Maybe after all you should read threads from stone ages since, at least, some provide valid data or, if you prefer evidence of what was stated / written. As far as I can read in your above post, there is nothing which could be used as an evidence. Even the maker of buckles marked RZM 57 SS been MW was not ascertain - he never been anyway as you were right to point. Indeed your conclusions are making sense but nothing could be called evidence. I was expecting you would have brought something new on the subject but unfortunately everything stated above is even older than my very first writing. So far there remains only two evidence:
1 - a SS buckle is showing in S&L catalogue (I agree with you it could be just because the company was reselling them and not manufacturing them) when we do not have one page of any MW catalogue 2 2 - All 57's and 63's SS buckles I was (and still am) able to handle / see are die struck with the exact same male die since it creates a particular detail (pictures were already posted)
What can lead to erroneous interpretation are:
1 - Prongs, catches, posts, post sleeves were sold in bulk to buckles makers by companies sometimes not even manufacturing buckles. So several smaller makers can have buckles with the exact same fittings. This increase likeliness but do not ascertain anything.
2 - Both 57 and 63 buckles are clearly bearing the additional SS which suggest they are conforming to latest SS regulations, not only RZM regulations like the other buckles you are referring to. We are talking about a whole different set of rules where the RZM was just in charge to supply what was requested by the SS authorities. But the RZM could no longer dictate any rule regarding production or what will be ordered then delivered. The SS were in charge for that with some of those specific request available in an October 1935 document (evidence).
3 - Your last conclusion is not a conclusion but it is just a possibility. Once again you are basing your call on your knowledge of the historical functioning of the RZM. But we do not have any record about Tss contacts numbers. Could even a maker receive two different numbers? As far as I know: no. Even in case of just death of the company owner, the continuing company had to ask for another number. So maybe MW's owner died?
So, in resume, I always agreed RZM 63 SS buckles were all most likely made by MW. But, once again, most likely. The same does apply to MW. Most likely it was Martin Winter. But your own suposition should be stated exactly as you just did: "So my personal opinion is, that the maker of all these 4 buckles is Martin Winter!" and not: "I think there is in the meantime an agreement that "RZM 63 SS" stands also for Martin Winter". And, BTW, the thread also states contract numbers.
11-25-2015 02:42 PM