Tim B

Some left coast details; similar but slightly different IMO.

Tim

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim

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

Hi guys,

Well spotted Phil! Coastline is definately sharp in the cuts and have extra details that I normally do not see on authentic Deumers. I was also suspicious with the pin sockets on the reverse. What's the thoughts here, a Deumer copy? No die flaw either!!

Tim

Hi Phil,

Lots of information that I could comment on but will save some of it for a PM. The Maedicke shields with the round pins are thought to be earlier than the ones with the edge tabs, based on the fact the edge tabs came later on for Krim and Kuban shields. Both style shields do in fact carry the "M" in the diamond mark though. I won't post examples here to keep this thread only Deumer related but, may eventually add a Maedicke thread later on.

The issue of Weber calling out similar looking shields as both identified maker and unknown is confusing and his first book had this problem as well. I was hoping he had that aspect of it resolved but, he must have just added a few new sections to the new book and kept the old material the same. Think I'll save my money.

Tim

No problems. I have yet to try and translate that section of Webers book so until I do that I have no idea as to why he thinks it is an Orth but I guess he must have a good reason. Funny thing I saw that shield when he updated his site and thought that's a good one. Didnt have the funds though so well done you..a nice purchase that. If you dont mind me asking what does he slug you for cost of mail? You live in the states right? Just interested because he is very expensive when it comes to mail costs. Will wait to see the thread and I might pop over to WAF for a look see..generally do.

Phil

Hi Phil,

Obviously I don't have Weber's current reference but, was unaware he mentions this Orth connection as well in regards to this "unknown" shield. I remember Pascal once commenting that he thought there was a connection but, didn't elaborate. I know there is some contentions between the two on where they arrive at their facts and speculation and have heard arguments about one taking information from the other and claiming it as his own. I stay out of it for the most part but, had to step in when the Maedicke issue came up over at WAF. I personally think these "super" books and their authors are forgetting their roots and purposes of the forums in place of fame and fortune, but that's my opinion.

Winkler charges 20 Euros flat fee for FedEx and I usually get the item in four days tops (Germany to Washington State), so it's expensive but, its fast and reliable and honestly, most other dealers normally charge the same for Deutches Post and it takes 3 weeks.

Tim :cheers:

Hi Phil,

Well I did get the shield in a couple of days ago and like it a lot. I do see some details that are the same as Orth, some close and some not even, so I'm still comparing. I'll start a new thread on it in a day or two. I remain skeptical though and may have to post it over at WAF and see what Pascal will allude to that maybe we are missing.

Tim

Hey guys,

Any more thoughts on this one or should we close it? I was hoping for more people to kick in with their examples but, ...?

Anyway, some good discussion. Phil and Peter have the newer Weber book and I know Peter has the old version that I have as well. Peter, can you elaborate how much more information on shields is in the newer reference? I see he added Maedicke and from what I take by the table of contents, he identified at least one of the previous unknown examples as Souval now. Anything else?

Tim :cheers:

Hi Rob!

Many thanks and I completely forgot about that guy's site! Yes, he has some excellent information across the board and what I understand, is a great person to deal with or ask questions on awards.

And...you can see he has the same example, though I will have to loop my piece to confirm the maker's mark is actually the same. Many thanks!

Tim

reverse:

Roeland,

It's been awhile and I think I have found a couple that are more detailed. Here's one that still had the ribbon. Still lost a little in the PIC's but the details are sharp, though worn over time.

Tim

Probably a veteran's replacement medal.

Here's a shot of the palm edges. The top palm is thought to be a more modern strike.

Tim

Thought I would add an update here. Another Croix de Guerre with the palms and Lion devices. This one on a more current strike (circa 50's-60's). The lower palm is more of a hollow strike, where the top palm is solid and about three times as thick.

Tim

Very nice Prosper! Always nice to have some history behind the item.

Nothing as nice here; another example of the WW1 CdG. I suspected this one might actually be a more modern strike (50's-60's) probably for a veteran's replacement piece. Confirmed with Hendrik and Bjorn that my suspicions were correct. Still, nice and posted here for example purposes. Note the pattern on the cross arms.

Tim

Hi Bison,

Okay, thank you for the information. The piece is gilted though and I wasn't aware they gilted bronze pieces. Any idea "who"?

Tim :cheers:

Hi Phil,

Caught me as I was heading to bed. Now, you're learning! Surprising how fast some of it becomes when you know what to look for, isn't it?

Congrats! and good night my friend! Best wishes down under.

Tim

I had originally asked about this one sometime ago at WAF and not many commented on it. Now that I see the Deumer lines, I am more confident that the maker's labels were simply added to the shield and packet.

Tim

And now, just to screw with your head...

Does this look like another flat-head?

Tim

Hi Phil,

No sweat, that's why we have the forum to discuss and learn these things. I'll pass on the shield for now, would want a better one if possible anyway, but it was a very nice example PIC to add here!

As far as the die fault, it's impossible to tell for me as either corrosion or surface scratches just make it impossible to say 100%. I edited your PIC for what I see might be, but I would want it in hand to say for sure.

Tim

Forgot to mention I have magnified the flat head pic I just posted and I cannot see that die defect on that shield whereas I downloaded 4 round head eagles from various dealers and all have the die fault as small as it is. How the hell two dies could be made so identical I have no idea but I do believe these flat head eagles are from a different die. Is that what you guys are leaning towards?

Phil

Yes, if actual inspection shows no die flaw, that would make sense. Unless, the flat-head came first, prior to the die flaw happening. (??)

Tim