Replies to archived posts are not allowed.
From: Chris - www.steinmarks.co.uk
Remote Name: 86.143.69.59
Date: 03/15/2011
Time: 06:38:28 PM
Ron, I am glad that you now admit that Muller was probably not part of Steinzeugwerke and that therefore in this case, Peter Zuehlsdorff's Keramik-Marken Lexikon was probably wrong on this point. But why do you insist on not accepting the spelling of Mullenbach & Thewald. I have now laid my hands on eleven separate documents published between 1907 and 1942. All of them use Thewald, not one of them uses Thewalt! They obviously knew their own names! Again the Domex - Gerz is a modern rewrite and is subject to the possibility of chinese whispers.