Deumer Krim Shields

[Phil Steele]

Well spotted Peter. So that makes the two pictured side x side in #18 identical and as such from the same die. I never doubted that as you can see the difference in the eagles head lies with deterioration of the fine detail and not the overall shape. Now the shield pictured on #14 with the flat head is different and from the photo shown I cannot see on that shield the die fault you pointed out Peter.

I also had a look at the three pictured in Webers book under a loop and all three show the same die fault. So that confirms to me now that the shields shown in Webers book are all Duemer and all from the same die. It would appear the measuring process must have been out or it has been misprinted because there simply could not be that much difference in size. However, in respect to the shield shown in picture #14 I am still dubious as to that shield being a Duemer. Or if it is then from the same die as the others. If you look at all the shields posted with the die fault that Peter found they all have rounded heads to some degree. The shield on #14 is dead flat. I have two theories here.

1. The shield is not a Deumer.

2. The shield is a second die made by Duemer. If you look at all the round headed eagles the detail is quite bold on the ones made from stamped brass then look at the zinc ones which obviously come later and you can see deterioration in the detail probably due to die wear. My theory is that the second die was made because the first wore out and that zinc flat head eagle pictured in #14 is the result. Only a theory and in truth I am leaning to No. 1.

Tim I will see what I can do about posting pics and will scan the websites later (got to go to work now) but dont expect much as I dont have the means to do anything fancy nor the knowledge how. Also my Duemer that arrived has the die fault

This is good stuff.......

KR Phil

[Tim B]

Hi Phil,

Well, now you are starting to see some of the dilema and thought provoking questions I have had on these Deumer shields. Unfortunately, there isn't always a "discussion" over at WAF, so let's look at bit more here.

Again, I'm using Weber's earlier reference here. The shield he shows on page 26 is supposedly in sheet zinc for both the shield and back plate. This one he shows has the round wire style pins. Not sure if this exact shield is shown in the reference you have (?) but, assume it has to be.

First, we make the assumption that these wire-pin styles were manufactured initially prior to switching to the flat style pins. If that were true and I'm not saying it isn't, why would the early style shield be manufactured in zinc and not sheet steel (magnetic) like those shown to have the same die characteristics as the example in post #6? Weber does state that this style (with the wire pins) is known to exist in steel as well, but as far as I know, I haven't seen any; but why make it in zinc at all early on?

Second, we normally timeline the use of better quality materials (buntmetal, tombak, etc.) early on and progressing to zinc as vital war materials became more scarce. That mandatory crossover was supposedly circa 1943, though no definitive timeframe was ever set in stone. So, with the Krim award being instituted in July 1942 and the final date for awards set in April 1943, then is it possible that both materials were used early on and "perhaps" the ones we see in sheet steel are just existing stock or a decision made by the manufacturer that the strike was as good in zinc, so...?

Now, for an interesting turn; Here is a composite closeup of the shields in posts # 10 & 14 that have the flatter heads. I cannot get clear closeups and these are the best I can do with what I got, but there is "something" there in the same general area that Peter shows on his compostite comparsion above. Not saying its the same, but something is there.

Also, keep in mind that all the other details are still the same between these varieties. So...?

Hey, at least we are trying to figure this one out!

Tim

[Tim B]

I've had a little more time to sit down and study Weber's reference shields again and I must say that I find very little difference between the shields shown on pages 26 & 28 other than the attachment pins. There might be some minor wear difference in the head area, but it's minor and could be attributed to worn/dirty dies or maybe even a shift in striking during the manufacturing process. The other details are the same in my opinion.

With that; I think I need to change my write-up earlier and say now that all the shields posted in posts 1-8 are the same. In post #9, I think this is just another case of more wear on the die in the head area and Weber does not show one with this level of wear as previously thought. Again, I think it is the same shield as the two shown on pages 26/28, just not to the same wear level.

That still leaves the flat-head and any timelines that can be deduced.

Tim

[Peter BL]

I've had a little more time to sit down and study Weber's reference shields again and I must say that I find very little difference between the shields shown on pages 26 & 28 other than the attachment pins. There might be some minor wear difference in the head area, but it's minor and could be attributed to worn/dirty dies or maybe even a shift in striking during the manufacturing process. The other details are the same in my opinion.

With that; I think I need to change my write-up earlier and say now that all the shields posted in posts 1-8 are the same. In post #9, I think this is just another case of more wear on the die in the head area and Weber does not show one with this level of wear as previously thought. Again, I think it is the same shield as the two shown on pages 26/28, just not to the same wear level.

That still leaves the flat-head and any timelines that can be deduced.

Tim

After having a closer look at the shield's posted and the examples Sacha show's I tend to agree Tim, I think these are all from the same die stamp, predominantly in zinc but certainly stamped in sheet metal as well. And in the case of the Zinc shield..bronzed or left plain Zinc.

Again the type shown in posts 10 & 14 (i assume both Zinc) are IMO identical both bronzed/Plain

So are we left with 2 types of Deumer shield,with both dies capable of stamping thousands of shields before the dies themselves started to degrade.

Impossible to date the prongs, but bear in mind the Deumer Narvik shield I believe used flat prongs in 1940.....so the wire could indeed be a later type.

Best...Peter

Edited January 21, 2010 by Peter Baillie

[Tim B]

Hi Peter!

Yes, I was wondering if the round pins might be later as well. The PIC he shows (in my reference) has cloth over the pins, so I cannot see if the pins are original to the shield or if maybe they are replacement pins. Do yo know of other examples of this type? Seems like Pascal once stated he had one or seen another one as well, but don't quote me on that anymore as I may be mistaken. Been so long ago.

So, if I read your comments correctly, do you also think the two versions of Deumer shields are those like the ones shown in posts 1-9 and the 2nd version in posts 10-14?

Cheers my friend!

Tim

[Peter BL]

So, if I read your comments correctly, do you also think the two versions of Deumer shields are those like the ones shown in posts 1-9 and the 2nd version in posts 10-14?

HI Tim....yes, that's how I see it...in fact I don't see the type 2 in either of Sacha's krim books ....so, how about this summary

Type 1 (posts 1-9) Zinc Bronzed/Plain

Sheet Metal (Magnetic) Bronzed

Type 2 (posts 10-14) Zinc Bronzed/Plain

[Tim B]

Again the type shown in posts 10 & 14 (i assume both Zinc) are IMO identical both bronzed/Plain

Peter,

I can only assume your correct as they look zinc in the PICs and the corrosion leads me to think along those lines. I also just noted that the shield in post 10 is in fact the same as that in post 11. Not sure where (who) I got that PIC (#10) from but, they must have bought it from Weitze.

Tim

[Tim B]

HI Tim....yes, that's how I see it...in fact I don't see the type 2 in either of Sacha's krim books ....so, how about this summary

Type 1 (posts 1-9) Zinc Bronzed/Plain

Sheet Metal (Magnetic) Bronzed

Type 2 (posts 10-14) Zinc Bronzed/Plain

Hi Pete,

Yes, I could agree with that statement. Odd, if the die was changed, that the majority of details remained almost spot-on identical except the head. But, if we reversed the two, with the 10-14 type being first, then we shouldn't be seeing those only in zinc and the 1-9 types in both metals. So, the die must have changed as you could not repair or rework the original die to add more details and actual material to the base, (i/e: the head area, making it more pronounced) IMO.

Tim

Edited January 21, 2010 by Tim B

[Tim B]

I just checked Weitze's site and see he has one with the round wire pins for sale. From what I can see in the PICs, the pins appear original to the shield. The wear on the head is close to that shown by Weber, maybe a bit more worn but, close. This one is without back cloth.

Tim

[Phil Steele]

Geez you two have been at it whilst I was away.

Now just to avoid confusion on my part are we agreeing that Duemer did in fact use two dies????

The first being the round head eagle and the second being the flat headed eagle.

I will await comment on that before saying anything further.

Phil

[Phil Steele]

And just to make things a bit interesting the circled close up possible fault on shield #14 is in a different position to the fault identified originally by Peter. I know the pic is not the best but I will post another pic of a flat headed eagle and the round headed eagle with the round wire pins on Weitze's site.

Phil

[Tim B]

Hi Phil,

Well, there are only three people actually discussing this issue presently, so I would hate to say anything for sure at this point. There are many shield collectors out there and who knows...there may be more to see yet.

Right now, I would tend to support the idea that the Deumer shields with the "round" head or those shown in posts 1-9 are in fact from the same die. The minor differences I believe are attributed to wear and you can kind of see a progresson within that style. Where the attachment pins come in exactly is yet to be determined and the issue of zinc vs steel is also something that still confuses me on these.

As I do not have Weber's more recent book, I can't comment on the third shield he attributes to Deumer. What does that one look like?

As far as the second type Peter and I are now thinking might be from a second die (the flat-head), I would like to see more before committing to stone. What I would like to see is a good high-resolution PIC of the front and see if that die flaw is there as well.

What do you think about all this? Don't be shy here to express your views. Your opinions count as much as ours.

Tim

[Phil Steele]

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

[Tim B]

Phil,

That's a nice PIC of the Flat-head; do you own that one? Any chance of getting a little clearer shot of the area in question?

So, do you think that this style is now a Deumer?

Tim

[Tim B]

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

[Phil Steele]

I have tried to enlarge the area in question but I am not good at this and can only enlarge it in paint. I cannot see the die fault in this flat headed design .and I have looked at about a dozen today with the die fault and it sticks out when you know what to look for. All the shields with the die fault were the round headed variety.

Ok in anser to your questions. Yes I do believe these flat headed shields are Duemers. No idea which order they come in but my gut tells me they were a second run. Nothing I can say to back that though.

No the shield is not mine but I can tell you on a PM where to get it if you want. As for the round wire flat wire debate..sorry my friend but I have no idea. I didnt even know round wire was used until I started studying up on the Krims with Webers book.

Here is that enlargement but dont think it is much use.

Phil

[Tim B]

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

Edited January 22, 2010 by Tim B

[Tim B]

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

Does this look like another flat-head?

Tim

[Tim B]

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

[Phil Steele]

I thought the image would not be of much use and that mark you have circled is in my opinion a scratch or mark on the surface of the shield. Its funny but when Peter pointed out that little die fault it becomes so obvious when you are looking for it and even though I have only looked at two flat headed type shields I have yet to see that fault whereas every round headed one that I have looked at has it. Amazing really.

Those pics are a tad blurry but I can see by the spanner shaped area to the right of the shield that it is a Duemer but cant say which one of the two. I dont for a second believe those labels were put on at the time of manufacture.

Phil

[Tim B]

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

[Tim B]

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:

[Phil Steele]

I was a good discussion Tim...I really enjoyed it and it is a shame no else chimed in as I know there are some guys on this forum who have been in this game a heck of a long time and could have added some comments I am sure that we would have found interesting. Still thats the way it goes I suppose. Just on the subject of your Maedicke. Webers has the one with the wire pins and the makers mark listed as a Maedicke whilst the one with tabs like yours is shown but listed as unknown maker at the back of the book. Interesting that...then he also shows what he says is a Souval badge and one which both Peter owns and I have on order but then portrays a very similar shield which both Peter and I agree must be from the same maker as an unknown maker. No book is going to have all the facts I guess and I sometimes think that this ïnvestigative research into makers of previously unknown and unmarked badges is sometimes a bit hard to swallow. I remember many years ago I read by a well respected collector of primarily Kriegsmarine items that you cannot place too much creedence on the pins attached to combat badges as these were often put on by other manufacturers. In otherwords sub contracted out. And yet, when Frank Heukemes bought out his book on the GAB quite of lot of his work in naming previously unmarked badges was based on pin similarities. Personally I dont put a lot of faith in that. Just my thoughts.

Phil

[Tim B]

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

[tiff]

Hello gents

very interesting discussion

That my Duemers shields

1- Magnetic, 2-5 is Zinc

Regards Andrei

Edited January 25, 2010 by tiff