Unfortunately, this is a 105mm eagle Wappen and has never been on a Tschako. But his description, theories and rationalizations using Third Reich collar tabs is very amusing reading.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6561064449
In fact, a year or so ago he was asked him about his theory about voided and non-voided crowns and "this convenient theory fails to take into account a number of common sense and practical real world realities."
This is the rather interesting reply that was received and forwarded it to me by the rather confused person who asked the question.! Mind you, he does make some very valid points about what Joe calls "conventional wisdom" and taking everything what you read as gospel. I warn you, its long! Remember that this came as a result of a simple question. Deeeep breath!!!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6561064449
In fact, a year or so ago he was asked him about his theory about voided and non-voided crowns and "this convenient theory fails to take into account a number of common sense and practical real world realities."
This is the rather interesting reply that was received and forwarded it to me by the rather confused person who asked the question.! Mind you, he does make some very valid points about what Joe calls "conventional wisdom" and taking everything what you read as gospel. I warn you, its long! Remember that this came as a result of a simple question. Deeeep breath!!!
I apologize for the unavoidable delay in responding to your e-mail of 18 March, copy attached, advising your possible interest in purchasing the pre WWI German Spiked Helmet Tschako Eagle currently listed for sale on RARE MILITARIA's website. As your inquiry actually addresses two (2) distinct issues, I will comment on each of them as separate matters below in an effort to avoid any unnecessary confusion.
AVAILABILITY OF THE PRUSSIAN HELMET TSCHAKO
While our firm still physically owns the post 1897 Prussian Helmet Tschako plate that you inquired about, please note that we are currently holding a ten percent (10%) deposit against its desired eventual purchase, together with two (2) other more expensive items, from a German militaria collector in Pennsylvania.
Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the transaction, that individual has until 15 April to pay off the remaining balance owing. Should he fail to do so for any reason, we would then have the right to retain possession of a mutually agreed portion of his current deposit, while returning the remaining balance to him and canceling the sale.
Should such a situation develop, would you want us to retain your name on file for the purpose of sending you an advisory at that time noting the renewed availability of the Tschako eagle for general sale?
TSCHAKO EAGLE PRODUCTION STANDARDS
Unrelated to the availability issue discussed above, you also noted a question in your original e-mail regarding the alleged differentiation between government issued and private party purchased Prussian tschako eagles.
As a preliminary to addressing this complex issue, let me first say that it is not my intention to cast negative aspersions on either the integrity, or level of knowledge, of any third party source that may have previously suggested or confirmed the validity of the absolute standard in question to you.
That being said, it has too often been my experience in over forty five (45) years of personally collecting German militaria that many of the absolute standards that are readily accepted by collectors at any given point later either turn out to be completely false, and/or are only valid in certain situations. In short, the world is not flat, no matter who or what says it is!
Specific to the tschako issue at hand, I have had the pleasure of actually owing in excess of one hundred individual imperial German helmets during my collecting career to date. Moreover, I have had the chance to meet and know several very serious collectors of imperial headgear, both in the U.S. and Germany, with whom I have maintained contact.
I add this information not to suggest that my opinion cannot be wrong, but rather to at least let you know that it is not based on something that I have read somewhere over the years, but rather on the physical inspection of helmets and the sharing of my opinion(s) with some other collectors in whose observations I place a high degree of confidence.
GENERAL FACTORS AFFECTING THE COLLECTION OF GERMAN ITEMS
I once had occasion to speak with a very well known and respected author of German militaria reference books who I will not name here for a variety of reasons. During that conversation, I questioned the validity of an absolute statement that he had made in an expensive book that I had just purchased at the MAC Show. To my surprise, he not only listened to my argument, but actually finally agreed with my position. Later on, when he printed a second volume to his original work, he included a correction to the point we were discussing.
Unfortunately, even though this particular author had the academic integrity to admit the error in this instance, how many collectors owning Volume I of his work only, and never seeing volume II, will believe without question that the erroneous statement made in the first book was still valid?
In furtherance to this question, I was actually talking with another somewhat famous author of German militaria books at a show when another collector who was standing at his table viewing his wares interrupted our discussion to voice his vehement disagreement with the point being made.
Not knowing who it was he was actually speaking with, this individual collector went on to hotly contest any notion that he might be in error and finally backed up his arguments by quoting his source as a book which ironically had been written by the very author he was now arguing with. When the collector finally learned the identify of the author he was speaking with, which he did not know to that point, and, more importantly, that the author had rescinded the erroneous point made in his first book by correcting it in a second edition printing, the collector became somewhat confused and simply walked away.
Learning from that situation and many others like it over the years, I now think in terms of having a practical understanding or "idea" of how various standards may apply to German items, rather than "believing" that absolutes exist in all circumstances.
In summary, I have come to understand that it is very easy to change ideas, it is, however, quite another thing to try and change a belief, whether based on actual facts or not. Historically, there is no question that many people were literally put to death for challenging such absolute truths as "The world is flat" or "the Earth is the center of the universe". In the collection of militaria, it is often a similarly risky matter to question any absolute standards pronounced by an accepted gurus, whose devoted disciples can get down right hostile.
THE HUMAN FACTOR AND GREED
For as long as there have been collectors in any field, there have been dealers who have recognized the value and importance of establishing incontrovertible criteria as a mechanism for controlling market prices and collector focus. At a minimum, this important element not only permits dealers to artificially justify a higher price for affected items, but also helps eliminate any requirement they might otherwise have to provide a collector with past provenance (ownership history) of the item(s) they are selling if the item can be alternatively shown to meet some generally accepted criteria.
For example, if you accept the premise that a German Knight's Cross must exhibit certain characteristics to be accepted as original by collectors on a general basis, the fact that a particular Knight's Cross successfully exhibits those standards is used by many dealers to avoid any supplemental discussion of the history of who, and under what circumstances, they first obtained the piece, how the previous owner obtained it, as well as to identify any known chain of ownership the item may have had from 1945 to the present.
Unfortunately, even in the absence of such basic information, an unethical dealer can still obtain the full accepted market value for his Knight's Cross in this example so long as it meets the politically acceptable criteria established by certain collecting gurus, whether it subsequently turns out to be a reproduction made yesterday in Pakistan or not. At its core, the validity of this backward valuation structure rests on individual collector belief in one or more of the following erroneous premises:
1. That the producer of any item knows at the time that they are making it that it will one
day become a valuable collectible and will, subsequently, establish fixed manufacturing
criteria and procedures as a regular part of their efforts that they never deviate from for
any reason.
2. That the consistent adherence of the manufacturer in statement one above to any
exacting standards they may have adopted for the production of an item was at all times
more important than the practical necessity of turning out a product on a profitable basis
for delivery to an end user in a timely manner.
3. That the producers of a particular item(s) always had the same materials, associates,
craftsmen and environment to work in as part of their efforts to manufacture their specific
product(s).
4. That the producers of products never experimented from time to time with alternative
procedures, materials or labor sources to make their respective items cheaper, faster,
more attractive, more valuable and/or to address changes in either the availability of
desired materials or the political situation under which they labored.
It was once universally accepted dogma that Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg address at the last minute on the back of an envelope while traveling on the train there to deliver the speech. In fact, there are no less than five (5) known original drafts of that particular speech on Executive Mansion stationery that all predate Lincoln's boarding of a train to get there.
The debunking of these and other similarly erroneous myths is a regular occurrence for historians as new information is developed, which is a situation that we al face from time to time in a variety of human endeavors.
MANUFACTURING DEVIATIONS
Unfortunately, whether the subject is a Knight's Cross, a Picasso painting, a Model T Ford or any other item having a monetary value, collectors as a group seem to find comfort in imagining that the original manufacturer of such product(s) produced them while slavishly adhering to exacting standards, whether those standards on close examination fly in the face of practical reality or not.
As a personal example, I was stationed as an officer with the Fifth Special Forces Group at Fort Bragg, NC in 1971. At one point during my service there, my unit was placed on alert for movement which required us to be wheels up out of Pope Air Force Base within 24 hours of receiving movement orders.
On that particular occasion, I had just purchased five new sets of fatigue uniforms which I had taken the previous day to Parker's Cleaner's on Bragg Boulevard to be tailored, along with the regular laundry and starching of my existing well worn fatigues. Prior to going there, however, and before I was ever advised of the alert, I went by the clothing sales store on post to purchase some new rank insignia and other authorized cloth awards so that I could have Parkers sew them onto my new uniforms.
This was to include the standard special forces unit patch and Airborne tab. Unfortunately, clothing sales at that moment was completely out of stock on SF patches. Consequently, when I dropped my new uniforms off at Parker's Cleaners I did not have this necessary item to give them to sew on for me.
Fortunately, the owner of the establishment, Edna Parker, was a highly gifted sewer, who also had some very good supporting sewers working for her. Moreover, as I was a well known regular customer, and obviously in urgent need, she proceeded to have her staff make me five (5), hand made SF shoulder patches, several of which I still have in my possession.
In keeping with this example, I often imagine the grief that some poor individual collector will get one hundred years from now in his or her efforts to try and sell my uniforms to a collector of SF or Viet War memorabilia since the SF arm patch on my fatigues does not match the generally accepted milspec criteria for this item.
More to the point, this situation occurred in an environment where Fort Bragg was not being bombed day and night, and/or the materials needed to perform the task at hand were readily available for commercial use, as was not the case at many times during the history of Germany.
Consequently, it is important to consider how much more difficult would it be for a German manufacturer to religiously maintain such exacting standards over a multi decade period given the ever changing circumstances they produced under ?
QUALIFIED EXPERTS AND SOURCE MATERIALS
All too often, once an "expert" opinion is printed in a book, it is accepted as gospel by the vast majority of collectors. Regrettably, this also has a cascading effect since the error is then copied and repeated by other authors who, wishing to reduce their research efforts, simply quote what someone else said as "common knowledge" without taking the time to actually check it out.
It should also be noted that the vast majority of the individuals who write reference books are physically limited in their ability to perform research since they mostly neither write or speak the German language with any degree of fluency and are, subsequently at the mercy of someone else to accurately translate any materials in the German language into English.
Perhaps the most famous example of this type of sub standard performance has to be the now infamous HITLER DIARIES. As you may recall, there were 12 volumes of an alleged diary written by Der Fuhrer from 1933 through 1945 that were declared to be absolutely genuine by all of the experts, to include the noted English historian Trevor Roper himself.
It was only after a true scholar named David Irving, who speaks and writes fluent German,
read these alleged diaries that the huge errors and discrepancies in their text came to light. Even without reading or writing German however, it should have occurred to someone using common sense to question the probability that someone in 1933 would buy twelve exact copies of the same empty diary, without knowing in advance that there would be no need for any additional books past 1945.
Another factor to consider, even when the historians involved are highly qualified, is the absence of documentation destroyed by two wars, or simply thrown away after the fact because no one expected any third party to ever want it.
COMMONALITY OF MANUFACTURING PROCEDURES
At a minimum, it is relatively safe to conclude that no manufacturer of regularly used products, whether currently operating in the United States today, or previously operating in imperial Germany, ever produced their various items with the slightest concern for how they might be viewed by a potential collector a century later.
Rather, the Germans produced their items, just as we do today, with a practical goal of making money, filling the order within a time constraint or meeting the customer's exact specifications for acceptance while working within the practical limitations and constraints created by the availability, and/or non availability, of appropriate labor, materials or equipment.
LACK OF NATIONAL STANDARDS IN GERMANY
In Germany during the National Socialist era (1933-1945), the government established the RZM as a means of standardizing the insignia, uniforms and other accouterments that were to be worn by various elements of the NSDAP.
In pursuing this goal, it is important to note that the RZM organization never actually outlawed the grandfathered use of previously existing items, since to do so would have meant that numerous SA men, political leaders and reserve party members (FM) who could not afford to buy new uniforms would have been unavailable for duty.
It is equally important to note that the RZM never attempted to exercise control, and/or impact the production in any way of non NSDAP related items, such as Army, Navy or Air Force insignia. Consequently, the large number of variations found in German Armed Forces insignia made prior to 1945, whether produced in Germany or in one of the occupied countries, is even greater than the substantial variations found in RZM controlled items, which continued to exist even with administrative controls in place.
If these substantial variations existed in the centralized government structure operative in Germany during the National Socialist era, how much more did it exist in the Imperial era, where each individual German State maintained its own indigenous Monarchy, medals, uniforms and insignia, while no centralized equivalent to the RZM was even contemplated?
As a preliminary to considering this question, I can show you numerous original photos from the 1914-1918 period where groupings of German soldiers from the same unit appear together in the shot wearing different uniforms, headgear or other variations of insignia, many of which were supposedly eliminated by a regulation change years earlier and not expected to be seen at all.
Apparently the need, particularly of German reservists who could count on 25 to 40 years of duty, to use up what they already owned, trumped the singularly American concept of simply throwing everything out that was considered obsolete or out of date and replacing it with currently approved items.
(NOTE: I can similarly show you a picture of three (3) active duty Reichbahn members taken in Paris in January 1944 where one is wearing the 1920's style collar tabs, on the 1935 style tabs and one the approved 1943 version.)
In imperial times, perhaps the sole exception to the non standardization argument would be the production of those house awards or other similar items that were privately produced over a period of years under contract by the same jeweler or tailor. However, even in this example it must be noted that such adherence to standards was almost exclusively the result of the comfort of the manufacturer in working with certain procedures or materials and that certain variations can even appear in this area when key workers are ill, retired or certain materials are not available.
Moreover, the large number of acceptable manufacturing variations in military items produced during the imperial era was greatly exacerbated by the political need of Bismarck's government, after the successful defeat of France during the Franco Prussian War of 1870, to help foment unity within the newly established German Reich among the various German states by farming out Prussian military contracts to non Prussian firms in those states.
As a current example of this still in practice, when the US military wanted to produce a new 9mm sidearm, did they go to Colt to have it done, and/or did they give the contact to an Italian firm in order to politically strengthen NATO?
In summary, to even suggest that iron clad insignia manufacturing standards were being enforced in Germany during the imperial era that could not be violated under any circumstance is simply incompatible with the practical reality that the German Army was actually more a collection of various state armies than a unified national one, and that practical realities took precedence over academic correctness.
Additionally, it conflicts with the practical experience learned from many years of collecting German imperial era items that the smaller the actual pool of items produced, the more likely that some degree of standardization might be identifiable, such as in the case of the Hohenzollern House Order, as compared to a more mass produced device such as a helmet tschako plate where such standardization was simply not enforced.
REASONS FOR MANUFACTURING VARIATIONS
As a base element of this discussion, it may be beneficial to view German industry, particularly during imperial times, with U.S. industries today. Viewed through that prism, a number of assumptions become understandable. At a minimum, this includes the following:
1) Whenever possible, a company who is a regular supplier of any item(s) to the government
will attempt to maximize its profits by using the tooling, engineering designs, materials
being purchased, etc. as part of the supplemental production of a similar product(s) for
intended sale to civilians. For example, when colt manufactured the AR-15 for civilian
purchase, it only did so as a response to being faced with an over abundance of M-16
barrels produced by Interform in Pittsburgh, Pa., which it either had to find a use for or
throw out.
2) Even in circumstances where an exact milspec exists, such as in the green shade of
coloration that was required by US MILSPEC to appear in a class "A" green army uniform,
you will still find variations in the colors produced by different manufacturers owing to a
variety of accepted factors.
3) Depletions in inventory, the non availability of normally used components due to strikes and
other factors, the replacement of production machinery, the purchase or merger of one
firm by another and/or the absorption of existing business by a new firm as a replacement
for one that has gone out of business are just some of the many reasons why U.S. firms
operating today can and have produced non standard items, pursuant to milspec, from
time to time that were accepted and paid for by the government anyway.
All of these same conditions equally apply to imperial Germany.
4) Another factor influencing the production of non standard items by industry include, but
are not limited to, the need to supply replacement items to veterans years after the fact
for a piece of insignia that they may have originally earned years earlier, albeit in a much
more pristine condition. For example, one of the hardest things for imperial collectors to
determine is whether a BLUE MAX they may be offered for purchase was made before of
after the 1918.
This is due to the fact that many of the firms who produced these items before 1914, were
supplemented during the subsequent Weimar and National Socialist eras by other firms
seeking to sell these pieces to veterans, museums, etc. as part of their product lines.
Similarly, there is a firm in Hamburg that made original German Navy Cap tallies during
the imperial era that still sells them to collectors today based on the same criteria they
used in making them before 1914. Once aged by some unscrupulous dealer, they have
served to fool many a novice collector.
5) Other day to day manufacturer or dealer related issues blurring the alleged distinction
between issue and private purchase tschako eagles also include, but are not limited to:
a) Errors in shipment in any circumstance where a manufacturer might have chosen for
some inexplicable reason to make more than one style of tschako eagle.
b) Exchanges made by the selling merchant of broken or unacceptable eagles during any
period of warranty, whether to the government or a private party, on a direct basis.
c) Replacement or repair of molds and dyes.
d) The purchase on the local economy in either Africa or China of tschako eagles from
foreign sources stamping the plates from a dye made from a casting of an original
eagle.
CLEANING PROCEDURES
In the specific case of Prussian Helmet Tschako plates, it was a common practice in both regular army and reserve units to detail one or two men to clean the helmets of an entire platoon. This practice was similarly followed in the cleaning of weapons, maintenance of leather gear, performing kitchen duty and cleaning the barracks.
As an integral part of this, it was normal procedure to remove the plate from the helmet before polishing it and cleaning the underlying leather surface. Often in this effort, eagles were mixed up so that the same eagle might not end up being put back on its original helmet. As an side, this practice is another explanation why it is so hard to find an issued luger or mauser having a matching numbered magazine or bolt to the weapon.
SUMMARY
I have heard from numerous source over the years the belief that the absences of spaces appearing in the crown of a Prussian tschako eagle identifies a distinction between a private purchased and government issued piece. Whenever I have pressed the party telling me this for a source for this information, however, I have never received a satisfactory answer that I could not question.
Reciprocally, this convenient theory simply doesn't seem consistent with my own experience in owning and researching Prussian insignia. Nor does such an artificial distinction make very much common or commercial sense from the manufacturer's perspective, particularly when there is no record of any Prussian bureaucratic agency operating during imperial times, as an equivalent to the RZM during the National Socialist era, who was even identified as being tasked with enforcing such a esoteric standard.
While this is not to say that a large volume of eagles possessing the distinction of having a solid crown might not have been purchased on a direct basis during the period 1870 to 1918 by the Prussian government from a manufacturing source whose dye demonstrated this characteristic, nothing in any such possible purchase(s) precludes the similar possibility that the government might have also simultaneously or subsequently purchased and accepted tschako eagles with spaces in the crown from another source at other times during this time frame.
Moreover, there is little or no evidence to support the idea that the distinction in question even mattered to anyone at that time, nor that the Prussian government of 100 years ago was concerned that some dealer or collector of militaria today might be upset if it failed to maintain such a definitive constant for a period of almost fifty (50) years.
In short, while it remains an interesting theory, I do not believe that the level of proof used to substantiate it rises to the position of being absolute in nature which, unfortunately many dealers and collectors seem to accept without question anyway.
I trust that this lengthy and rambling response is of some value to you in understanding the context in which my doubts about this particular collecting standard are predicated. Should you have any additional questions, and/or follow up comments, regarding any statements made in this response, please feel free to contact me again at your convenience.
Best Regards,
