Highly Suspect "painted" SA Buckles

**David North** · 08-12-2010, 07:14 AM

Attached are images of what I consider to be two highly suspect and still, very interesting SA buckles. There is the common feature of a painted obverse and also, both buckles are in extremely good condition and yet, have pin shrouds and claws which are not similarly so.

I am not at the moment immediately dismissing the buckles as post 1945, although they concern myself somewhat.

As always, comments would be most welcome.

Regards,

David

**Espenlaub Militaria** · 08-12-2010 07:14 AM

We also buy and trade your items and full collections!

**David North** · 08-12-2010, 07:15 AM

2

**David North** · 08-12-2010, 07:17 AM

3

**David North** · 08-12-2010, 07:19 AM

4

**lach470** · 08-12-2010, 02:36 PM

I've never seen a waffenamt stamp on a buckle before (second buckle, reverse)....interesting for sure - as you've mentioned. Come to think of it - I've not seen any painted SA's before either...they can't be that common....

Rob

**aechols83** · 08-13-2010, 10:35 AM

Very interesting buckles, David...thanks for sharing these photos.
You guys are the experts, of course, but here are a few observations of mine...

Buckle #1 would appear original-looking to me, although painted (a kind of gold spray?) to look in better condition. Who knows when it was painted, but my guess would be post-war. One last thought on this one is that the wreath looks disproportionately "fat" on the viewer's right. Perhaps this is normal and not reason for suspicion, I don't know...

Buckle #2 is even more confusing to me. It seems original at a base level but with many odd and suspect features. Firstly and as Rob said, I have never seen, albeit in my limited experience, a waffenamt on an SA buckle (or any buckle that I can recall actually) and can't say if it's even real or not. Please correct me as I'm not greatly educated in this, but waffenamts were acceptance marks of the armed forces as seen on bayonets, etc. and so I wouldn't think SA's would have been marked this way. Maybe I'm too suspicious, but perhaps someone added this to lend some kind of credibility to the buckle or as part of "dressing it up" (like possible post-war painting) when selling it off to an unsuspecting buyer?
Secondly it seems that the obverse is duller than the reverse which would appear to me as having a silver spray paint finish (?) Also is it possible that the catch is also painted and/or not original hardware? The claw and pin shroud being in poor condition would, in my mind, be on the side of evidence for this being an original buckle at base.

Anyways, just my novice thoughts to share on these two most interesting buckles.

Best,
Adam

**aechols83** · 08-13-2010, 11:25 AM

Thinking more, is it possible these could have been painted later for some kind of re-issue use?

**SteveR** · 08-14-2010, 01:02 AM

I think both are fake.
I have never ever seen a painted SA buckle and the stamp on the second is laughable. The rusted prongs are either faked rust or from a relic buckle. These are examples of not very bright fakers creating fantasy buckles.
Steve

**David North** · 08-16-2010, 05:36 PM

Dear Rob, Adam and Steve

As always, many thanks for your comments and my apologies for the slight delay in response.

Without showing my age, I have over the years handled many fake SA's, those as good, bad and indifferent. Sometimes I get it right and sometimes I get it wrong, although this brace of SA's has still left me wondering a tad. I really cannot be as dogmatic as you Steve by stating unequivocally that they are fakes. Having said that, I wish I could.

Perhaps I am right in thinking that although the SA is definitely one of the more common buckles still in circulation, remarkably in depth information is actually known about it as a genre. I cannot even and hand on heart confirm what year the SA box buckle was first worn and what year it was discontinued. Ideas yes, although substantiating evidence and documentation, no.

There are those who know that I specialise in SA's and in my collection are buckles which almost defy imagination. SA's made up from Imperial boxes/pin shrouds/ claws, those without ears to the box, those with steel backing plates to the box, those made from a composite zinc type metal, buckle with strange roundel affixing devices etc., etc.

In addition, there is the yet not fully explored feature of SA-NSKK School and Leadership buckles which are now in my opinion, well represented by SA design buckle in nickle silver or aluminium with a pebbled box. It is known that these buckles which are always erroneously referred to as NSFK or War Orphans, are documented as sometimes found with a painted finish to again, a nickle silver and/or aluminium box.

Back to the two buckles.

The feature of an inked and stamped on W A is absolute nonsense and this buckle was first seen at least 10 years ago. Putting this to one side, I wonder how many other forum members have seen either of these two buckles before, being sold either as original or fake? Exclusivity however does not dignify !

In my opinion the jury is still out, although I still feel somewhat uncomfortable in readily dismissing these two decidedly suspect buckles as fakes.

Regards,

David

**Buckle1** · 08-16-2010, 06:20 PM

David,

In my opinion I believe these buckles are both fake or at least seriosly messed with. The painted SA makes no sense and how could the buckle have been painted and left the solder points unpainted. . the nickel buckle is also bad for a number of reasons- the ink stamping, the rusted prong bar-does not match at all with the condition of the buckle and finally I am not sure about the catch either. Anyway as another member stated, bad buckles being made to be something else so they would sell.

Bill