Hitler Youth buckle marked RZM "3"

Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
13
Thanks Received
0
Hello guys

I just bought this nice HJ buckle, have you ever seen this mark ?

Thanks

Best regards

Eric

You don't have permission to view attachments.
You don't have permission to view attachments.
You don't have permission to view attachments.
 

Attachments

    You don't have permission to view attachments.
Hi Eric,

My understanding is that this is an early buckle (1934) by the maker Max Kremhelmer. The buckle guys say that the maker after "RZM" (in this case "3") on these early buckles corresponds to the M1 licence holder. That would make this a Kremhelmer buckle but buckles came under the heading M4 and M4/3 was a different maker (Kallenbach, Meyer u. Franke) and Kremhelmer doesn't appear as a maker in the M4 list.

Does anyone have any more info on this?
 
The buckle guys say that the maker after "RZM" (in this case "3") on these early buckles corresponds to the M1 licence holder.
LOL, thanks mate, i needed cheering up today :001_cool: What a crock!
 
This does seem odd, Were the M codes not all introduced at the same time then?
 
We did see a buckle marked with the M5/ code instead of the M4/ as was required after March 1935, a human error? who knows, but for buckle guys (whoever these guys are) to assume that 99% of the time, transitional buckle makers marked their items with their M1/ code - in this case a pre-M1/ code because we are "supposedly" still in the transitional period here (1933-1935) shows a huge deficit of knowledge on their part.

The "transitional" codes, if you will, for buckles, would have been the prefix KH, each class of item had a code, from the first time that the RZM started with their prefixing ideas until their final M1/ prefix code.
Although as with most "transitional" products, the actual old prefixes were not used that much on the actual items. Sometimes you will find the old prefixes used on items, UE (Uniform fittings) is one that we see, but many licensed makers around this time just added the RZM logo, and their Berechtigungsscheinnummer as per requirements. Before the final prefixing system, there are countless mentions from the RZM to add the RZM logo, plus makers number on the product, but no direct mention that the old prefix (MA/UE/KH/ etc etc..) must also be added. On small badges that would later have been prefixed with M1/, we dont observe the old prefix MA/ and must assume that it was only used in paper form (as we find on correspondence from this period in both official announcements as well as private company letterheads)

To assume that the transitional code on belt buckles "could" be that of the later M1/ number, is an assumption that is just silly, and to claim that 99% of the time this was the case, demonstrates ignorance par excellence.
 
Here is the old and new M4/3 number from the 1935 RZM Handbuch, in the advert showing their old Buckle number KH3, and in the list of all makers at that time, showing the new prefix M4/3.
Without a doubt the numbers like this found on buckles have absolutely zero in common with a Metallabzeichen number (either MA or M1/)
So the maker of this buckle was Kallenbach, Meyer und Franke. (the proper full name, not as most post war M-lists show, only - Meyer & Franke)
You don't have permission to view attachments.
You don't have permission to view attachments.
 

Attachments

    You don't have permission to view attachments.
Here is the old and new M4/3 number from the 1935 RZM Handbuch, in the advert showing their old Buckle number KH3, and in the list of all makers at that time, showing the new prefix M4/3.
Without a doubt the numbers like this found on buckles have absolutely zero in common with a Metallabzeichen number (either MA or M1/)
So the maker of this buckle was Kallenbach, Meyer und Franke. (the proper full name, not as most post war M-lists show, only - Meyer & Franke)
You don't have permission to view attachments.
You don't have permission to view attachments.


Jo- thank you for posting that great advert! this shows how many RZM license numbers a single company could have; the time of the advert it was a transition in the numbering systems as the advert still shows the KH3 code ( which would later be changed to M4/3 and KH no longer used as a marking system) I am surprised that you would say that the numbers found on buckles would have nothing to do with MA or M1/ codes ( did I misunderstand this?). If you were to look at early solid nickel HJ buckles which are maker marked; many will have an RZM number ie. RZM 1, RZM 17, RZM 36, RZM 24, ect ect. These all are M1/ codes - M1/17- Assmann, M1/36- Berg & Nolte, M1/24- Overhoff ect ect. There are a few exceptions to this and these were due (in my humble opinion) to manufacturer error - like RZM 72 (which is actually Paul Cramer M5/72 ) We can prove this by comparing earlier unmarked, early marked, transitional marked and later marked buckles and showing all the manufacturing traits and designs of a particular manufacturer (such as Assmann, I have around 50 Assmann HJ and DJ buckles in my collection, every one different in maker mark or material, but all having the same design, and traits that make it Assmann specific)
There were many changing orders from the RZM that happened in the early years and some of the manufacturers were either confused, made mistakes and or just didnt care and did what they wanted.
there is a lineage of markings that we can see through HJ buckles
1. Unmarked- RZM not in control
2. company logos - RZM not in control
3. company logo with RZM number (Overhoff & Cie. RZM 24 ) -----M1/ code system
4. RZM number by itself- M1/code system (RZM tells manufacturers to stop putting company names and logos on with RZM protection mark)
5. RZM with transitional code UE,KH and MA (some manufacturers still put company name and logo at this time against rule)
6. RZM M4/ code system

RZM 1 = M1/1 ****(Kallenbach Meyer & Franke same as your advert- I hold this buckle in my collection in both HJ and DJ)
RZM UE8 = M5/8
RZM KH24 = M4/24
RZM MA45 = M1/45
 
a quick note- MA codes are known on youth buckles; I have both an HJ and DJ marked "MA 45 RZM" (Maker is M1/45 Freidrich Linden)
I believe Angolia mentioned another MA marked buckle in his book, but if my memory serves me it was in the listing in the back and not pictured.
 
I am surprised that you would say that the numbers found on buckles would have nothing to do with MA or M1/ codes ( did I misunderstand this?).
Chad, no you dint misunderstand me. Use the Kallenbach advert as an example, there you see the M1/ number in one of it`s old forms as MA/1, as well as the license number at that time to produce buckles, KH3.
Therefor if you found a buckle marked RZM 3, it would be the early RZM license number KH3, for buckles, not the small badge (insignia) RZM license number for M1/3.

The same goes for insignia, none of the RZM license numbers found on small badges are buckle license numbers.

KH and MA codes have nothing to do with each other, not under the first RZM prefixing/numbering system or the last M/ prefixing/numbering system.
 
I am surprised that you would say that the numbers found on buckles would have nothing to do with MA or M1/ codes

I have both an HJ and DJ marked "MA 45 RZM"
Chad, i am not saying that mistakes never happened, my next book is filled to the brim with them, What i am saying is what you correctly assumed i said, that codes on buckles have nothing to do with the MA/ codes at all. If a mistake did happen, then it happened, that still does not change the documented fact, that they were two separate codes, for separate items. KH and MA (or also just Nr.)
 
Jo-
I agree that many mistakes were made. I would love to expand on this discussion as I hope that I can learn more and hopefully get a new insight or perspective from you. I agree that the early marks on HJ buckles ie.. RZM 1 were not intended to be deciphered as MA-1 or M1/1 but as RZM 1 alone. It is my understanding that the first licenses to be given out by the RZM in 1934 were this first series (observed as RZM protection mark and a number ie..(RZM 1) . This code was not at this point the M1/ system but later became the M1/ code group when the RZM expanded the licenses into various metal code systems (M1/, M4/, M5/, M7, M9/, ect. I was told that this was due to the original numbering system not having enough numbers to cover the growing number of contractors wanting licenses.

It is my understanding that the KH, UE and MA transitional codes were used in the transitional time at the end of the first series and before the M*/ code system in an effort to diversify the code system into what was being produced-
UE= uniform effects
KH= belt buckles
MA= metal badges
in regards to buckles, it is super common to find a UE or KH mark in conjunction with a first series RZM mark on the same buckle, sometimes with the company name and logo as well! I love the buckles that have markings all over them.

It was my understanding that when the M*/ system was thought up; that the first series codes (ie..RZM 1) became the M1/ list. The UE , KH and MA codes were abolished from use and the rest of the M codes were allotted as licenses for various party products
M1- metal badges
M3- emblems
M4- buckles
M5- uniform accessories
M6- aluminum items
M7-daggers
ect
ect
 
It is my understanding that the first licenses to be given out by the RZM in 1934 were this first series (observed as RZM protection mark and a number ie..(RZM 1) . This code was not at this point the M1/ system but later became the M1/ code group when the RZM expanded the licenses into various metal code systems (M1/, M4/, M5/, M7, M9/, ect.
Hi Chad
I cant see where this info comes from, as by 1934 the RZM had 100`000 businesses already registered, and producing/selling NS-items in NS-controlled outlets.
The RZM also didnt "expand the licenses" from March 1935 onwards, they were always there, just with a different prefix.

It was my understanding that when the M*/ system was thought up; that the first series codes (ie..RZM 1) became the M1/ list. The UE , KH and MA codes were abolished from use and the rest of the M codes were allotted as licenses for various party products
Chad, this couldn't be further from the truth actually. Way to vast a subject to even touch on correctly on a thread. I did exactly this in The Party Badge book, and used 100 pages or more to explain the slow, and long merger from transitional markings to standard RZM markings, on one item. (In my case the MA/ and M1/ prefixes seeing as the book deals only with badges) Take into account the sub-contractors chapter, which with buckles you certainly have to, (just because it is marked M4/whoever, is no proof that M4/whoever actually made it) and you complicate it further. In short, the prefixes, although they were changed from March 1935 onward, took a very long time to implement, hence the items we find today with all manner of markings on them. There is a buckle on this forum i think marked M5/ something or other, and a good one too. I have small badges that should be marked M1/ and they are marked M9/ instead, or the other way around.

Small easy to understand human errors like UE or M5/ on an item that should be marked M4, or M9/ on an item that should be M1/, they did happen and they are very interesting too, but, when you see buckles with only the RZM logo and a number, that is certainly the KH number of the maker, just without the prefix. The same as we find on many items from this 1933-1935 period. It wont have anything to do with the MA/ or M1/ license number the same maker had. Here of course it could also be an error as well, we will never know. The logical explanation points away from any connection per say to the M1/ license number though - far away.
 
I would like to address the RZM first code vs M1/ code where it does not translate across...
I think that some errors could occur due to fact that there was time between the two code systems being implemented. During this time, some manufacturers could have lost their license and it was possibly reissued in number to a new maker. there are also the missing numbers..
RZM 33 is still to the best of my knowledge unknown in either code form RZM 33 ? or M1/33 ? I hold an HJ marked RZM 33 in my collection, and by design alone I can not figure out the maker.
I would appreciate your thoughts and look forward to keeping this discussion moving as I would love to know more and I think that many on the forum would be interested in this as well!
thank you
Chad
 
Jo-
after re reading this thread, I think I am understanding your statement now. I believe that you were stating that MA and M1/ codes are not buckle related and that the first series numbers as seen on buckles were not meant to be translated to them. This is a very true statement and I agree, I was at first mixed up in my own head as to what your meaning was. I was stuck on the fact that first series codes cross over to the M1 code list, and I thought that you were denying this.. sometimes I am a little slow at following along :h
I think it would be great to start a thread on the RZM and ask some of the other members to help contribute to it, it would be great to post the orders and dates of all the changes the rzm made especially int he early years. I think it would be a real asset to the forum. Will you help me with that?
thanks
Chad
 
it would be great to post the orders and dates of all the changes the rzm made especially int he early years. I think it would be a real asset to the forum. Will you help me with that?
Hi Chad
Yes a nice idea, but no i wont help you :lol:
The reason is simple. It sounds like a brief period, it sounds like it can be explained with one sentence. Indeed a few authors have waved over this period with a magic wand and covered it in one or a few sentences. Attributed definite dates as to when... this and that..... but it`s way more complicated than that.

The research for my book, especially the research needed to correctly attempt to cover this long and very complicated period, took many years. (and many pages) This question cannot be correctly answered by simply taking all the RZM announcements pertaining to the item into consideration, putting them onto one thread and pulling the "answer" out of a black hat. It is necessary to study the actual (same) items made before, during and after this period. The makers themselves, the sub-contractors and above all supply & demand for the item during each specific period, and understanding how sudden supply and demand relates to the transitional markings - or the marking used at the time of the increased orders. Knowing who made the items at each time, what the financial and social situation was at each time/period and how it would have effected the production, markings etc... knowing who was making dies for buckles, etc etc etc... the list of "things" to consider is long... very long.

I also cant take all my research on Nr/MA/M1 - Metallabzeichen (and Metallabzeichenhilfsfabriken) laws-announcements etc etc..and apply it 1-1 to KH/M4/ products, because it just wouldn't work - unfortunately.

The obvious reason of course is the amount of foot work needed in order to attempt to answer this question, which i know from experience is daunting.. and not a road i wish to go down again, especially not with an item (buckles) that i have no real interest in. I could help point you in the right direction and give you tips if you like for your book, but as to any real research, i have to leave that up to those those who are interested in answering this question.
 
Small easy to understand human errors like UE or M5/ on an item that should be marked M4, or M9/ on an item that should be M1/, they did happen and they are very interesting too, but, when you see buckles with only the RZM logo and a number, that is certainly the KH number of the maker, just without the prefix. The same as we find on many items from this 1933-1935 period. It wont have anything to do with the MA/ or M1/ license number the same maker had. Here of course it could also be an error as well, we will never know. The logical explanation points away from any connection per say to the M1/ license number though - far away.[/QUOTE]

Jo- the above quote is the part that I am either mis understanding, or dis agreeing with. Youth buckles which have the RZM protection mark and a number only. These numbers (codes) were given out before the M*/ code systems existed, and it is my understanding that at this point the RZM had not designated codes for the purpose to manufacture a specific item but as a license for the maker to produce party items in general; and that it was not till the M*/ code systems that codes were structured to be specific for a particular class or type of item. These early codes (ie.. RZM 17) do in most cases match up to the M1/ code system. I will try and cross check my collection data base and create a list that I can back up with pictures to show that these early codes are in fact the same makers
this is a short list off the top of my head
RZM 17 = M1/17 (F.W. Assmann & Sohn)
RZM 36 = M1/36 (Berg & Nolte)
RZM 24 = M1/24 ( Overhoff & Cie.)
RZM 50 = M1/50 (Richard Sieper & Sohn)
how can this be coincidence and not planned??

I have buckles which are marked with early code, KH code and maker name and or logo all on the same buckle
here is an example: RZM 78 KH 28 PuC
RZM 78 = M1/78 Paulman & Crone
KH 28 = M4/28 Paulman & Crone
PuC = Paulman & Crone
how can the early codes not have anything to do with M1/ codes if it matches over and over again?
 
Jo- the above quote is the part that I am either mis understanding, or dis agreeing with. Youth buckles which have the RZM protection mark and a number only. These numbers (codes) were given out before the M*/ code systems existed, and it is my understanding that at this point the RZM had not designated codes for the purpose to manufacture a specific item but as a license for the maker to produce party items in general;
Hi Chad
I dont know where you are getting your information from, but it is just plain wrong!
M/ codes were not "given out". The RZM changed the prefixing system for items from the middle of March 1935 onwards. Before this, the prefix for buckles was KH, the prefix for Uniform effects was UE, the prefix for small badges was MA.. and so on.... The M1/ or M2/,M3/mM4/ etc.. prefixing system was not a new system at all, it was merely a new prefix, that is all. Each item had it`s own prefix from the very first day the RZM issued licenses. A few exceptions are of course the code M9/ which came later, but apart from a few minor ones, each item always had it`s own code dating back from late 1933.

Even when there were no codes, the contracted makers for the RZM were told how to mark their items, either with the full name and ges.gesch..or or....

As far as "given out" goes, no codes were just given out. In March 1935 the RZM I N F O R M E D makers and sellers about the new prefix codes, thats all. Each maker/seller would need to have reapplied for, or extended his license and depending on when he did that, the new prefix would either be on it, or not. If a maker renewed his KH license in January 1935, he would have have a a number with the prefix KHxxx, if the same maker only renewed his KH license in June 1935, he would have received a new license with the same KH number, yet M4/ prefix instead of KH.

BUT, makers were only informed of this, and told that from now on their goods need to be marked with the new prefixes, thats all. How long it took to implement this system is a question that you can only answer by going down the long road of research.

Once more, Metallabzeichen codes, whether the old code Nr. or MA/ or M1/ have absolutely nothing, to do with buckles. Under the RZM, NO MAKER HAD THE LICENSE TO PRODUCE PARTY ITEMS IN GENERAL, NOBODY! period, full stop. There was no 1 license for general goods, each item needed a separate license, regardless of the maker.
 
Back
Top