stamp Mn

[ZAM]

It`s pretty easy:
1: There are some double marked "MN" and "MENESA" canteens known!
2: Menesa was a hugh maker of canteens and equipment, over decades!
3: Is there only one "MNS" marked canteen in a collection?
And Giancarlo, "MN" is the right Code, it is maker (Metallwerke) and the city (Neheim)!


Best regards
Dirk

[MULON]

Thank you for your reply Dirk, but of course I don't /can't agree with you.

IMO these pictures speak clearly:

[MULON]

1: There are some double marked "MN" and "MENESA" canteens known!

What years, please? BTW, IMO has no rilevance as I just say.

2: Menesa was a hugh maker of canteens and equipment, over decades!

Post pictures, please, then we can talking about

3: Is there only one "MNS" marked canteen in a collection?

No, never seen. And you know who is my teory about these codes

And Giancarlo, "MN" is the right Code, it is maker (Metallwerke) and the city (Neheim)!

You're right, I write wrong. BTW my mind don't/can't change viewing the wartime brochure that was posted fro Bernhrd.
Find me a reasonable answer for this brochure, say why is impossible that Muller couldn't be MN canteen's maker

[MULON]

Was this one maded in Breslaw? Or was made in Lüdenscheid?



This is the same/easy (IMO) question about the double stamping MN + Menesa

[knoffhoff]

Guys, slow down please. There again a lot of things are getting mixed up.

And Giancarlo, "MN" is the right Code, it is maker (Metallwerke) and the city (Neheim)!

MENESA = Metallindustrie Neunkirchen Saar K.G.
the firm was located in Neunkirchen

Nothing to discuss about that, the advertisement Bernhard posted says it all and is proof enough. Please forget any other name that has ever been connected with MENESA.

If I'm not wrong, almost (I repeat almost) all known manufacturers have, in decoding, the name of the city of production and so, if MN would be Menesa, I would expect to see the marking in this configuration: MNS. ........

To this day, I've never seen anything that is marked MMN, but the maker MN have a sense likes, for example, ET (Eisenhüttenwerk Thale , Thale/Harz ).

Sorry, I absolutely have to disagree with that theory.
MN would be the perfect marking. The same rule applies as for ET.

M = MENESA (or Metallindustrie) name of the company
N = Neunkirchen city the company is located in


Adding another S to the two letter Code MN would be the same as adding a third letter H (Harz) to ET. Harz and Saar are regions in Germany not cities.

Max Müller on the other side should have a three letter code as most if not all other companies have with a name formed out the first and last name of the owner.

e.g

Rudolf Fissler, Idar Oberstein = RFI
Otto Honsel, Werdohl = OHW
Eduard Sommerfeld, Berlin = ESB

as the makers above,
Max Müller, Nürnberg should be MMN first name, second name, city



Like I said earlier, we still don't have 100% evidence. But a lot speaks for MENESA being the company MN. Let me summarize what we have for you.

- The owners of MENESA were of jewish heritage, the two sons emmigrated to France in 1935.
Not stated in these biographies but needless to say, the company of course went under control of either the German government itself or some buisnesssman associated with the Nazis.
Lachmann Hans
Lachmann Guy Kurt

- August Schirra, a man who was honoured for his 90th birthday two years ago, states that he was working for MENESA from 1939 to 1941.
He says that MENESA was a supplier of the German Wehrmacht and produced Aluminium Tornister and kitchen kitchen utensils.
"Aluminium Tornister" is a not so common term anymore but can be mess kits and canteens.
August Schirra

- We have the double marked cups that I showed earlier, coming together with bottles that only have the MENESA marking.
Both cups that hve been posted in this forum have a 1943 date.
So it is absolutely prooven that MENESA did manufacture canteens.
In my opinion, the double marking or the use of only MENESA merked parts is the result of either shortages or production adjustment.
Even though the single firms had to produce more and more for the Wehrmacht as the war went on, the production of products for the civillian market never stopped.
Those parts could easily be canteen parts that had been produced for the civil marked and therefor had been stamped with the regular company logo,
and only later been used for Wehrmacht canteens.

- Several people mentioned that MN marked canteens and mess kits are regulary found in the Saar area around Neunkirchen (we are not talking about France).
One of the finds was a bundle of unissued mess kits in a depot close to Neunkirchen.
One mess kit showed on this forums has a additional "Saargruben" stamp, meaning that it was officialy used by coal miners in the Saar area. 6 of those mines were located in Neunkirchen.
I myself found MN mess kits on flea markets in and around Neunkirchen.
Finding something in a specific area is of course no proof, but when in the middle of a high production a country falls apart,
of course things that had been meant to be used elswhere stay where they have been produced and are being used by whomever for whatever.
It just fits that these stories pop up.
I haven't heard stories about MN products being found in Nürnberg and I haven't seen e.g. HRE messkits merked with the " Saargruben" logo.

- Another observation I made are leather parts with the RB.Nr. 0/0656/0005.
The RB.Nr. stands for the company "Deutsche Lederwerkstätten GmbH, Pirmasens".
For the leather parts of canteens there are some big producers that you see again and again on canteens no matter where the canteen itself was produced.
K.u.B., R&K, C.A,.......just to name a few. But then there are the little producers that you don't see so often and 0/0656/0005 is one of those.
Leather parts with that RB.Nr. I personally found only on MN, SMM and AEM.A canteens.
Considering MN is MENESA, all three companies are directly connected by train to the"Lederwerkstätten" in Pirmasens.
MN and AEM.A within a 30km radius and SMM with 60km a bit further away but still easily reachable.
Just a coincidence?
I have to admit though that my canteen collection is rather limited and would like to see if other collectors who have seen more canteens can confirm that the 0/0656/0005 belongs to limited producers .



To come to an end, I also want to say something about Max Müller.
Of course the company has listed a canteen in it's brochure.
That makes a impression.
On the other side back then a lot of companies already sold products that they did not produce themself.
It might as well be that they just sold them but got the canteens from a different producer.
About the naming of the company there is also something else to say.
For MN making sense the company should be named only Müller, Nürnberg.
Yet in Germany no sane man would call his company only Müller since this is the most commonly used last name by far.
But as the brochure says it is Max Müller Nürnberg, and that again does not fit MN.

[knoffhoff]

Check out the RB.Nr. on the leather parts. On which canteens have you seen that maker before?

[ZAM]

Sorry, i meant "Neunkirchen"!

And about the RB Nr, another reason for "Menesa"!

Dirk

[Grossfuss]

Stamp "MN"

Hi,
I have two canteens, both "sku 1945" which each have a cup stamped "MN" (no date).
To add a further complication to the thread, is there any link between "MN" and "sku"?
Regards,
Grossfuss

[MULON]

At first my BIG thanks to knoffhoff for this focused and detailed answer. Really thanks.
I had trouble reading everything because my English is not good and sometimes (often) I have to use a translator to read and to write, so I apologize for any errors that you find in my post.
What to say after what I just read?
I am a stubborn person who generally make much effort to change opinion, but here you are showing me with facts that I am wrong.....
I really don't know what to say except thank you.......... meanwhile, I continue to study and to seek news about canteens
Thank you, Gian

[knoffhoff]

Hi,
I have two canteens, both "sku 1945" which each have a cup stamped "MN" (no date).
To add a further complication to the thread, is there any link between "MN" and "sku"?
Regards,
Grossfuss

There might be a link, but I'm not sure about it.
I have not properly inspected enough not messed with examples.
I only have one sku 1945 dated canteen with the brown cup without maker or date in my collection.
I even doubt the leather parts are original to the canteen.
From my observation, the brown cups usually come with AEM.A, MN or sku parts.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I have never seen 1945 dated AEM.A or MN dated cups or bottles.
So one could consider sku is the late war marking of one of those companies.
AEM.A to my knowledge never produced red lacquered bottles like the sku ones are and AEM.A has the three letter code ggm (could have changed of course).
MN did produce the red flasks. So the possibility at least is there.

It would be really interesting to see some not re-assembled sku canteens to get a better picture of what parts they come with. Cups and leather straps are both equally interesting .

I am a stubborn person who generally make much effort to change opinion, but here you are showing me with facts that I am wrong.....

Like i said earlier, there is still no 100% proof. But all the many hints make me almost certain MENESA was in Neunkirchen. I still can be proofed otherwise.

[Bernhard]

Very interresting facts here !
I am pretty convinced now about MN being MENESA !
On the other hand I really would like to know if there are
MMN marked canteems out there.

Very interresting also the Deutsche Lederwerkstätten Pirmasens RBNr.
I think they also used "DLWP" as maker's mark .

Great work knoffhoff !

Best regards

Bernhard

[MULON]

Very interresting facts here !
I am pretty convinced now about MN being MENESA !
On the other hand I really would like to know if there are
MMN marked canteems out there.

Ciao dear Bernhard.
All the facts lead to think that actually MN is Menesa. And I understand that on that point are all in agreement, then I also can calmly accept the "verdict" of the WAF. The only thing "that does not make me feel comfortable" is precisely the fact that nobody has to show a piece that is marked MNN. .... this thing continues to get me in crisis ....

[knoffhoff]

Very interresting facts here !

Very interresting also the Deutsche Lederwerkstätten Pirmasens RBNr.
I think they also used "DLWP" as maker's mark .

I have not seen a "DLWP" stamp yet. Do you have any pictures?

[Bernhard]

I am very interrested in all "makers" and only two or three weeks ago I saw
this maker for the first time.
Saw it on a helmet forum and seems that this maker is expected on chinstraps on policehelmets of a certain maker.
Here a pic from a chinstrap with this marking.

[knoffhoff]

Sorry for bringing this thread up again, but I just wanted to share another reference for MN most likely being Metallindustrie Neunkirchen (MENESA).

Recently, during a vistit of the Bundesarchiv Freiburg I stumbled over a document that contained the following sentence:

BArch RW 20-12/14 Kriegstagebuch Nr. 14 Rüstungsinspektion XI
07. Januar 1943:
"Da sich die Umstellung der Fertigung von Feldflaschen aus Aluminium auf solche aus Eisenblech bei der Metallindustrie Neunkirchen bewährt hat, fand in diesem Betriebe auf Veranlassung des Gruppenleiters Heer Rü Kdo. Saarbrücken eine Besprechung anderer interessierter Firmen statt, um diesen die notwendigen Erfahrungen zu vermitteln."

Here is my try to translate it into English:

Since at Metallindustrie Neunkirchen the conversion to produce canteens out of sheet iron instead of aluminium has proved of value, at that firm Gruppenleiter Heer Rü Kdo. Saarbrücken prompted a meeting of all interested firms, to communicate the required know how.