A New Krim

[Tim B]

I recently picked this Krim shield up. For the last few years, my thoughts on this type of shield was that it was "suspect at best" and possibly a fake that was on the market. The first one I seen a few years back was in a Panzer grouping being offered by Peter Lucas. That grouping had several PAB collectors questioning the panzer badge and the shield collectors out there weren't real comfortable with the Krim shield either. But, there was never any real decision either way, though my personal thoughts were the backing had been replaced on that particular shield.

There have only been a few showing up over the last few years and normally if a fake is out there we see an abundance of these until they are called out for what they really are. We just don't see many of these at all and of all the ones I have seen, all of them have been in zinc and mostly without any backplate or paper backing.

Then, some months back, another shield collector made a comment on another forum that he thought it might be an actual late version Orth shield. So, I took the chance when this one became available. What I would like to do here, is have another discussion and show some comparison closeups of this shield compared to an actual Orth shield. Perhaps we can discuss the similarities and differences and try to come to some concensus whether or not this has actual evidence of being connected to Friedrich Orth. Right now, I just don't see enough to lead me there.

Here's the shield I just purchased. It's in zinc with a magnetic backplate. The paper backing looks original to the shield as far as I can see and the stitching holes appear well done and not machine made like we see on some that were "supposedly" sewn to uniforms. I am not an expert on sewing though, so it's only my observations and educated guess here on that point.

Tim

[Tim B]

Again, here's the shield along with an actual "typical" shield attributed to Orth that I will be using for the comparison.

Tim

[Tim B]

The areas circled on the actual Orth shield are shown below. I usually look at these areas for the easist comparisons as again, the main design is the same throughout manufacturers, it's the small details that show the differences.

I'll start with the "green" which are IMO (in my opinion) the closest similarities, then the "yellow" which are close but not quite the same, and the "red" which is IMO, completely different.

Tim

[Tim B]

Sorry, the details are not the sharpest after enlarging them from original PIC's then reducing them to fit here as attachments. I think you'll get the idea and if you have Orth Krims in hand, can see what I am showing.

The first point is just under the wreath and looks like an upside down "Y". Not 100% exact, but with shadows and die wear..?

Tim

[Tim B]

The second similar point is where the road (line) crosses the letter "R" in KRIM. The arrow points to the crossover point. Note though the width of the right-lower leg on the letter "R" and how my shield is wider and more shapely than the actual Orth shield.

Tim

[Tim B]

The last similar point is on the left side and is the cut in the shoreline. Again, the shape is not exact, but with differences in stamping, wear, shadows...??

Tim

Edited January 27, 2010 by Tim B

[Tim B]

Now, for the "yellow" points of interest. Here's the eagle's head and though there might be some trait similarities, the actual Orth head, neck, and chest appear narrower than the shield I have. The eye and mouth "scowl" is the same.

Tim

Edited January 26, 2010 by Tim B

[Tim B]

Some left coast details; similar but slightly different IMO.

Tim

[Tim B]

And some right coast details; again, very similar.

Tim

[Tim B]

And my favorite area; what I often see as a dead animal on it's back with the limbs up in the air. I know, I have some issues.

Anyway, the different makers can have a wide range of shapes in this area and in this case, they are similar but not exactly alike.

Tim

[Tim B]

Now, towards the south or Black Sea area of the coastline. You'll note the shapes are similar but, the actual Orth shield is wider in the "bay" area.

Tim

[Tim B]

And again, as in the last post, the details are similar but the cut on the Orth shield is wider. Note the arrow points to a point in the coastline and it's much larger and more pronounced on the Orth shield as well.

Tim

Edited January 26, 2010 by Tim B

[Tim B]

Finally, the "red" differences in the date numbers.

You'll see the numeral "1" is completely different with the top left leg on the Orth shield being much longer than the one I have.

The numeral "2" is more closed up as the top loops down on my example and has a small vertical leg before going horizontal, where as the Orth example does not.

The numeral "4" on my example has a unique shape. Note the curvature of the left upper arm and how it widens towards the top end. On the Orth example, all the lines are pretty straight and even throughout. The center vertical leg is also more tapered on the top tip on my example, though the Orth is slightly as well.

Tim

Edited January 26, 2010 by Tim B

[Tim B]

Okay, that's what I got so far. I see some similarities and some differences. I really do not see enough for me to make an Orth connection though. Compared to other known examples where manufacturers made changes to their dies, the overall details remained the same, or so close, there was no question to who made it. This one is a bit of a leap for me. What am I missing?

There was a comment made on the Campaign shield discussion that Weber has this style listed in his book as a late Orth style as well. If so, does he elaborate "why" he thinks this?

Enjoy and don't be afraid to participate.

Tim

Edited January 26, 2010 by Tim B

[Phil Steele]

Firstly Tim....nice shield. As I said I looked at this one myself but didnt have the funds (same old sad story)

Ok, I have deciphered a bit of Webers book where he attempts to justify this shield as an Orth and here are the four points he lists but not verbatum.

1. The Eagles head is massive (umm so are several others in the book)

2. the interior of the wreath surrounding the swastika is pebbled.

3. The bottom of the letter R is the same (as you have shown similar not same).

4. He believes the numbers are similar (I really dont see that at all)

Very flimsy in my opinion but I am no expert. Yes there are some similarities but as you said every Krim shares some similarities. If this is an Orth then it is a different die from the four listed as Orth's in his book. My own opinion is that this is another unknown maker......it could be a late Orth with a change in die but I dont think so. I must point out that Weber even says the design could be orth but made by another maker and mention Hobacher. I have got to be honest and say that I think a lot of this trying to match shield to maker is fraught with a lot of misconception and much "I want it so" on the part of the author or owner. Unless it has a makers mark or is identical in every way to one with a makers mark I will always be sceptical irrespective of who says so.

As for the authenticity....I do believe this to be a genuine shield. Like you I agree the backing paper is good and not at all like the obvious postwar backing paper that I have on one of mine. Unfortunatly mate I am not a sewer either although I can Iron so cant say more about that.

I will just say at this point should you ever find out it is not the real McCoy then I (being the true friend that I am) will rather reluctantly take it off your hands. Nahh dont mention it mate thats what friends are for. Look forward to saying a bit more on this one.

KR Phil

[Tim B]

Hi Phil,

Thanks for your inputs and well thought out responses. Yes, I think you are right in your assessment here. We do not have a lot to substantiate this being attributed to Orth or anyone at this point and without something more concrete, would agree to keep this in the "unknown maker" column until we see/hear more on it.

As you stated, in cases like actual Orth, Wurster, or Maedicke examples where we see the maker's mark stamped on the shield and then compare other examples with the same, near identical die traits, its easier to follow. Even in the recent Deumer comparisons, we see examples off manufacturer's sample boards and can add things up to a resonable conclusion. Here, I just don't see it yet.

Any other opinions?

Tim

[Phil Steele]

Nothing more I can add to this shield but I would like to point out that these discussions I have been having with you guys has presented me with one very important item...Webers book is full of holes. But then I guess that can be said of all reference works. I do like it still and will continue to use it but I doubt if I could ever resell my copy as it is full of notes and bits of paper attached to shields we have discussed.

Look forward to your next posting and the Duemer topic is still on going.

Phil

[tiff]

Hi guys

in regards to the zinc shield thought to be an early Orth , in my opinion this shield is fake based on original Orth

I find it quiet strange that the shield , especially early war one not to have a typical FO mark on the reverse.

As you are aware, Orth had marked their shields. You do find an odd unmarked one , but that is due to the die flaw.

But for the whole production run to be unmarked – to me it does not make sense

The differences in design are also quiet obvious. It is not a secret that for the fakers it is much easier to make the shield look similar to the original then trying to reproduce the original design competly.

It is practically impossible to copy all the small details including the watermarks. Bit to make a die to resemble the original is a lot easier.

You get the look of the original , but not to the small details.

IMO, this is a FO fake.

Regards Andrei

It is hard for me to express myself in English and pass on all the information that I aware of . That is the main reason for me not being more active on the forum.

We can all make mistakes , but our judgment is based on the information we have available to us.

[Tim B]

Hello Andrei,

Assuming the shield you think is a fake "FO" being the one that I started the thread with here; it is my belief and understanding from other collectors that this shield is in fact original, however, I did the comparison to Orth as some had speculated elsewhere that there was an Orth connection, which I did not see or agree with.

In my opinion, this zinc shield is original, just not of Orth design or manufacture. I believe it is yet another currently unknown maker. There is an advanced collector that thinks he may have an idea on "who" might have manufactured this version, however he does not want to release that name until more sustantiated evidence is available to link the maker to the shield. So, I have to honor his request to leave that information out for now.

Looking at the construction of the shield, backing, and paper, I am confident the shield is 100% original to each part and IMO, an original period shield.

Best,

Tim

[tiff]

Hello Andrei,

Assuming the shield you think is a fake "FO" being the one that I started the thread with here; it is my belief and understanding from other collectors that this shield is in fact original, however, I did the comparison to Orth as some had speculated elsewhere that there was an Orth connection, which I did not see or agree with.

In my opinion, this zinc shield is original, just not of Orth design or manufacture. I believe it is yet another currently unknown maker. There is an advanced collector that thinks he may have an idea on "who" might have manufactured this version, however he does not want to release that name until more sustantiated evidence is available to link the maker to the shield. So, I have to honor his request to leave that information out for now.

Looking at the construction of the shield, backing, and paper, I am confident the shield is 100% original to each part and IMO, an original period shield.

Best,

Tim

Hello Tim

And how can you explain such a similarity in design with shield FO ?

Best Andrei

[Tim B]

Hello Andrei,

That's my point made earlier; all Krims have similar design traits and some have details "here and there" that closely resemble other maker's shields, but it doesn't tie them together.

IMO, this is not related to Orth whatsoever, regardless that there are some minor similarities. When a maker manufactured their items, we see specific die characteristics in that design and seldom see a completely different design altogether. This one is different in many areas.

Tim