Warning: session_start(): open(/var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php74/sess_68ea444a7365acae79579abc2ac5ab212ed7e5dbda5a10cd, O_RDWR) failed: No space left on device (28) in /home/devwehrmacht/public_html/forums/includes/vb5/frontend/controller/page.php on line 71 Warning: session_start(): Failed to read session data: files (path: /var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php74) in /home/devwehrmacht/public_html/forums/includes/vb5/frontend/controller/page.php on line 71 Coburg badge Case? - Wehrmacht-Awards.com Militaria Forums
Helmut Weitze

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Coburg badge Case?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
    #16
    Thanks very much, Joe, and your opinion coincides with mine! Now here's another thought: We know that the numbered GPB was applied for via the relevant Gau Treasurer's Office and the numbered badge(s), when approved by the GPB committee at the National Treasurer's Office, was/were sent back to that same Gau Treasurer's Office for distribution to the recipient, and this badge/these badges were sent in paper envelopes. While I haven't read much about how the AH Honorary GPB awards were decided upon -- meaning how and to whom a person's name was submitted for consideration to receive an Honorary (dated) GPB -- I believe the assumption was that Hitler himself would present these Honorary Badges, so each matched set of dated badges was prepared in a fitted leatherette case, proper for personal presentation. So, by extension, was there ever a possibility that Hitler himself would want to personally present a Coburg Badge to a particular recipient, and if there was, would he have presented it in a paper envelope...or would he have wanted to present it in a fitted case, similar to the one in question in this thread?

    Just a thought and a question...

    Br. James

    Comment

      #17
      Br. James, I thought the subject of presentation of GPBs by Hitler had been discussed before. Here is a thread from a couple years ago wherein some comments were made.


      http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ht=ehrenhalber


      I don't believe there was a definitive correlation between a cased set of Ehrenhalber GPBs and Hitler's personal presentation. The set to Admiral Trotha was presented by Hess. Considering the very large number of honorary GPBs, I would think Hitler only took the time to personally present a set to those persons he had a direct personal connection, like perhaps his secretary. And as he was on the election trail in 1932 and didn't stay for the presentation of the original CBs in Coburg, why would he have bothered to present any subsequently awarded CBs? So, why the need for a CB case?

      Comment

        #18
        Originally posted by JoeW View Post
        An interesting question Br. James. I would assume it would be the same as the other Ehrenzeichen of the NSDAP like the BO and GPB. Applications and requests would have been forwarded to the appropriate department of Schwarz's office the necessary paperwork for the desired award through their respective party level treasurer. Assuming the paperwork was in order, the award would be prepared and sent with payment received by the Reichsleitung.
        My understanding was that the CB came under the control of the RZM while awardings of the BO came under the authority of “The Office of the 9th of November.”

        Comment

          #19
          Originally posted by ErichS View Post
          My understanding was that the CB came under the control of the RZM while awardings of the BO came under the authority of “The Office of the 9th of November.”

          Erich, the RZM was Schwarz's office wasn't it. But why did the official CB list originate in the OSAF office? Was the Office of the 9th of November in the Braun Haus? Has anyone written that they have or have seen an application for a CB?

          Comment

            #20
            Originally posted by JoeW View Post
            Erich, the RZM was Schwarz's office wasn't it. But why did the official CB list originate in the OSAF office? Was the Office of the 9th of November in the Braun Haus? Has anyone written that they have or have seen an application for a CB?
            We know the GPBs were not under the RZM but rather through Schwarz’s office.
            I don’t know for sure that Schwarz was head of the RZM as well?
            The 9th of Nov office was located in the BH.

            Comment

              #21
              The RZM was a department of the Treasurer’s office. But why would distribution of the CB becontrolled by a department concerned with quality control? Are you sure?

              Comment

                #22
                Originally posted by JoeW View Post
                The RZM was a department of the Treasurer’s office. But why would distribution of the CB becontrolled by a department concerned with quality control? Are you sure?
                No, not totally sure but it was the only one of the top three awards that carried the RZM marking on the 2nd pattern badges.

                Comment

                  #23
                  Erich,looking at the Ehrenhalber GPB material that Patzwall used for his book, I find a Sept 1941 document from the Obersten SA Gerichts addressed to Hauptamt V of the Rechaschatzmeister, Abteilung fur Bkutirden, Ehrenzeichen, Abzeichen usw. So the Office for 9th November must have moved.

                  Comment

                    #24
                    Originally posted by JoeW View Post
                    Erich,looking at the Ehrenhalber GPB material that Patzwall used for his book, I find a Sept 1941 document from the Obersten SA Gerichts addressed to Hauptamt V of the Rechaschatzmeister, Abteilung fur Bkutirden, Ehrenzeichen, Abzeichen usw. So the Office for 9th November must have moved.
                    That must have been when Christian Weber took over the office.

                    Comment

                      #25
                      Reviewing some old CB articles, I was wondering if anyone has seen a hollow stamped version? Klietmann reported the version in his article over thirty years ago,but Patzwall responded that he had never seen any. I wonder what he was writing about.

                      Thinking about the info that has been discussed on this forum, you wonder why the RZM version was needed. If 600 were produced for the 1932 anniversary celebration and only 250 were distributed at the celebration, what happened to the other 350? There was certainly enough for the rest of the 436 on the OSAF list. There were 164 unawarded CBs from the first production. Why the need for the RZM version.

                      Comment

                        #26
                        Most if not all agree that the hollow version of the badge is a fake.

                        Good question regarding the RZM badges. Possibly honorary awards or replacements? Don’t forget that the pin attachment was much improved on the RZM badges.

                        Comment

                          #27
                          Originally posted by ErichS View Post
                          Most if not all agree that the hollow version of the badge is a fake.

                          Good question regarding the RZM badges. Possibly honorary awards or replacements? Don’t forget that the pin attachment was much improved on the RZM badges.

                          Well, I have never seen one. And apparently neither had Patzwall. Does anyone have a photo of one? Are the fake characteristics like the Souval repro? Thick sword and handle, poor outline of the castle and no periods between the dates?



                          The is apparently mention of the Coburg Abzeichen in RZM regulations. I am trying to locate them.

                          Comment

                            #28
                            Here's one Joe.

                            This was offered to me many years ago by a famous west coast dealer. Luckily I didn't buy it. Notice the lack of the two fullstops (.) on the obverse.

                            Sorry for the quality of the photo.

                            Stan
                            Attached Files

                            Comment

                              #29
                              Thanks Stan. If this is what Klietmann had observed, I am surprised he didn't notice the differences with the original.

                              Comment

                                #30
                                Originally posted by JoeW View Post
                                Thanks Stan. If this is what Klietmann had observed, I am surprised he didn't notice the differences with the original.
                                A cheap looking fake.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 template Next

                                Users Viewing this Thread

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 6 users online. 0 members and 6 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 10,032 at 08:13 PM on 09-28-2024.

                                Working...
                                X