M5/276 HJ buckle genuine or not?

Forums New posts
Wotan61

Wotan61

Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
9
Thanks Received
1
Location
Hampshire UK
Hello All,

I'm new to this forum and have recently sold all my 'Heer' collection so I can concentrate of collecting DJ/HJ and some SA items. I have recentley been offered a HJ belt buckle marked on the reverse side 'RZM M5/276' and would appreciate some expert feedback on it.

Regards
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.
also i am no expert ;) i looked at the buckle and commented before reading! the buckle is original, and this forum has some buckle pro's so wait for more opinions before you buy as this is a good practice to learn, get a few opinions before buying.

cheers,Ewan
 
Have no direct idea, about good or not.
I ask myself why it is not marked as M4, but as
M5/276 (Klein & Quenzer AG, Oberstein an der Nahe).
Maybe others have an opinion?
I know often things were done not according regulations
and it is possible we have here such an item!
 
Interesting,K&Qs UE number instead of their M4/ number M4/115. Maybe just a factory mix-up?
 
There is nothing wrong with this buckle. I have an example in my collection. Looks as it should for this maker. You have a nice original buckle.
Rob
 
Hey Paul! Mine is marked the exact same way! This maker was known for having used the uniform M5 marking rather than uniform accessory M4 marking. I can put up pics when I get home from work.
Cheers!
Rob
 
Many thanks for all your comments and I feel more positive about my imminent purchase now! Ps thank you Wilhelm for the makers details.
David
 
Should?
Buckles for the party-organizations should be marked with M4 and not M5.
But we know that various concerns did otherwise.
Klein u. Quenzer did have an M4 code: 115. Normally they would have been
repremanded when they were controlled by RZM inspecting persons (it could
be a reason for losing their permission).
 
Last edited:
Here is my example as promised. You will notice that the prong bar is 'small' compared to your example. If I recall correctly - both the usual prong sleeve (like yours) and the smaller one as shown here were used by this maker.
Cheers!

Rob

You don't have permission to view attachments.
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.
It is actually not that strange. The similarities between the items you would need a UE(M5) and a KH(M5) for, are the same as those for a M1 and M9 license, and we all know that some tinnies or day/event badges are found with the M1/ prefix, just as a few official M1/ items are found with the M9/ code. If something like M/10 was on the buckle it would possibly be different, but here i see no problems at all, even though it was not "correct"
 
I agree with Rob, this buckle in my opinion is original. This maker (Klein & Quenzer) should never have marked this buckle with the M5/ prefix, they should have instead used M4/115 which is their number for buckle manufacturing. There are 2 or 3 known variations of this buckle. I also hold in my collection one of these buckles in mint unissued condition which has its paper RZM tag still in place which is ink stamped M4/115. I can post pics for the group if wanted.
thanks
Chad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top