Hitler Youth buckle marked RZM "3"

And how seriously did any maker take the March 1935 new prefixes? Well below is a letterhead from P&C, from 1941, clearly showing at the bottom, the OLD MA/UE and KH codes they had, that should have been "abolished" SIX YEARS AGO!

http://www.hj-research.com/forum/f91/paulmann-und-crone-letterhead-7715/

Chad, i explained this to you in a mail, and i cant continue on this thread anymore about it.. the question is just too vast to be addressed on a forum. I didn't just fill over 100 pages with the same word over and over about this in the PB book, it took so many pages because it is a complicated question that you can only answer with A LOT of research, a lot of period material and a lot of footwork. If you are just going to rely on the opinions of a collector or two to reach the answer on this, or what you think you are seeing, or think you know, you will end up on the wrong side of the moon.
 
Jo-
thank you for your response it is very informative, I do accept and agree that it would be too large an undertaking to outline the RZM and their lineage here.
I would like you to address one thing though:
how can the early codes have nothing to with the M1/ codes if over and over again the makers match on both systems?

thank you
Chad
 
how can the early codes have nothing to with the M1/ codes if over and over again the makers match on both systems?

Chad, maybe you are not following. The early codes, are THE CODES. only the prefix changed from March 35 on. What i mean is that uniform effects, badges, clothes, buckles, ALL had their own code. When the prefix changed, the code stayed the same.

What i am saying, is that there were always separate codes for items, and that buckles were NEVER EVER, to be marked with the M1/ code. (or M9/ or M12...) Did it happen? Yes mistakes did happen, and during a period of 24 months the prefix and laws changed more than once... makers did get confused as to how to mark items. And the most important issue still needs to be taken into account, the sub-contractors, and how they marked the items they were making. It is not just possible that we may find the same item, marked with 10 different makers names and RZM numbers, yet all items made under the same die, by the same sub-contractor. It is proven in the PB book, and as far as i am aware, it is the first time ever that this issue has even been addressed in a reference book correctly, or at all!

There may even be a genuine buckle out there marked HEIL-HITLER-MY-DOG-IS-DEAD-RZM-SS-WEWELSBURG-ÜBER-ALLES but that does not mean that that slogan has anything to do with the prefix KH or M4/.
The MA/ & M1/ prefixes, have nothing to do with belt buckles. If you have an example of it on a buckle you think is genuine, then it is there by mistake, either by the maker who was unsure, or did not care, or by the sub-contractor. It is certainly not there because it had to be there.
 
Jo
thank you, I was mistaking your meaning in the previous posts. I understand your and agree that buckles were not to be marked M1 and that if it ever was ( I am not aware of any) that it was a mistake by the maker.
as a buckle collector the M1 code system is only used as a tool to cross reference manufacturer identifications as the original codes match in most cases (pertaining to buckle manufacturers)
this is where my confusion was; I thought you were stating that the codes did not cross to the same manufacturers. my misunderstanding of your posts.
thank you for clarifying for me, I am a little slow some times :h
 
Jo- I tried sending this message to you as a PM but it stated your box is full-
jo thank you for continuing the rzm discussion on the RZM 3 thread. I was mis understanding your post and fully agree that M1/ was not intended and should have never been marked upon a buckle.
I have some very interesting buckles which are marked by multiple makers on a single buckle. These may be of interest to your personal inquiries into the RZM or answer possible sub contractor questions- some of which I have always wondered about!.
I think there is much to learn about our particular interests (my buckles and your PB's) by looking at other collecting fields within our hobby.
I also have an original copy of an RZM publication - i believe it is 1936 and will be happy to share that with you if it is of interest.
thanks again, and I hope to talk soon
Chad
 
Wilhelm, hello, its funny that you tried me ! I tried you this morning as well and it said your box is full too.
I think that maybe the website is having a problem as we can not all have full boxes!!
I have emailed you a note Wilhelm
thanks
Chad
 
The number 1 for the advertisement from Kallenbach stands for MA 1 (Metall-Abzeichen);
KH 3 of course was the later M4 (Koppelschlösser). It is the question if Kallenbach marked
first the buckles with 1 (which officially would not be correct), as the advertisement suggests!
Is possible.

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


Here an early and later letterhead from Overhoff.

The concern Gebr. Hahne WW. from Lüdenscheid advertised with nr. 12, showing buckles and double-claws
on one page.
The 12 was for MA (the later M1), the buckles would have been KH and the claws as UE respectively
being M4/32 and M5/21.
 

Attachments

    You don't have permission to view attachments.
Last edited:
I thought you were stating that the codes did not cross to the same manufacturers.
Chad i know, it is a very interesting period which is not fully understood. Many strange items with weird markings are known from this time, especially when both the old KH merged into the new M4/ system.
It is not even possible to use certain dates even when we know them, as a definite indication of that time period, as it would have taken all makers of many items a long time to change from one system to the next.

On paper it would be quick with RZM pre-set labels issued by one source, but when the RZM logo and number had to be physically engraved onto a die, by hundreds of makers, it would have taken longer. Many other reasons as well.
 
The number 1 for the advertisement from Kallenbach stands for MA 1 (Metall-Abzeichen);
KH 3 of course was the later M4 (Koppelschlösser). It is the question if Kallenbach marked
first the buckles with 1 (which officially would not be correct), as the advertisement suggests!
Is possible.
Wim, i am sure that it could be possible. Many of these mix-ups surely occurred. Even a few years after this advert the new M4/ system was also not so quick to be correctly applied by all i am sure as well. We were talking about this issue on a thread here a few months ago, with a nice original buckle stamped M5/ something..... which although would also not be correct according to the RZM regulations, it must have happened because the buckle is original. I will try and find that thread

I found it: http://www.hj-research.com/forum/f8/m5-276-hj-buckle-genuine-not-7894/
 
Jo- I will dig in my collection tonight, I have a few of the M5/276 buckles which are different variations. I have one which is marked M5/275 in mint unused condition which has its original RZM paper tag affixed which is ink stamped M4/115 for the same and correct maker Klein & Quenzer.
I think these buckles are original and this is definitely a case of the maker mis marking the buckles with the wrong prefix. I will be happy to post my buckles in the thread you spoke of if you think it will be helpful to that discussion
 
A very interesting and useful discussion. Thanks guys.




The PM system is working normally by the way so if anyone is getting an error it means that the recipient's inbox is actually full. Sent and received PMs count towards your total of stored messages so you may need to delete some to make space.

Go to http://www.hj-research.com/forum/usercp.php and then click on "Inbox". Scroll to the bottom of that page and you'll see your PM usage:

Inbox contains xx messages. You have xx messages stored, of a total xx allowed

Below that line you have the option to delete or download your PMs
 
A very interesting and useful discussion. Thanks guys.




The PM system is working normally by the way so if anyone is getting an error it means that the recipient's inbox is actually full.....
I really do believe that the yearly membership fee we pay, should include a pm box maintenance service, or at least a virtual cleaning lady.
 
Back
Top