SS Original ?

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

the remarkable similarity between the SS 57 and the SS 63

RZM 57 and RZM 63 buckles are even more than similar since they are the exact same buckles! RZM 63 SS marked buckles are no more no less former RZM 57 buckles having their previous RZM 57 + SS marking been removed and replaced by a new RZM 63 SS

[David North]

Hello Jean-Pierre

Yes of course - exact !

Here is the "other" buckle that you and with others have talked about in the past. A nickle silver DAF which displays a 57/63 type of box and pin shroud/claw arrangement, complete with what appears to be a hand stamped mark of Martin Winter.

Regards,

David

[David North]

Reverse

[Davidh]

wow guys thanks for showing these crackers rgds Dave

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

A nickle silver DAF which displays a 57/63 type of box and pin shroud/claw arrangement, complete with what appears to be a hand stamped mark of Martin Winter

Very, very nice and interesting! Thanks for posting again this one since I do not remember having seen it before
Super!

[Ben Evans]

Reverse

Wow David, that is a first for me and what a rare buckle!!!! Any idea of the time period here? Probably one of the earliest DAF buckles I have seen!

[David North]

Ben

Although in theory the DAF-Werkschar was supposed to be one of the most stringently "RZM controlled" buckles, there are well documented "rogue elements" within the family. In theory, any buckle other than those made in aluminium were prohibited and yet we know of nickle silver and steel original examples. Add to this of course the pebbled DAF-Werkschar (or whatever it should be called) manufactured by at least two companies.

As a wild guess, I would say that the Martin Winter nickle silver DAF-Werkschar was manufactured by goodness knows who in 1935.

Regards,

David

[shinyemon]

Thanks, chaps!
I have the 57 type and always wondered who made it. It was one of the first buckles I bought way back in the mid-70s for CAD 50! (rubs hands in greedy fashion whilst cackling maniacally; no smiley for this one yet)

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

Thanks, chaps!
I have the 57 type and always wondered who made it. It was one of the first buckles I bought way back in the mid-70s for CAD 50! (rubs hands in greedy fashion whilst cackling maniacally; no smiley for this one yet)

If you are interested in the subject, here it is what I started to write in 2004 (last update been in 2006). When I will have a chance to access my latest text (some questions asked there found possible answers), I will post it as well.

"For many years we asked which factories were behind SS EM buckles marked RZM 57 SS and SS 63 RZM? In fact the point started as how to read RZM 57 SS and SS 63 RZM markings since both SS buckles have SS runes added to their respective RZM number. Should it be as any early RZM number (SS runes just added to such code to comply with new SS requirements)? In that case we could rely on the M1 list like we did with accuracy for many makers. RZM M1/57 could bring Martin Winter as maker of the RZM 57’s and RZM M1/63 could bring Steinhauer & Lück as maker of the RZM 63’s. But it could also have been early "RZM/SS" contract numbers. In this latest hypothesis we do not have a clue in the history of early RZM/SS contracts numbers (like for example how Overhoff ended with RZM/SS contract number 36 when his early RZM number was 24 – but 24 number kept as M1/24).

We already have evidence the Steinhauer & Lück firm did offered a SS EM buckle in their catalogue (Item K 8966) but unfortunately no physical evidence of such buckle. So SS 63 RZM marked buckles could perfectly be potential candidates if 63 was an early RZM number (M1/63 = S&L). But in that case we had to find a valid clue RZM 57 SS marked buckles were made by Martin Winter to follow the same path.

Another oddity is the fact both SS 63 RZM and RZM 57 SS buckles were made by the exact same firm for their vast majority. For someone having both 57 and 63 buckles in his hands it should be obvious they were stamped with the same die (same die flaw left on the swastika’s back) . So how could they bear different contract numbers leading to believe they were manufactured by two different factories?

In reference books, RZM 57’s buckles were known only under their latest marking: 57 RZM stamped by the catch and SS runes under the post sleeve assembly without any additional marking. This was very unfortunate since their earlier marking is the one which brought the clue to their maker. Few years ago I was able to obtain my first lead: a RZM 57 SS buckle with remains of an older marking! Under the classical RZM 57 was still clearly visible “GES. GESCH.M” and something else erased after the M. From that moment I was convinced finding the erased marking would lead to know who the maker of RZM 57 SS buckles was.
A large diffusion of this new buckle via the internet forums along with its publication in Peter Nash’s book brought many other examples to my attention. On their vast majority remained only "GES.GESCH." when on few others GES.GESCH.M was present. Any speculation was open, including the one brought by Peter Nash: he thought the missing part could be üK and so full prior marking been GES.GESCH.MüK with MüK denoting some kind of cooperative. Such idea could have explained why two different numbers were on a shared production. But it was just a question replaced by another. Finally after several months of investigations I received on my desk what I was looking for: a mint unissued RZM 57 SS with the full primary marking "GES.GESCH MW" left intact! So “W” was the missing part and not üK! As surprising it could be, this missing W was already clearly visible on my own photo sent to Mr.Nash! But to see it on that one, photo should be displayed in black and white like Mr.Nash did page 217 on top. I never paid attention to this feature until knowing what to look for! As an added note, I still do not know any GES.GESCH. MW not over stamped with RZM 57 SS.

Further observation of numerous 57’s and 63’s revealed something else: Most, to not say all, 63’s are in fact former 57’s which had their previous marking erased and replaced by SS 63 RZM. It is obvious when looking under the 63’s post sleeve assembly: anyone could notice remains of the former 57’s runes. On at least one 63 examined, the complete previous RZM 57 SS marking is still visible – faint but there. So in fact, for the majority of 63’s we are facing not a different buckle than the 57’s but rather a marking evolution of the same buckle. It became legitimate to believe that for most buckles their sequence in markings was: GES.GESCH.MW, then RZM 57 SS and lately SS 63 RZM. All on a single buckle.

In resume, former marking of the 57’s buckles been GES.GESCH.MW, there is strong possibility MW stands for Martin Winter. The M1 list also brings the name of Martin Winter as RZM M1/57 holder (so RZM 57 holder). So it could be perfectly legitimate to believe Martin Winter was the right maker behind RZM 57 buckles - SS runes probably added to earlier RZM codification to comply with equivalently earlier SS regulations.

Still remains the question why buckles supposedly made by Martin Winter ended with a 63 number? Is this 63 number rightfully in direct connection with a Steinhauer & Lück production? Could Martin Winter have been from the start a S&L sale outlet of for Munich, cradle of the NSDAP and RZM? Could Steinhauer & Lück have purchased remaining SS inventory from Martin Winter at a later time? Last, but not least, could 63 been a RZM/SS contract number assigned to Martin Winter and not an earlier RZM number? Still many questions to answer ….

At least one thing remains certain: several metallic SS items (not only buckles), marked by the above firms or marked with the above markings, are also sharing the exact same dies.

Copyright JP Redeuilh @ 2004
Copyright JP Redeuilh @ 2005
Copyright JP Redeuilh @ 2006 "

[David North]

Many of us are very interested in the subject Jean-Pierre and thankyou for posting your remarkably detailed, informed and highly researched findings.

We all look forward to more SS related contributions from yourself.

Just one small and possibly irritating question though. Does anyone have clear evidence to support that Martin Winter was actually a manufacturer per se ? Ignoring the "markings", did Winter physically produce or instead, was the company merely a distributor and sales outlet ?

Regards,

David