I'm searching for
special SA/NSKK/NSFK with maker marks
Link to my collection : http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/album.php?albumid=1175
My apologies for a slightly late response here and I notice that both Dzyner and Guido have directly asked questions. Dear Dzyner - I cannot recall ever handling a prototype of anything to be perfectly honest. Hopefully this admission does not preclude myself from chipping in here. Dear Guido - I cannot correlate the buckle that started this thread and by the Industrial Cog/Swastika design/dimensions, to one clearly attributed to O & C. Sorry chaps.
A lot has been said since the buckle was first posted and really and without wishing to appear overly churlish, I still do not like it.
I think that the buckle is part of an elaborate attempt to dignify and deceive. This is not an unknown phenomenon of course and there are many other examples of this modus operandi within the buckle collecting world. Who can forget the pebbled aluminium Stahlhelmbund buckle, the one displaying a steel helmet which supports a swastika? This appears in the second edition of Angolia and I actually have one in my collection. This is a total fantasy buckle and which was especially commissioned by a Netherlands based dealer in the 1960's or 1970's. We must be very careful in my opinion not to embrace the hypnotic mantra of "...it is in the book and therefore it must be original...".
I really do not wish to repeat what has already been said before and especially that stated by Wilhelm.
The leather tongue is what I consider to be the largest flaw against any possibility of credibility. Prototype or not, a leather tongue whether it is brown, black or whatever colour you choose, does not make sense for this particular buckle. If there was ever a buckle where the post 1945 adding of a leather tongue would have the opposite to the desired effect, then it would be the DAF-Werkschar.
I am sticking my neck out here, however I have never seen a mint brown leather tongue by Overhoff as shown. An odd colour, an odd shallowness to the stamping and an odd positioning of the stamping. Added to that, I am not comfortable with regard to the leather tongue stitching and it looks suspiciously like "hand work".
Attached is an image of detail to a leather tongues which relates to an Overhoff issued RAD.
Reference has been made to a similar buckle that is shown in the second edition of the Angolia publication. It is a different buckle to the one which started this thread, although the similarities are startling. So, a few of what I think are really rudimentary questions. Would it be considered normal to submit multiples of what are essentially the same prototype? Why would Overhoff und Cie as a company who had a sharp commercial eye for detail and a lucrative relationship with the RZM, "bolt on" a completely non simpatico and dare I say, non RZM authorised leather tongue? Why do we have a puzzling difference between the 2 labels now documented, insofar as one clearly shows Overhoff and one does not? A further puzzling difference is that the hand written annotations on the 2 labels appear to be exactly the same and in every respect. Finally, why do we have the example shown in the second edition of Angolia complete with a standard and clearly undersized and possibly not fit for purpose, nickle silver (?) catch?
As far as the label and the wax seal is concerned, what is it? Is it supposed to be that associated to an internal catalogue cum identification system? Is it supposed to be an official submission to the RZM? I just do not know as I have never seen anything like this before. I wonder if it has been assembled to suggest an RZM "Probe" (example)?
Again, I do not feel at all comfortable with this buckle and the accessories.
Regards and best wishes,
One cannot simply label the buckle that started this thread as a “prototype”. Not all the more while the pattern for this buckle already was sanctioned and introduced in 1935. The label shows the date for January 1936.
With pleasure I repeat (and for those that do understand something about uniform-regulations this must say enough): Order 32/35 from August 8, 1935 (published in the "Amtliches Nachrichtenblatt der DAF" from August 24, 1935) noted Dr. Ley had agreed the uniform for the Werkscharen der Deutsche Arbeitsfront. Amongst them was a black leather belt with the so-called Arbeitsfrontschloss. Not in the order mentioned items were not allowed to be used or worn. July 6, 1935 in the "Mitteilungsblatt der Reichszeugmeisterei" (Nr. 20, page 204) it was noted: the accepted uniform for the Werkscharen will not be introduced yet. Offers made were not valid!! After the publication from August 24, 1935 a new announcement was made August 31, 1935 in the "Mitteilungsblatt der RZM": In accordance with Hitler's deputy it is announced the uniform for the Werkscharen is valid and includes a black leather belt with Arbeitsfrontschloss. Items fall under the controll for the Reichszeugmeisterei (RZM) and should be marked like that properly! Drawings and descriptions for the uniform were published simultaneously on pages 242 and 246 (the black belt). A drawing from the buckle appeared in issue 25 from September 14, 1935 (page 259).
A tab, Lederlasche, would not be appropriate as this Werkschar-uniform was not worn within companies or concerns, but merely with special occasions as parades, official meetings and when the employees were to be uniformed. So, the Werkschar-uniform was NOT a Dienstuniform. With such a service-uniform a buckle can have a tag (one was not bound to): the buckle is then known as Leibriemenschloss für Dienstkoppel (also known as Behördenausführung). As such Overhoff phrased such a buckle in their leaflets. The use of a tab was not ever mentioned in official regulations and documents for a direct political organization (so, not for the political leaders from the NSDAP, SA, SS, NSKK, HJ/DJ, NSBO, DAF). The Reichsarbeitsdienst is different as this is a so-called sub-political organization (Untergliederung der NSDAP).
About the shown buckle and what is possible:
maybe it was intended to request for sanctioning of the new form of catch and immediately asking for adding an eventual tab. The source for this request was the RZM, as they were the official authority. It is possible the company may not have known about the Dienstuniform or the differences in uniforms. But could this type of catch hold a weight of 80.0 kg?
For many reasons the shown buckle is not a prototype and not meant for the RZM (the concern possibly would have lost its permission when handing over such a “thing” with so many mistakes):
1) Why a light-brown tab when the Werkschar-organization did wear through all the years black leather gear;
2) Why a tab to a buckle for an organization that never had tabs to a buckle anyway (manufacturing-regulations from the RZM never mention this);
3) Why no RZM M4-code for a buckle (RZM M4/27) visible upon the catch or elsewhere, apparently so important!!;
4) Why such a crude plate to hold the catch for a buckle “so important”. Look at the scratches. The plate not even is straight and crudely sawn off (look at the reverse where the cogwheel and swastika is visible). Totally unacceptable;
5) Why a brand new tag with a brand new piece of rope to a paper label, which looks old with faded writing and faded stamp;
6) Why no name for the company and why such a poor label (in contrary to the new rope);
7) Why not adding the proper L-code (L2 or L4) in the tab when one requested for an allowance?
If it was not a request to the RZM, was it possibly a request for a Gebrauchsmuster, due to the new type of catch? I am not aware this is possible for a political organization, but let’s say it is possible, then a request for a Gebrauchsmuster normally is a blank form, which should include in-depth drawings for what the request included. Such a request further included a masthead, the number of the request and class, date of request, the concern that asked for the request and what was the request about. In the so-called Schutzanspruch (request for the patent) in-depth it was written down what was asked for. As far as known no actual item was included, but it is possible of course!
These are just my thoughts. One can accept it or not (and learn from it). One can further continue to discuss, but then come with good arguments. I largely do agree with post 32 from David. For me there is no (good) reason for this buckle with tab! I will not further take part in an eventual discussion as this is a pure waste of time!
"Wir sollen auch unser Leben für die Brüder lassen" (1.Joh.3.16):
zum Gedächtnis Wilhelm Schenk. Er starb fürs Vaterland am 13. Juni 1916
Ok guys, I think we can all agree that in a situation like this, where we have what could be a rare original piece, we have to tread very carefully as to not discredit the piece based on speculation. Wilhelm has made some great points regarding the leather tab, and I personally appreciate him laying out the facts regarding regulation uniform wear as he knows them, but those points are STILL only speculation in this particular case because this piece was obviously not intended to be worn on a uniform as-is. It is CLEARLY a prototype / salesman sample... whatever label you want to put on it.
I would like to state a couple of, what I think are fairly obvious points that need to be made, and are probably the final points I'll make because I have to get some work done ...
- If someone were going to fake a prototype buckle, why do it with a DAF buckle? Why not an SS buckle or a Heer buckle to really drive home the profits? It doesn't make sense to try and deceive someone using a DAF buckle!
- If someone were going to fake a DAF buckle, why go through the trouble and expense of adding a leather tab, and the wrong color tab at that? It's not like you can just snap one on, it takes time and skill!
- If someone were going to fake ANY prototype buckle, why not make it even more convincing by smoothing out that catch so it doesn't look so unprofessional and scratchy? I mean, if you have the means to stamp the entire buckle anyway (which is evident in this example since the catch is folded over), why not make it absolutely perfect? As a side note, the rough, scratchy look of the catch is likely from the worker having to apply pressure with a tool repeatedly to the metal catch in order to get it to fit the contours of the inside of the buckle. Since this is a prototype, they didn't yet have a machine set up to shape it smoothly, it had to be done by hand. You have to understand how making a prototype works in order to speak intelligently about this.
- Is it too difficult to believe that perhaps the "powers that be" requested samples of not only the new catch, but 2-3 versions with different color leather tabs because at the time they were considering adding a tab, and simply wanted to see how the buckle would look with the different colors? Again, uniform regulations would likely have been MUCH more flexible with a prototype because it was not meant to be worn as-is.
I'll likely not spend much more time defending this piece. Unfortunately I need to move on I'm confident that what I have is indeed authentic and thank those who have reached out offline with samples of similar pieces in support of the piece. Again, I really do appreciate the back and forth discussion. One should not take something like this at face value, but analyze the different possibilities, which I believe we've done here.
Similar to Wilhelm and yourself, time to move on. Again and in my opinion, this assembly is completely bogus and a fraud. If other collectors and yourself are happy with this item, then so be it. I have always been an advocate of collecting with the heart, rather than the head. For the future, if on the unlikely chance that this item is unequivocally proven to be original, I will make an open and self flagellating apology to you on the forum and also, arrange a donation to a children's charity of your choice.