ss stu.gesch.ausb.u.ers.abt. erkennungsmarke original

[Forebyggende]

it is an original ?

[byBen]

This tag was discussed on a german forum / Facebook before, the opinions are Split on it some say its real and for some its a Fake... In doubt i would stay away.

To me this tag is 50/50 i wouldnt be surprised either or... Also most known tags like that are on steel blanks making it hard to judge a Zink one like that, as the difference could partially be due to material. And even the accepted Originals show differences from each other

- Ben

[Forebyggende]

thanks for the precise answer. there are some opinions for this tag. just as an example, i have another stu-picture with a very low number.

[BlackCat1982]

Its not the type if ekm that I personally collect, but if the runes are the same as #3 then I would doubt it was produced before 1945.

[hardy hard]

It's difficult to say 100%, but it is possible that it is original. It was discussed years ago. It's a rarer example in zinc. My opinion OK.

[Prinz]

A kind of tag that, whenever I see it, makes me in difficult...the runes and in general the engrave appear similar to the Konitz erkennungsmarken..similar but not the same..at least I agree with BlackCat...

[Forebyggende]

thanks for your reply.

[Austrian]

I personally think that it is an improperly cleaned original.
Without holding it in the hands it is hardly possible to judge for sure.

No. 57 is funny, because no. 45 is stainless steel.
Mixed blanks at such low numbers and small ranges are unusual.
Especially in this case where the unit was pre-stamped.