):

Attached Files

Flak-2b.jpg (60.7 KB, 225 views)

Announcement

More badges "made" by Juncker than we know?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread