civil ss pin and party eagle

[Doug Kenwright]

Hoffstatter type 1 reverse

Please note that none of the numbers are over 5 digits, and some are very early 4 digit numbers..these are some of the earliest numbered pins..i have never seen a type 1 with a six digit number.as well, it is not the case that all of these were stamped the same, some are very uniform in their number application, and do not show evidence of the square surround of the punch itself..also note the uniformity of the numbers used on these pins, most noticeably the 3's..

[RaymondG]

Hi Doug

Many thanks for the post and I congratulate you on your ability to be able to get all those images together. I had a go today and failed miserably

I cannot make out some of the numbers on the images and perhaps you can help me out

I get 1671, 1434, 13189 & 13088

The earliest Höffstatter manufactured pin I have seen is a picture in 'The SS Leadership Corps' by Max Williams. If you check on page on page 253 you will see it. If anyone reading has not got a copy, then shame on you, as it is excellent. The pin is attributed to Von Eberstein.

The pin is of the same design as the backs that I have shown, but with hand engraving of the numbers. Now, if you take my pin that I have shown (4010), then we have 223 and 4010 with the identical design, but with a couple of yours sandwiched in the middle.

Now, that would not make much sense to me to have the original design and then switch to a totally different manufacturing process, then switch back and later on switch back again. I would have thought that manufacturing set up costs for tools would have made this prohibitive for what was, in reality, a 0.70RM item.

It off the path a little, but I find it strange that I have been offered about 3 of the pin with the raised MM complete with a presentation box. The boxes are a kind of bluish purple. I have yet to be offered the type I have shown. Well, that is until someone reads this and offers one to me

I have only seen one boxed one from a distinguished collector and the box was red. Not conclusive, but more likely to be used as circumstantial evidence against the pin you have shown

Can you confirm those numbers Doug and I will look at my numbers. Many thanks

Raymond

[Doug Kenwright]

Hi Raymond..yes, i don't know what to make of those blue boxes..but i have also seen an original black case for the stickpin with end keeper..private purchase to go along with the proprietary keeper? perhaps..as far as the photo shopping goes, it pays to have a grandkid who is computer savvy at 13..

The numbers are, when blk/white inverted are..

13345
13228
13189
1571
1434
1411

All these pins seem to be very scarce, on the net..does anyone have anymore of these for examples?

[clevischi]

Very good topic, thank you guys for all this information.

[RaymondG]

Hi Doug

Apologies for my tardiness in responding to your information.

So, if we look at the numbers of these and other known original Höffstatter examples.

223 Von Eberstein's pin
1571
1434
1411
4010 - my pin

So, you have to ask yourself, with the costs of production moulds, why they would:

1. Start with recognised original design (223 pin)
2 Change to the raised logo (numbers listed 1000+)
3. Change back to the recognised original design (4010 pin in my collection)
4. Change back again to the raised logo (13,000+ that you listed)
5. Change back again to the recognised original design (16,000+ in my collection)

With this change, they made no attempt to keep the logo and stamping uniform with the existing pin that was in production. I would have thought that they would have tried to get it as close as they could.

I have a little experience of manufacturing, but I do know it is not the cheapest thing to change moulds. All for a 0.70RM pin? It just does not sit comfortably as a theory.

Raymond

[RaymondG]

Hi again

Now lets have a quick look at the front of these badges. The quality of the one presented by Doug is not up to the known originals.

Now maybe it is the way this pin has been stored and treated, but the enamel work seems to be the same with other examples that I have seen. It is simply not as good as the original Hoffstatter pins

Now you could argue that I have gone out of my way to find a pin that highlights the difference to the greatest degree.

Even the ones I have in my collection that are in bad shape, the enamel work is far better than the pins with the raised logo. It is as simple as that. Now even if you argued that they changed the production process, then you have to argue that they changed the enamel and its application. This seems even more unlikely, in my humble opinion.

Here is a side-by-side for you to look at and you can really see the differences

Raymond

[Doug Kenwright]

Hi Raymond..i suppose that would be a problem if you believe that they went back and forth..i don't think they did..

I believe that they either filled in missing numbers for the other manufacturer (Gahr, ) or those i call type 2 with those low numbers are replacement pins..do we actually know when the men in question received their pins?

I ask this, because it is quite conceivable that they received these after losing an original and wanted to replace the pin without losing the original number..i believe that this was sometimes allowed on GPB as well?..though admittedly not very often..that or low numbers were reserved exclusively for certain individuals regardless of when they applied for their pin..

As for the enamel not being very good, again, is it not inconceivable that they could improve on the process as time went on? My example is actually much nicer in person than the terrible pics would suggest..

Your arguement makes sense if you consider the stamped logo pins as the original, when you say the other type is not up to its quality..but what if it is the other way around? for the reasons i have stated?

I realize that people are always saying that they were always a low cost item, but can you have it both ways? cheap retail price because the materials are of lesser quality.or cheap and cheerful with high quality materials and production standards?

A lot of 'ifs' certainly..but a good debate nonetheless!!

[RaymondG]

Hi Doug

Yes, you could buy a replacement SS pin and such luminaries of the time such as Himmler and Dietrich both lost theirs! It was from this information that I discovered that Dietrich was issued with pin Nr#6 and not Nr# 7 as is widely reported in books and even on his Fuhrerstammkarte.

The process of enamelling could well have improved over the course of production, though I have seen some very early numbers with the raised logo and still I feel the enamel work does not match that of the traditional pin that I posted. The lowest number I have in my collection is Nr# 4010 and the enamelling is better on that. In addition, the image of Von Eberstein's pin (Nr#223) shows the same quality of enamelling as the later issued pins. That, I think, would nulify the argument over improvements over time. The company were already making pins and one would hope that they had got the enamelling process sorted by this time.

It also seems illogical that there would have been at least some consistency in the processes of the badges manufacture such as the enamelling, the stamping of the issue number, or the manufacturers name. There is no consistency between the known original pin and the one with the raised logo.

Of course, on a basic level, the pin is similiar in that it has the runes on the front, an issue number and the name of the company, but that is where the similarities end. I would argue that the differences are too great in the detail to mean that they were ever manufactured by the same company.

Now onto the lists, the requests were generally sent in blocks of twenty names, sent in sequential SS number order. By this I do not mean that every SS man had one, just that the list followed a logical path.

Now I think that the engraved pins were issued when there was gaps in the numbering process, or maybe as replacement pins, which is more likely. This would account for original examples being engraved, though this is largely with earlier numbers.

There is still more to find out, and I will, but the odds seemed stacked against the raised logo pin being a period pin for the reasons I have outlined in the thread. Why would a company employ different manufacturing processes for such an insignificant pin. Perhaps a forum member could let me know what 0.70RM is in todays money.

Other members please feel free to join in the 'Doug & Ray Show' if you have any comments to contribute.

Raymond

[RaymondG]

Gentlemen

If anyone has any further comments or observations to add to the thread before it slides off into oblivion, then please do

Raymond

[Jon Fish]

Hi Doug

Apologies for my tardiness in responding to your information.

So, if we look at the numbers of these and other known original Höffstatter examples.

223 Von Eberstein's pin
1571
1434
1411
4010 - my pin

So, you have to ask yourself, with the costs of production moulds, why they would:

1. Start with recognised original design (223 pin)
2 Change to the raised logo (numbers listed 1000+)
3. Change back to the recognised original design (4010 pin in my collection)
4. Change back again to the raised logo (13,000+ that you listed)
5. Change back again to the recognised original design (16,000+ in my collection)

With this change, they made no attempt to keep the logo and stamping uniform with the existing pin that was in production. I would have thought that they would have tried to get it as close as they could.

I have a little experience of manufacturing, but I do know it is not the cheapest thing to change moulds. All for a 0.70RM pin? It just does not sit comfortably as a theory.

Raymond

Hey guys, great thread with lots of information. I have located this pin in the 2000 range with the recognised original design- so this Raymond can lead you to change the above from 4010 to 2182. Or is this information long since been amended?
Also feedback would be good,i'm not so up on these but am thinking baout buying this one,looks okay to me