Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
  1. #11

    Please login to view user info
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    That's right Henrik. This is what raised the question I posed on another thread: was the regulation a reaction or a preventive measure? Did printeds exist and were banned or was the regulation designed to prevent them being made in the first place?

    I think my photo shows that they existed and were worn (not all agree which is fine) so for me it remains a catch-22. What came first? The printed armband or the regulation?
    The pins without full
    RZM
    code, i.e. circle and number only are thought to date to around late '34, early '35.

    If as Henrik says, the regs are dated 1936, that would fit nicely.

  2. #12

    Please login to view user info
    Just an opinion, but were there any regulations that said printed shoulder straps, printed DJ runes etc were banned? If not, and none of these are to be found, I would think the banning of printed and homemade armbands via regulation was written because they did exist, and were worn or encountered prior to 1936.

    Regards

    Russ

  3. #13
    That's certainly my thinking anyway Russ. Henrik's
    RZM
    regulation from 1936 would seem to lend useful weight.

  4. #14

    Please login to view user info
    It raises the disturbing possibility of things that are not generally acknowledged construction actually being real. How many oddities are there that are actually genuine items but get dismissed as fakes by collectors looking to be on the safe side?

  5. #15
    ^^ Nail - head - hit

  6. #16

    Please login to view user info
    Another printed armband, I purchased this from a local show from trustworthy dealer who I have other dealing with and he guaranteed it to be 100% original (or money back). While at the show I showed it to two other dealer and they both gave it a thumbs up.

    I know there is allot of debate on these, but here are some close up scans. What do you guys think?
    Attached Images Attached Images

  7. #17
    Printed armbands are mentioned before 1936 by the
    RZM
    and mentioned that they are prohibited, so a reaction i would guess to combat lower grade fakes being sold around the smaller towns and markets etc.. as was the case with many different articles, mentioned over and over in the early
    RZM
    papers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    That's certainly my thinking anyway Russ. Henrik's
    RZM
    regulation from 1936 would seem to lend useful weight.
    But that's not important, have a look what happens when i mouse over the word seam in post â„– 4.....
    Attached Images Attached Images

  8. #18
    :) I have
    SEAM
    set as an acronym. There's probably not going to be much call for it though so I'll take it out when I'm next in that section.

  9. #19
    Here is the first mention pertaining directly to HJ armbands (nov. 1934) ..that printed ones were not allowed. Although i know for certain that even early announcements said this before, but not directly mentioning the HJ armband though.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  10. #20

    Please login to view user info
    Here's an idea: could this be a pre-36 armband? Manufactured before the '36 rzm dated regs? I'm just wondering as the boy is wearing an
    SA
    belt buckle - not the HJ buckle that came out in '33.

    Rob

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

HJ-Research, the Hitler Youth Militaria Collector Forum
Copyright © HJ-Research.com 2009 -
Web Hosting by Vidahost "Hosting for Life"