Gents, just grouped them together for comparison
Gents, just grouped them together for comparison
Ben
Ben you should add the one from the original post
On itby Jean Pierre Redeuilh
Ben
Just looking at your set JP, theres seems to be differences between the one on the belt and the D ring, yet the markings on Lenny and Markus belts are very similiar.
Ben
On "my" set both 101/38 on belt and rings are fakes.
I am no longer at all comfortable saying Lenny is original. I am just waiting for more information on the exact provenance of Markus set before going further.
Here is my own belt with marking I thought could have maybe been from the same maker. As you can see this was a very very slim thought even if I can see more than any photo can take. But, once again, this started exclusively after Markus input stating the no-doubt provenance of his own set.
So, for the sake of future collectors buying any other belt with this 101/38 marking I would like to have Markus providing his own guarantee since a period applied marking could only be legitimated by what he is going to say. If not, I advise collectors to just assume it is a fake marking.
Wow, I'm away from the forum for a few weeks and...Thanks for posting pic Ben.
As I mentioned, I'm not too bothered if my belt is right or wrong, got a great deal on the buckle so the belt was free...
This is what needs to be confirmed
Today I was off so I took the time to do as Lenny did: Google RZM 101/38 SS. WOW, what the Google images section can bring! SS dagger loops, belt loops, SS leather belts, leather belts for HJ leaders, and even open claws SS belts!! All marked the same and all for sale at different places.
Please correct me if I am wrong: "Grenadier" wasn't mostly used in the Heer?
Similar Threads
Posting Permissions
.
Bookmarks