WSS caps eagle and tk marks

[Gary Wood]

JP,
that is interesting thanks for sharing
cheers,
Gary

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

Here a final picture showing that the SS motto and the swastika had been cut off and a post war sunwheel insert soldered to the buckle. The current Overhoff marking was added as well as a new paint.

[Rick Turner]

I can help collectors understand the difference in detail between the post-war and war-time quality of the one example made from the same original die set. Its two factors actually, first pressure and then material. I was a sheet metal department Forman for several years and this was a lesson that I shared with many of my apprentices.

We used many sizes and types of machines in our shop from hand-operated metal breaks to my personal favorite a 300-ton (that’s P.S.I.) Pacific Hydraulic Press. For some parts pressure was not an issue but there were some pieces such as frame rails for diesel trucks and their trailers that required maximum effort.

If adequate pressure was not used you would remove the piece from the machine and find the sharp corners and definition just was not there. In some cases we used the maximum effort the machine was capable of exerting. If you didn’t, the corners and bends in a piece would not achieve the proper angle. In a small part this would result in soft detail.

Material can also be a factor; a high quality piece of hot roll plate would result in a nice sharp corner at each bend. A lesser quality piece of steel would result in a larger radius at the bend and not yield the same clean edge at the bend, sometimes not even giving you the desired angle. Material composition and pressure are directly related because you can’t just add more pressure, too much pressure and you’ll damage the bottom die.

Example, I was forming 12-foot long frame rails from 10-gauge steel one day. I had gone out into the yard to locate extra material, while I was gone a welder came up to my apprentice and asked him to bend a quick 90 degree angle on a piece only 12 inches long. When I came back I had a 14 foot long bottom die that was older that I was that was split right down the middle!

The composition of the die material is also related to the type of material to be fabricated. A tungsten carbide die used to form brass cartridge cases will last a lifetime if cared for properly, scratch it or gall the surface and it’s an instant paperweight.

A suggestion for those that would like to learn more about the various methods of metalworking and fabrication would be to seek out a major foundry, sheet metal fabrication or machine shop. Ask them about purchasing their old metal working standard books, especially manuals from the 30s and 40s. Doesn’t matter where your located on the planet, the methods and materials are virtually universal.

These books will give you a better understanding of the materials, machines and methods used over the years.

[Rick Turner]

Quote from a letter published for the collecting public in 1991 by Bender Publications, the letter is dated 11 October 1959 and is from the firm of C.E. Juncker. I was originally thinking this information appeared in 1989 but it was in fact ’91.

“We regret we do not use our original marks of 2 or our firm name of C.E. Juncker because of West Berlin laws. We used instead the number L/12 which was once stamped by a Stuttgart firm but only during the war years. We cannot place our former marks on these Orders because of troubles but in every way, our new badges are faultless to you”.

While the focus of the article dealt mainly with the use of the L/12 on the RK, I think any collector can see the scale of confusion created by all firms that existed during the 50s and beyond producing all manner of items with someone else’s maker mark in order to comply with existing law at the time.

[Gordon Williamson]

The problem with that letter published in Military Advisor is that the information is either unintentionally, or perhaps deliberately, plain wrong.
It suggests that they could not use the correct number "2" for legal reasons, so used L/12, mark belonging to another firm (Frank & Reif). In fact as is now well known, BOTH "2" and "L/12" were the correct numbers for Juncker. Frank & Reif used "12" without the L/ prefix.
There is absolutely no question of both 2 and L/12 marks belonging to Juncker, as there are sufficientl original pieces around using both marks to show they came from the same tooling, to say nothing of original period dccumentation.

So why would Juncker state that L/12 was not their mark. Disinformation ? - possibly as they tended not to use 2 on postwar copies, so maybe wanted to give the impression that L/12 marked pieces were not theirs - the laws against the manufacture of replica Third Reich items were enforced much more rigidly in Berlin than anywhere else in Germany.
It has also been suggested that the letters shown were simply forgeries, put together to substantiate the claims made in the article ( which itself has plenty of incorrect information on the numbering system).

All of which basically just goes to show that published information cannot always be accepted at face value. Even original period documentation may only reflect was what ordered, or intended, as opposed to what actually happened.

[Martin Stiles]

Hi ,JP , Great input, this is truly the most engaging thread,
also great to see alternative views from Mr.Williamson.
Kind regards
Martin

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

I follow Gordon to the same path since I also believe it is not enough to trust information because it was published, especially before the 90's.
Any book gives an input which could be right or wrong. The good point is that any new input provides a new link to explore. Up to the reader to do his own homework to confirm this new information for the best or the worst. Some will reveal to be 100% accurate, some other to be 100% false, and the most unfortunate of all, some intentionally wrong to bring readers in the wrong direction. The latest been made by the author to achieve a commercial goal.

Back to buckles, and even to SS Buckles, I heard and read also, like you all, fantastic and chilling stories about how all these original dies were used after war by the original firms, how they took so care to pass customs, avoid Police and laws, etc... Always perfect and undetectable.
So, if after war such reproductions were made from the same factory, using the same material and same dies, I agree there is not a way to tell. And yet, we can not talk about reproduction but post war production. This idea is not enforced with the Overhoff former SS buckle so far, even if one factory could not be considered as reflect of all the market.

But this is a summary of what I was able to find out so far in all those years:
- I did not find ANY post war SS Belt Buckle been stamped with an original die, except for the obvious fake insert posted earlier. If there is such fake, it is a post war production as said above and there is no way to tell it was made post war or not.
- The current perfect fakes (especially fake EM 155/43's) are made with TOTALLY new dies. Fakers did an excellent job to reproduce an original, but it is not original dies which are used.
- I did not find ANY convincing or certified fake SS Buckle been made before the 60's. And so far only one was really convincing before the 80's: The so called "OLT" from Tony Oliver. These SS buckles were not using an original die neither, even if it is what several persons were saying in the past to explain such quality.
- Several leads/contacts/cross reference (not using what was printed) brought two common things: most dies for buckles bearing a swastika were sold to merchants before the 60's (bad new), but were not used by the former maker between the end of war and purchase (first good new).
- Any merchant/faker who tried to use an original die to re-strike buckles post war ended up with a blown die or just a few pieces production (no more than 10 - 20). This been due to, mostly, too much pressure (Read Rick input). To die stamp a belt buckles, a hand press was enough, and fakers bought dies, not stamping machines with correct pressure (second good new). More money was made selling the dies to collectors!!
- What was produced during the war and undelivered at war's end was sold post war, one way or the other, de-nazified or not. Do not believe all makers did destroy their production, and some had a fairly big quantity.
- Last, and this is my favourite, articles I read in American publications (I never read such in European publications) explaining how former WWII German makers went throught nightmares to pass the iron curtain and/or by pass the horrible communist Police to supply Western collectors with perfect fakes. One just has to grab an atlas and realize the maker's factory was located in Western Germany !!

This is just an input with no pretension whatsoever.

[Rick Turner]

Hi Gordon

Somehow I knew you would respond to the L/12 controversy and I certainly agree with your findings and opinions. I remember first reading the article when it originally came out; I immediately picked up the phone and called Roger! At the time I remember him telling me he had been wearing a flak vest for several weeks after the article was printed (he, he, he).

However I am glad you responded, your explanation in the above post is why I’ve always tried to confirm (if possible) the things that are passed along to us as collectors. In my follow up with both the author and the publisher I found the only piece of information that could be carried over to markings was the switching of numbers by post war makers.

Its also an example of why I prefer to focus on construction technique and materials used, it makes the collector less dependent on supposed documentation that’s never been published or qualified and is impossible for us to check.

I’d also like to add that Mr. Williamson prepared a highly detailed, information filled article in MA issue 8, #3 that was a direct follow-up to the 1991 article.
In Gordon’s article he gave an excellent account of the fact that during wartime the makers were already using a system of numbers referred to as “Nachbildungen” which loosely translated means copy or reproduction.

These were numbers used to indicate that an award or order made by an original firm were produced for retail sales and was done to prevent confusion between items for retail sale and actual items awarded to the troops. So the number game had already started.

The difference between the two articles, the first was one individuals conclusions where Gordon’s was a presentation of documented information presented for the collector to consume and make his own decisions.

Gordon, is there anyway we can get you interested in collecting SS cap TKs and Adlers?

Rick

[Rick Turner]

Question for everyone-

Originally I had hoped that by looking deeper into other areas of production, i.e. medals, badges, buckles, that we would find some similarities or clues that would help us in the area of SS cap devices.

So the question is this, should we continue to search this path or should we say “no” the various systems and methods are too specific to the subject matter and we must continue looking for information only pertaining to cap devices themselves?

My concern is that incorrect conclusions can be made by trying to carry over information from one area to another that were controlled by different agencies and their numbering systems.

Thanks
Rick

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

Hello Rick,

I hope you will take some time to clarify several questions since you lost me down the road:

- If you knew the C.E.Junker article was wrong, or partially wrong, from the start, why did you mention and comment it? What was your point to do so? I did not follow you there.

- Are you suggesting that makers were planing to fool collectors as soon as during the war, using swap numbers to achieve their future goal? I did not read Gordon article, but I do not see any problem or twisted mind with the summary you did " These were numbers used to indicate that an award or order made by an original firm were produced for retail sales and was done to prevent confusion between items for retail sale and actual items awarded to the troops ". This is logical and already seen with other items. As soon as 1937 there was also an SS order posted in the Mitteilungsblatt (regarding SS Buckles) which leads to indicate the same thing (different numbers depending if production goes to retail sales or to the SS). The order is there, but the exact and full meaning remains open. Only a following or updated Mitteilungsblatt could bring toward a better direction. But anyway, if those whatever numbers are correct, documented and wartime issued, how could they be mixed with post war production?? I am very sorry, but I sincerely do not believe they were planing to fool collectors by 1937!
So, since I strongly believe it is not what you meant, could you please try to explain me better your meaning?

I would add that if there is a new input given by whoever, there is a way to verify it. If the author liable for this input remains silent we have to keep in mind that if this information is correct, he found it somewhere. Up to us to find the same lead if we want to verify it. I agree it could take a lot of time and efforts, but if one got it, somebody else will.

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

Hi Rick (again),

You have a good point but we are still dealing with:
- RZM controlled items
- Items under the same RZM sub-division (Mx) (for buckles and cap devices)
- Items been produced for the SS under the same regulations (as set in 1934)(for buckles and cap devices - even if changes in regulations could happened later on)
- Items been produced by the same factories, so having the same commercial patterns, overall quality, possibility of mass production or resale, etc...
- Same Metallurgy techniques
- Same metals been employed at a given time
- Dealing with post war activity, I do not believe it could be a difference talking about a die sold/used to make new SS cap devices and a die used/sold to re-produce belt buckles.

So, of course my latest input was just informative and not especially strictly within the SS cap devices thread, but I guess it will be wrong to do not care or ignore it. The same applies with Gordon's (I am personally very glad he posted his follow up).

What other's think??

[Rick Turner]

Hi Jean Pierre

Thanks for asking for a clarification; I don’t wish to go off on the wrong foot again.

First off I referenced the wording in the letter, not the article. The letter(s) were used as reference to makers using other maker’s numbers since May 45 and the fact that in post-war years a law was created by the German government that contributed to this condition. Some made attempts to comply, some did not.

While I do not agree with everything stated in the article, until Bender Publications prints a retraction stating that the letters are fakes I have no reason to dispute them. If the letters are proven to be fraudulent the information will only affect the RK issue and would not change the fact that some manufacturers used numbers of other makers after the war.

Reference to the difference in numbers used for issue items and retail sales is purely for those in the hobby that are unaware of this fact and to show that the source of some of the confusion is in the system itself. If a new collector is unaware of this fact he may see a number intended for retail sales, is expecting something else and may think the item in his hand is a fake and pass on a good piece.

The only thing I’m trying to offer up to collectors, especially new collectors, is that there is a whole bunch of information out there making it difficult to ascertain the truth.

Thanks for offering an opinion on my last question, I just wanted to be sure we're not comparing apples and oranges and end up with prunes!

Rick

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

Thanks Rick for the explanation.

As for apples and oranges, some mixes taste good and some don't. Depends on the recipe, not by the nature of the fruits

Best Regards and Thanks again for the follow up

[Rick Turner]

...that is very true, and thanks for all your input Jean Pierre.

Rick

[SScollector]

Hi Martin and everyone!
I doubted that the M1/17 eagle that I posted was
real, but I was a little unsure. (that's why I didn't buy it).
After looking it over again, I can tell that it is cast.
Anyway, as it turns out according to Rick, the original markers made some darn good postwar dies (and these are always good), but they put the wrong code on it. Rick, thank you very much for explaining the nature of these reproductions (which look incredible since they are 50+ years old now and have a nice patina, but not perfect). I personally, do not believe that these were made from the original dies because they are cast and have the wrong code.
What do you guys think?
I would say that these are the best SS eagle reproductions that I
have ever seen. I hope more of you will share you opinions as well. Thanks! Chris