Highly Suspect "painted" SA Buckles

[David North]

Thankyou for your opinion Bill and which is always valued and appreciated. Perhaps I need to undertake a little more research on these two buckles before I unequivocally dismiss them as fakes.

Regards,

David

[aechols83]

Hi, guys. A most interesting discussion of two confusing and suspicious SA's.
As I said before, I think there is a fair chance that both could be original buckles at base, however very "dressed-up" or "messed with" as Bill stated.
Upon a third look, however, I wonder if we are not (again, at base level) dealing with one fake buckle (the first) and one original buckle (the 2nd).
In regards to the first buckle, the "fat" section of wreath is still suspect to me and I don't like that there isn't finer detail on the eagle's breast as seen on the 2nd buckle. The point that Bill makes about the soldering points and paint is a good one, but perhaps the box and roundel were painted separately and then soldered together? Also, does the solder look very new to anyone else?
With regard to the 2nd buckle, I would be willing to venture that it's an original buckle at base, albeit having been seriously "messed with" and "dressed-up" at some point. Who knows for sure when this was done or for what purpose and perhaps it's impossible to know without being a koppelschloss psychic! The waffenamt stamp does seem to me to suspiciously suggest someone trying to "legitimize" or dress-up the buckle for sale to an unsuspecting buyer.
Perhaps we will never know for sure, but as I'm a bit of a "need to know" obsessive, it's my hope that more shall be revealed

Best,
Adam

[aechols83]

I'm still very curious about these two buckles! Though not forgotten, of course, does the lack of responses means we've hit a dead-end? If anyone has any further thoughts or info on these I for one would be quite interested.

Best,
Adam

[Hansi]

Hi David... although still a novice with a lot to learn, and at the risk of sounding like a complete idiot, may I just point out something that leaps out of the photos and seems odd to me? I don't know if it's just photographic distortion or not but... if you look at the left and right edges of buckle 2 they appear to be curving inwards, then compare the edges of buckle 1 and, just like every other photo of buckles that you see, they are completely straight. It doesn't look like normal photographic distortion because all other straight edges in that photo have remained straight... so I would be interested to know if this is just an optical illusion after all or if the buckle does actually have curved ends... which, needless to say, would be a sure sign that something's not quite right! Cheers... Hansi

[David North]

Adam and Hansi

I had up until now regarded this thread discussion as over, however I am more than happy in attempting like you both, to breath some more life into it.

I have attached some images and some comparative images of "traditional" SA's that are jolly similar to the so called highly suspect "painted" SA buckles.

No. 1
Appears to be the same roundel design if you allow a little latitude for wear. I think we have exactly the same box. Could the painted example be a period refurbished item ? Could however the painted example be a recent attempt to upgrade an otherwise traditional and standard SA ?

No. 2
Appears to be the same roundel design if again, you allow a little latitude for wear. I think we have exactly the same box, albeit a different type of brazed on catch.

Look forward to any further comments.

Regards,

David

[David North]

2

[aechols83]

Could the painted example be a period refurbished item ? Could however the painted example be a recent attempt to upgrade an otherwise traditional and standard SA?

Thanks for the reply, David and for posting these extremely similar comparative examples. I find this to be a most interesting thread so I'm glad it's being revived for the moment.

With regard to these quoted considerations, it seems they're both highly plausible. In my view, the latter consideration could certainly apply to both buckles and the waffenamt on one-piece certainly makes this all the more plausible for the 2nd buckle. I still feel pretty comfortable in thinking at the silver-painted buckle is original at base and, excluding the catch, I think it most closely resembles it's counter-example that you provided.

Anyways, I'm curious to see where this goes and if anyone else will comment. Again, a most interesting discussion!

Best to all,
Adam

[Buckle1]

David,Adam, et al,

OK here is my read on this thread and to continue from my previous response.
Both of these buckles are highly suspect the nickel one is the most disturbing to me. Hee are my feeling: buckle #1 painted brass. The fact that the two solder points are not painted and that if the rondel was added after painting why is there no blisterig or discolration of the paint around the solder points?? all the painted two piece buckles I have seen have the entire back of the bucjkle painted. This often includes the prong bar but not wlawyas which would mean that it was added after painting. Buckle #2. This buckle really bothers me. First the miltary was not involved, as far as I know with the SA. So why would the buckle be marked w/aWaA mark and an ink stamping at that? Secondly the overall condition of the buckle body is in excellent condition. The prong bar looks like it was in the ground for years. The two conditions do not match up. Thirdly the catch also bothers me, just as the type of catch it is, but also because it is like new condition. Therse are my concerns which I am sure can be disected as too why mine are incorrect. My philosophy in this hobby has always been-if it looks to good to be true it most likely is not. If more than one red flag is raised about an item, be it a buckle, dagger, badge, etc. I will pass on it. There is only one flag on the first buckle so who knows for sure. Me I would not touch it for the reasons I stated. The nickel buckle-three + flags. I definitely would pass on this one. So there it is. I am certainly open for further discussion and I hope I have not offended anyone with my comments.

Regards to all,

Bill

[David North]

Dear Adam and Bill

Bill, in relation to your last response "...I am certainly open for further discussion and I hope I have not offended anyone with my comments..." - certainly not and you and I have known each other too long for that sort of "other forum" nonsense!

I accept everything that has been said by all and of course, a gentle reminder that I started this thread under the banner of "Highly Suspect" and that is exactly what these buckle are. No more and no less for the moment at least.

I can really add nothing more and I may perhaps be on the verge of " the Lady doth protest too much, methinks" syndrome. These two buckles will remain in my collection with the stigma of Highly Suspect, however why for the life of us do we not see more of them within the collectors market if they are either fake or, original and tampered with?

Regards,

David