Pascal H

The reason I tend to believe that these shields were made by J.C. Meadicke is the makers mark you can find on the back of these shields.

Until now this makers mark has not been found on any other Campaign Shield.

It has to be said that there is no 100% evidence that this was the makers mark of Maedicke but it is very likely.

KR

Pascal

Hi guys,

This thread was brought by my attention by Peter, and just as Peter already said we are looking here at a very rare shield.

This type of shield you normally find in a sort of "ground dug" condition.

To find one in good condition is very rare.

The maker of this type of shield is most likely "J.C. Maedicke".

KR

Pascal

I agree a magnificent grouping .

Very interesting to pinpoint this shield back as to a very early shield.

Not very clear on these pictures but I assume this shield is made from CupAl?

KR

Pascal

Only today this thread was brought to my attention and I have been reading it with the greatest of interest.

Let me start by saying that until today no makers of Narvik shields are definitely known.

We are only making assumptions of who these makers were by the way some of these shields were found and what makers were named in earlier literary.

So are for example the names Juncker and Deschler named in a article in ?Internationales Militaria-Magazine?. However no proof was given in the article that these shields were actually made by these makers. Nimmergut is calling a different type of shield to be made by Juncker. This only proof how difficult it is to name a Maker with any certainty.

The shield as shown by Chris is without a doubt an original shield. I only don?t think this is a so called ?Deumer? shield. I have this type of shield in my own collection and I believe that this shield was made by the same maker who made the so called Juncker type shield with the exception that on this type of shield the wings do touch the bar.

The shield as shown by Nesredep is with a doubt a fake. This shield is the most encountered fake and is a copy of what is also called the Deschler type shield. In the collecting world this fake is indeed known as the small ?4? fake. As Peter already pointed out the? 4? is a fraction smaller and maybe also a bit lower as the ?0?

KR

Pascal

Pascal do you think this shield original?

Yes, IMO this shield is 100% original.

KR

Pascal

OK I see, something like this

Hi Mike,

Not only something like, exactly like that.

KR

Pascal

Thanks Mike but the mark I am looking for is definitely an "M" in a diamond shape box.

I only only a few minute found out that this same mark also appeared on KM breats eagles.

So let the search continues....

Many thanks for all your help.

KR

Pascal

On what?

Hi Rick,

This is a small mark on the back of a Krim shield.

Thanks,

Pascal

Who can help me with this makers mark?

Do you have any idea who the maker could be who used this makers mark?

Thanks for looking.

KR

Pascal

Pascal, I wonder if the Demjansk Shield with this similar reverse configuration was also made by Deschler? See comparative Narvik and Demjansk shield reverses below:

Hi Darrell,

There are several types of Demjansk shields with this cross formation on the back.

The Demjanks shield you posted the back of is normally found with a missing log on the right side. There is no known maker for this type.

This type could have been made by Deschler but I can?t find any good reason that would explain this.

KR

Pascal

Thank you Pascal, Great info.

So do all the so called Deschler type have this different pin formation, or are you going on the front details?

Regards,

Pete

Yes, all the Deschler shields have the pin formation on the back as a cross but so does another type of shield by an unknown maker.

The way to recognise these shields is to study the front details then the setup on the back will only be another detail.

KR

Pascal

As for the Narvik shields there are NO definite makers known. To my knowledge Narvik shield were never marked on the shield or on the backing paper.

What I know is that there were at least 6 different makers of Narvik shields some of them also with some variations.

I started calling some of these shields by their (probably) maker because in the case of;

Deumer, this exact type of shield was found several times on so called ?sample boards?. There are two variations known of this type. One with the area closed between the eagles head and the winds, and one without. Also the best fake around is based on a Deumer type of shield.

Juncker, this maker was suggested in a German military magazine as maker for the type of shield were the wings didn?t touch the bar. Also called the snaggletooth shield. I was unable to contact the author of this article so there is no proof that this type of shield was made by Juncker.

Deschler, this maker was also suggested in the same German article. Again no proof that this type of shield was made by Deschler.

These are the only makers linked with Narvik shields. There however no proof that these makers ever made these shield but until proven otherwise I keep calling these type of shield by there makers name.

As for the shield in this thread:

Post #5 Peter J, Original made by Deumer

Post #6 & 7 Darrell, Original by unknown maker

Post #8 Gordon, Original by Juncker

Post #9 & 10 Jan Arne, Original made by Deumer

Post #16 & 17 Marvin Jeffus, Repro of a Deumer shield

Post #18 & 19 Pete, Original made by Deumer

Post #20 & 21 Pete, Original made by unknown maker

Post #22 & 23 Pete, Original made by Deschler

Post #24 Pete, Original made by Deumer

KR

Pascal

Just received this shield and would appreciate some help. The shield is flat (not vaulted), no veins in the wreath. Is this correct or a good reproduction. Please help, these shields are driving me nuts! Thanks

I believe this type of shield to be correct and I think that it is the second type of Narvik shield to be made (most probably) by Deumer.

KR

Pascal

Good to hear you got your money back.

The last Krim you posted is a very nice original shield.

The maker of this shield was indeed JSF and the makers mark on the back is correct.

KR

Pascal

Hi Jan Arne,

You're welcome!!!

Good to hear that returning the shield will be no problem.

KR

Pascal

Jan Arne,

Thanks again for posting the shields.

On the first Kuban I agree with you and I also don?t like it. In my opinion this shield is a copy.

The second one is very interesting. This shield is until today the only most likely original Kuban shield made out of zinc.

I don?t have this shield in my collection so I can?t be absolutely sure but I really like yours. It has got some lovely details which one would never find on copies.

I am still looking for an example like yours so whenever you want to get rid of it please let me know.

KR

Pascal

Jan Arne,

Thanks for posting the shields.

I am sorry for my very late reply.

I am afraid your first Krim shield is a well known fake.

The second Krim shield is an original shield which most probably was made by Deumer.

KR

Pascal

Jan Arne,

Would it maybe be possible to post some better pictures of the Krim and Kunban shields?

One at a time maybe?

KR

Pascal

Hi,

Zink.

best

Chris

Thanks Chris,

I am under the impression that the earliest (non KM) shields were made of Cupal.

KR

Pascal

I have the Narvik shields from my wifes grandfather, he got his with the first issues, they were exactly like the Zink ones posted by Gordon.

MrBean,

As your Narvik shield is an early issued shield I would be interested to know of which material it was made.

The one posted by Gordon is also an early one and made out of tombak and not zinc.

Thanks,

Pascal

Hi Frank,

You?re right, the Krimshield in post 11 & 12 is indeed a well known fake.

I do however not agree with you that this was a fantasy piece as there was a role model for this shield. I will post the Original shield which stood model for this fake.

KR

Pascal

Ps. Sorry I missed this fake, must have been staring at the Cholms for too long.

Very nice shields gentlemen.

Even if its a late zinc one...

Regards,

Pete

←

Nice shield Pete, is maybe possible to see the reverse?

Thanks,

Pascal