Joseph P
Robinson
Draft # 7
18 February
2005.
I
don't think any small item has driven pickelhaube collectors
as insane as the "NCO cockade" problem.The problem seems to have been an absolute dearth
of period references that point to the needed detail. Volume
1 of Bowman is notorious for mistakes in cockardes but his
simplistic and un-annotated statements led to the term "NCO
cockade"[i].
Here is the problem really as presented by Bowman. OR cockades
are one piece with paint on them. Most officer cockardes
are three pieces with a silver ring (some folks ignore the
backing and call it two piece.). However, not all silver
rings are the same. Some have two rings some only
one. Why?
[ii]
Standard Officer
Ring has a double ring on a 55mm or 65mm
cockade. This style of ring for the purpose of
this article is called a double ring.
[iii]
The "NCO
cockade" has a single ring on a 48mm, 55mm, or 65mm
cockade. For the purpose of this article, this kind
of ring is called a single ring.
[iv]
An
OR cockade has white paint instead of a silver ring at 48mm
or 65mm.
Not
all officer cockades are affected or included in this controversy.
One piece cockades without any kind of raised ring existed
in Hesse, Saxony, Hamburg, Lubeck, Baden and Württemberg.
Many states had rings of various construction and Baden
and Württemberg eventually adopted cockades with rings.
So we are talking Prussian and Reich's cockades only. I
haven't gotten any further. One piece officer cockardes
like the example below, also existed in two sizes 55 mm
and 48 mm. In general, however, they are not covered
in this discussion.
[v]
Most
Officer Cockades are 55mm[vi],
OR ones are slightly smaller at 48mm.[vii].Lacarde
traces some evolution to an AKO of 16 March 1867.
There he begins talking about 51 mm (not 48mm +1mm) cockades.
[viii]
Large Cavalry cockades are 65mm.
Two
intelligent camps draw different conclusions from the evolution.
One camp believes that NCO cockades were the initial officer
cockades up to a certain time. The other camp says
no ... officer cockades and NCO cockades have been separate
for some time.
The
Saunders book had examples of "NCO cockades" listed
as officer helmets. These metal cavalry helmets had
one ring 65mm cockardes for officers of Cuirassier and Jäger
zu Pferd.
[ix]
But then he also has a large size 65mm cockade with double
rings on a Fähnriche helmet.[x]
Where
did this confusion come from? First some background. Anglo
typical westerners have a nasty habit of lumping a bunch
of ranks into NCO or non-commissioned officers without much
further segregation. The term NCO cockade would work for
western mindsets. Germans looked at it a bit differently.
The German Army had a pretty substantial line between NCOs
with Officer's sword knot and those without. Feldwebel and
Vizefeldwebel were senior NCO's with officer sword knots.
Ruhl separates German NCOs into Unteroffizier and Sergeant[xi].
Feldwebel and Wachtmeister (feldwebel for mounted troops),
were a separate category. Vizefeldwebel were "telephone
feldwebel" and were called feldwebel sort of like a
Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army is called Colonel.[xii]
All those with sword knot are Portapeeunteroffiziere. Fähnriche
ranked as a Portapeeunteroffiziere.
Bowman
makes the understanding far worse when he says "The
details pertaining to NCO Kokarde also applied to the One
Year Volunteers (OYV) who utilized the same pattern of Kokarde."[xiii]
This is just plain false. As I have written in another article,
OYVs were OR types. They could become reserve NCOs but think
of them as a private who served less time and had a different
"career course". The fact that there are no pictures
of OYVs with officer cockades led us to separate and learn
about Fähnrich Pickelhaubes.[xiv]
Very
importantly Ruhl splits cockades by officer and Portapeeunteroffiziere.
And the OR cockades for unteroffizer and soldaten.. No differentiation
is made in this reference, by type of cockade differences
between officer and feldwebel.[xv]

I
looked and looked. But descriptions of the ring on cockades
eluded me. Sources always referred to a silver ring. "für
Offizier und Portapeeunteroffizier... mit ein silbern Ring
belegt, für Unteroffiziere ohne Portapee und Gemeine
...der Mittelring aber weiß lackirt."
[xvi]
[xvii]
I
looked at picture upon picture. I saw rings but could
not figure the reasoning out. I focused on rings and rings.
It turned out to be the wrong approach.
So
I was despairing as all was lost until Kraus published his
book in Austria[xviii].
There on page 50 was a sealed sample card of Reich's cockades
from the Bavarian Army Museum. This is a sealed sample card
for AKO 22 March 1897. There is a 55mm
Officer
cockade, a 48 mm "NCO cockade" and a 48mm OR cockade
attached to the card. The Officer cockade is labeled "Offiziere".
The NCO cockade is labeled Feldwebel and the OR cockade
is labeled Unterofficier to Gemeiner.[xix]
While
things started looking good it got even better on page 136
where there was another card that showed an OR cockade at
48mm and the infamous "NCO cockade" labeled ...
zu helm für Portapeeunteroffiziere[xx].
Inventory number H 9966 shows the Prussian landes cockade
with a 48mm cockade of OR and Unterofficer mit Portapee
and a 65mm Officer's cockade with single ring and a 65mm
OR cockade.[xxi]
All
of these cards in the Kraus book show a 48mm Feldwebel cockade
with a single ring. On his website, the author shows another
"Probe" card with a 48mm cockade with a double
ring.
[xxii]
I
have a general officer's helmet from the Kube auction 104
and there is a single ring Reich's cockade 55mm.
[xxiii]
It then dawned on me that the reason all
the period sources talked about the silver ring was that
is what they meant. A
silver ring not the type of silver ring. What was
important was the size of the cockade. 48mm for
OR and Portapeeunteroffiziere and 55mm for officer. 65mm
helmets were distinguished by a silver ring regardless of
type. (No second size for Feldwebel types in 65mm units.)
We have 65mm cockades
of both kinds, 55mm cockades of both kinds , and 48mm cockades
of both kinds.
In
summary, this theory states that Officers used 55mm cockades
with a silver ring. Portapeeunteroffiziere used a 48mm cockade. Size, not style of ring mattered.
The
period references authorize Portapeeunteroffiziere to wear
the Officer cockade[xxiv].
Why would you wear a Feldwebel cockade at 48mm when you
were authorized 55mm?
In
my mind this is the key question still remaining in the
controversy. I suggest two possible reasons. Reason
one seams to be regulation of sorts. One period source says
Fähnriche and Vizefedlwebel wear "Kopfbedeckungn
Kokarde und Feldzeichen der Feldwebel". It dos not
say as per the Officers. Clearly in this book, the
important item was the officer sword for these guys[xxv].
Reason number two is that the Portapeeunteroffiziere were
issued their cockades, and thus it has to do with the mounting
lugs. Most 48mm "NCO cockades" have M91 post sized
holes. If the hole is small, it has a ring and is
48mm it only stands to reason it is private purchase. The
55mm one has a small hole and most officer cockades had
small holes for rosettes. This is shown in detail on the
card inventory #H 9967.[xxvi]
However, small hole cockades of both types exist so this
argument is weak. As this AKO covered the wear of the Reich's
cockade and the sealed samples were used to show manufactures
the specifications of that requirement I see no reason for
that to change by the start of the war. I went to search
for the AKO itself. It was large, very interesting,
and said absolutely nothing about the type of ring or the
size of the cockade.
[xxvii]
Surprisingly,
the Bavarians took this idea, just a bit further. In
their excellent book on the Bavarian army Seibold and Schulz
embraced the idea of the size difference. Showing
that the portapee Unteroffiziere cockade is 48 mm and the
officer cockade is 55 mm. They go on to show the Bavaria
had a separate cockade for officers and portapee Unteroffiziere
for their state also. They do not get into the detail
of holes and they also differentiate that officer cockades
must have two rings. If you remember, I have a Bavarian
generals helmet with a 55 mm single ring Reich's cockade.
[xxviii]
Both issue
helmets and private purchased helmets used the 48mm cockade with M91 mounting posts and
private purchase helmets with Rosettes used cockades with
small holes.[xxix]
Portapeeunteroffiziere basically could use either issue
or private purchase helmets. The big difference in
this case is the hole in the cockade. There are M15
type officer helmets that came out mid war. These used M91
posts and thus the cockades needed to have large holes.
. There are examples of M15 type cockades with M91 holes
for each size.[xxx]

Some
Portapeeunteroffiziere creatively adapted their cockades
to fit private purchase / rosette type helmet holes.
The example below is an adaptation of a 48mm cockade.
So this would go under a rosette but be small. Still it
is 48mm. Period?
[xxxi]
This
leads to evolution of sorts. Lacarde talked about 51mm cockades
in the AKO of 1867.[xxxii]
By the Bekleidingsordnung of 1903 the official diameter
had shrunk to 48mm.[xxxiii]
The sealed samples of 1897 talked of 48mm.[xxxiv]
Clearly the enlarged post holes for the M91 posts were not
needed until the M91 posts came out in ... 1891. There
were NCO type cockades prior to 1891. What were the sizes?
Well officer cockades seem to be 55mm back to at least 1871[xxxv].
At that time there were single ringed cockades. Therefore,
there is no reason to think that commissioned officers did
not use single ringed 55mm cockades from then on. The next
earliest type of cockade was the 1887 OR type, weird helmet
with a unique hook type strap. Cockades required 2 holes.
One small one actually held it in place. This example of
an issue 1887 with two holes is 51.8 mm. This is well within
the bounds of reality for the 1867 AKO.
[xxxvi]
So
1887 cockades were most likely 51mm and 1897 were 48mm.
So 51mm cockades could exist between 1887 and 1897. I do
not know when this changed. There might have been
some variations on a theme. For instance the cockade
below with M91 holes is 49.9mm. Obviously post 1897 so maybe
not to specifications.
[xxxvii]
The
sealed sample on pg 50 of Krause[xxxviii]
has only a double ringed Reich's cockade in 55mm. Based
on page 50, if taken completely alone, I think you could
postulate that post 1897 officer cockardes in 55mm only
had two rings. However, even if that was the case "old
style" single rings were probably carried over similar
to US Army Mess Dress Uniforms. (I had an "old style"
jacket I wore legally 20 years after new style were introduced.)
Therefore, to reinforce, I see no problem with a 55mm single
ring officer's cockade post 1897. There is indeed a sealed
sample of a double ringed 48mm large hole cockade clearly
labeled Feldwebel.[xxxix]
Here
is another example of "Old Style" use.
Pearl
rings around non commissioned spike bases went out of fashion
when the 1895 helmet came in. This 1914 picture shows a
unit still using those "old style" helmets even
though they had been replaced on paper.
[xl]
Here
is a "ring" from what I think is an issue Feldwebel
helmet with private purchase wappen from Saxe Weimar Eisenach.
[xli]
Note the
raised ring on a 48mm cockade. Is this the Saxe-Weimar version
of the NCO cockade? What is also of interest is that
this is the "old style" color pattern that went
out in 1897 and screw post rosettes from an 1871 type helmet
"Old style" 1897 cockade used on an M1891 helmet.
So
what do we surmise?
1.
The term NCO
cockade does not fit.
2.
Officer Cockades
had a ring and were 55mm.
3.
Feldwebel cockades
were 48mm and had a ring.
4.
There are 65
mm, 55mm and 48 mm samples with both kids of rings.
5.
Officer and
Feldwebel cockardes had both big and small holes.
6.
The key question
is: (drum roll please) ...Why did Feldwebel (Portapeeunteroffiziere)
use a separate smaller cockade as shown by Probe cards when
they were authorized an officer cockade?
There
are still some lingering questions.
1.
What document
officially changed the size of the OR cockade from 51mm
to 48mm between 1887 and 1897?
2.
What official
document put Portapeeunteroffiziere in 48mm cockades while
still allowing them officer cockades?
3.
Where did rings
fall out in the states that had rings but were not Prussian?
Ever seen a single ring Bremen?
[i]
Bowman, J.A., The Pickelhaube, Volume 1
Imperial Publications, Lancaster England
1989. Pg 67-90.
[v]
with permission of owner.
[vi]
Bekkleidungs-Vorshrift für Offizier und
Sanitäts-Offiziere des Königlich
Preussichen
Heers, Mittler & Sohn, Berlin 1911, pg 86.
[vii]
Bekleidungsordnung zweiter heft, Mittler und
Sohn, Berlin 1903 pg 39.
iv, Lacarde,
Jean-Louise, Casques a Pointe Volume 1,
Uniformes, Paris, 1983.Pg 16
[ix]
Sanders, Paul, Head Dress of Imperial
Germany, 1880-1916, Schiffer Publishing,
Atglen PA, 2001, pg 130-145.
[xi]
Ruhl, Moritz, Die Uniformen der Deutschen
Armee, Volume 2, Verlag von Moritz Ruhl,
Leipzig Germany. 1899, pg 10
[xii]
B. Freidag, Führer durch Heer und Flotte,
Verlag J Olmes, Krefeld 1914, pg 261.
[xiii]
Bowman, J.A., The Pickelhaube, Volume 1
Imperial Publications, Lancaster England
1989. Pg 74.
[xvi]
Krinkel und Lange, Das Deutsche Reichsheer
in seiner neuern Bekleidung und Ausfürung,
Verlag von Max Hochlprung, Berlin, 1888
W/supplement 1892 pg. 19.
[xviii]
Kraus, Jürgen, The German Army in the Frist
world war, Verlag Militair, Vienna,
Austrian, 2004.
[xxiv]
Krinkel und Lange, Das Deutsche Reichsheer
in seiner neuern Bekleidung und Ausfürung,
Verlag von Max Hochlprung, Berlin, 1888
W/supplement 1892 pg. 19.
[xxv]
Menzels, Major, Dienstunterricht des
Deutschen Infanteristen, Verlag von R.
Eisenschmidt, Berlin, 1914-1915, pg 56.
[xxvii]
With permission from the Jewison collection.
[xxviii]
Siebolt and Schultz, Die Helm der Königlich
Bayerischen Armee,Bayerischer Militär
Verlag, Gröbenzell, 1999, pg 158.
[xxix]
I would gladly put the pictures of the
sealed cards in this article. However,
while the publisher is most willing the
images belong to the Bavarian Army Museum
and to date I can not get a copyright
response from them.
[xxx]
Used with permission of owner identity kept
private by request.
[xxxii]
Op cit Lacarde volume 1 pg 16.
[xxxiii]
Bekleidungsordnung zweiter heft, Mittler und
Sohn, Berlin 1903 pg 39.
[xxxiv]
Kraus, , Jürgen, The German Army in the
Frist world war, Verlag Militair, Vienna,
Austrian, 2004, pg, 136.
[xxxv]
Bowman, J.A., The Pickelhaube, Volume 1
Imperial Publications, Lancaster England
1989. Pg 71.
[xxxvi]
Used with permission of owner identity kept
private by request.
[xxxvii]
Used with permission of owner identity kept
private by request.
[xxxviii]
Kraus, Jürgen, The German Army in the Frist
world war, Verlag Militair, Vienna,
Austrian, 2004, pg. 50
[xl]
Picture with permission the Kostel
collection.