Regards ,
Markus
I'm searching for
Buckles 3.Reich
special SA/NSKK/NSFK with maker marks
Link to my collection : http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/album.php?albumid=1175
I will post pics of my marking on wednesday when I am home.. the marking does not raise any red flags for me at all.. the catch on both mine and yours definitely makes me look 3x ...
Good evening gentlemen
first look at both buckles I don´t like them! Cannot say why, they look strange...!
Gruß Max
Stamp doesn´t matter, all parts of the buckle were not fitted together at the same time. And a two piece DJ...I don´t like it! It must be die struck!
Life could be so easy if I could write in German...
Gruß Max
In my opinion, it is quite common to see early DJ buckles with "non standard" Sig runes, as a two piece construction. I have never before seen a "standard" and "high profile" Sig rune displayed as a two piece construction on a DJ buckle. This does not mean that they never existed of course, although it must have been very difficult and time consuming to position and solder spot in place this emblem which did not lie flush with the obverse of the buckle.
Attached are images of a two piece DJ buckle by C. Meinel und W. Scholer, Klingenthal (possibly) and the almost standard shape and clearly thin profile Sig rune marries directly to the buckle face.
Regards,
David
2
3
Very nice buckle David and thanks for showing it to us, with that I wonder why alot of the early buckle maker we see with the RZM codes and UE codes never applied for a M4 code? I suppose they branched off and specialised in clothing, daggers etc. If that was the case I wonder if these early makers bought in buckles from the larger buckle suppliers rather than waste money on expensive machinery to produce buckles!
Ben
Dear Ben
Thankyou for your response, however I do not wish to hijack this potentially very interesting thread with another DJ. You know as well as I do that the first series RZM numbers correlating with the RZM M1 makers is on occasions simply wrong and instead, this methodology should only be used as a first guide. The question I ask myself though is who on earth is C. Meinel und W. Scholer? Could it be the same company under RZM M4/6 as C und W Meindel–Scholer? Meinel or Meindel? Do we know of any other buckles by this maker or alternatively a maker with a permutation of the name or names? Perhaps not a name that trips off the buckle collectors tongue and I would not be at all surprised if RZM 40 represented a totally different manufacturer. Makers registered with the RZM on occasions allowed their licence to lapse and as such, produced within a set period, rather than from start to finish as they say and also, makers on occasions had their license revoked by the RZM. A large number of buckle manufacturers though did indeed buy in (from others) buckle component parts and were essentially assemblers and finishers, although it was still their final product and which could be marked as such if the buckle was under the auspice of the RZM and was conforming to the RZM regulations. I suspect that the early period of RZM control and markings was a chaotic (which markings to be used), misunderstood (innocent mistakes) and worrying (potential revocation of license) period for many buckle manufacturers.
Regards,
David
according to the RZM handbook from 1935 M4/6 was noted to be C. Meinel & W. Scholer,
Zwoater Strasse 9 at Klingenthal in Sachsen. They were noted in the Herstellungsvorschriften
from the RZM in 1938 as C. u. W. Meinel-Scholer at the same address with M4. With M1/40
the same concern is meant.
RZM 40 (Uniform-Effekten) was in my opinion used by Willy Thuy, as the number used with the later M5 code, which was done by many other concerns due to the manufacturing of belt fittings. But as a buckle manufacturer M4/50 Thuy already had lost its permission with the date December 10, 1935. They never were returned their M4-number to manufacturer buckles for the political
organization. They also lost their number 40 in the section M5.
Similar Threads
Bookmarks