Value of canvas webbing belt and M4/49 HJ golden buckle.

The problem with the RZM mark, is that they went from being "like this" i.e: primitive and individually interpreted from late 1933 until around 1936, then from that time on, through to the other areas who acquired Licenses, Sudetenland and Austria from mid, resp. late 1938 to being not Standardized as such, or standardized to the effect that say the Obverse of the Membership badge becomes, but semi-standardized, and well executed, with most RZM logos looking decent, after all, by late 1939 or early 1940 all RZM M/ makers would have had enough time to "get it right" BUT, then when we look at the RZM logos and numbers on mid-late war made items, i.e: the items in lesser quality, made from Messing-plated eisen and Zinc, and the materials that took over from this date, we find makers reverting back to primitive designs, as well as the look of the later war items being primitive, or not made as well, not hard to imagine with Bombs dropping on your head and a German workforce of only invalids and old woman..so as much as the RZM mark look s crap on this, IF it was late war, it could still be accepted as good...as the reality of late made items support crap marks, or marks that reverted back to the transitional days..
A good idea would be to look at the maker, and see if they didn't possibly loose this license long before the war? some early numbers are mentioned in the RZMmtlbr.

But an honest answer would be that i dont like the mark in general, especially from a M4/ maker who held this number from before the introduction of the M4/ codes in March 1935, so they would have had enough experience by the late war period, although i must also add that i know Jack about Buckle RZM logos, and am referring ONLY to the RZM logos found on small badges. With a surface as big as the space afforded to this RZM logo, it should be much better IMHO!
 
Cheers Jo. Still haven't been able to find anything on these belts in the regs.
 
Is this correct? the one at Butscheks says
"With the correct RZM paper tag"
yet apparently it is not correct?? and there is NO RZM stampings on his one? yet there are on the one you just posted?
could the one in the photo be black? or blue? Herman Historica sold a black HJ webkoppel in 2004...

btw: If it says HJ/DJ Koppel 2. NACH VORSCHRIFT, which the tag does, then there must be a VORSCHRIFT for it :) (dont ask me what the 2. means after the HJ/DJ)

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.
Last edited:
belt and buckle are both fine, belt as said is HJ , not commonly seen.. the buckles nickel coating has worn off or was eaten off chemically.. this is a nickel over steel buckle; they would brass plate the steel buckles prior to the nickel plating so that the nickel would adhere better.. this is the gold we see here
 
Hi Chad,

Do you have any more info on these web belts for the HJ? A period reference would be very useful because I don't see them in anything I have here.
 
belt and buckle are both fine, belt as said is HJ , not commonly seen.. the buckles nickel coating has worn off or was eaten off chemically.. this is a nickel over steel buckle; they would brass plate the steel buckles prior to the nickel plating so that the nickel would adhere better.. this is the gold we see here
From the front page:
A further aim of the forum is to strive to consolidate, validate and to deepen information. In doing this we aim to remove the many misconceptions and grey areas that facilitate those who would flood the collector market with fakes.
Comments like you have just posted: Belt and Buckle are both fine are of NO HELP to anyone, and useless really if nothing of substance is added. Do you have anything of substance other than your opinion that "Both are fine" because the belt is far from fine as far as History goes...
 
So no one has anything on these canvas belts that puts them into the TR period? The buckle seems to be causing a few headaches too. Is it likely that the silver finish can wear off like this on a TR buckle? I found a Reichswehr buckle on a metal detecting trip that has a finish a lot like the buckle here.
 
So no one has anything on these canvas belts that puts them into the TR period? The buckle seems to be causing a few headaches too. Is it possible that the silver finish can wear off like this on a TR buckle?
Garry, i think we need to steer clear of the "Do we think .. this and that..are possible" and first concentrate on the Belt, as all dealers are saying, Typical late war HJ-Belt - for which there is no evidence at all. But for which there are plenty of users who post as we read above .. "Both are fine." well both are far from fine imho, what makes them fine when there is no evidence that the HJ had a canvass belt at any stage? Because the Army did? is that what these people are using as their point of reference? or are they simply re-parroting what some dealer has said, trusting that this dealer has done his homework and knows the facts?
If the belt is FINE...... there must be a reason why it`s fine, so what is it? Why are we supposed to just lap up these kind of comments (They are printed too, and used by dealers all the time - not just from user Chad Williams above) and all nod our heads, when there is no evidence to support the item - at all?
 
Well, quite :) This forum would be failing in its aim if it didn't try to dig as deeply as possible into items like this and a thousand others. If the feeling is that this belt is fine and we can establish why then that would be great.

Edit: just to be clear, my comment about the Reichswehr buckle isn't meant in support of the buckle in post #1. Quite the opposite in fact.
 
Any of you, show an official regulation for the HJ where a web-belt is being mentioned:
so from a Reichsbefehl, the Amtliches Nachrichtenblatt or the Mitteilungsblatt der RZM and its manufacturing-
regulations or even from a sales-cataloque! An RZM paper-tag onto a web-belt doesn't say a thing! The tag shown is for a leather-
belt.
But above all show an official regulation where a golden colored enlisted ranks buckle is being mentioned. Would like to see it
written down and stated!
 
Last edited:
I see the tag upon the web-belt shows the indication 2. This means 2. Ausführung. This is an expression
used in the Mitteilungsblatt der RZM.
Normally a leather belt officially is 3.5 mm thick and made from so-called Kernstücke.
The 2. Ausführung however is made from Halsstücke and 3.0-3.5 mm thick. This is a quality difference and is noted
in the Herstelllungsvorschriftenis der RZM from 1936. Anyone can glue a tag for a leather belt onto a web-belt.

The tag further shows an E, which means Einzelhandel (retail trade).
 
Last edited:
Hello

Another RZM tag (L2 for Lederzeugfabriken) associated to a suspicious black canvas belt.

You don't have permission to view attachments.
 

Attachments

    You don't have permission to view attachments.
The same tag on to a leather belt (legit).

You don't have permission to view attachments.
 

Attachments

    You don't have permission to view attachments.
Rest of an RZM tag on to a presstoff belt. So why a web belt if the substitute leather exist since the middle of the war? I remember seeing a picture of a soldier with a black canvas belt, but I can not find it ...

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.
You don't have permission to view attachments.
 

Attachments

    You don't have permission to view attachments.
I remember seeing a picture of a soldier with a black canvas belt, but I can not find it ...
in post 23 of this thread?

The buckle is a early transitional buckle manufactured by Steinhauer and Luck...it came out around 1933-1935 ....
Rob, yes and no. This one has both the pre M1/ prefix for Buckles KH as well as M1/ which was only first mentioned in early March 1935, and therefore could only have been adopted around April 1935 at the earliest. So its not a transitional period buckle, but rather a buckle produced after the transitional period (33-early 35) was over, and makers had changed to the new prefix M1/. Why both are present on this one i dont know.
 
Last edited:
post 23 = a dark olive colored web-belt. It is a brandnew item and then their color
was dark. By use they became lighter colored.

Rob: believe me. This buckle is crap. In no regulation there is mentioned a golden
colored HJ-buckle for enlisted ranks. Not even for the Marine-HJ (this is obvious when
reading the 1938 uniform-regulation as included in the Amtliches Nachrichtenblatt).
No one of those that claim this buckle to be correct, can state this with a note or an
announcement and in sales-catalogues you won't find it either. Maybe they had intended
to introduce such buckle, but did not actually introduce it. It mut have been denied
by the RJF. The so-called Steinhauer and Luck from post 1 is fixed with a golden coating.
 
Last edited:
Post 32:
The tag shows L2. This means Lederzeugfabrik. L5 were known as belt-manufacturers
(Riemenfabrik), but a web-belt is woven.

If the woven structure would have been cotton, then the tag should have had the B for Baumwolle,
so having the numbers B1 or B2 for Rohgewebe. I do not know the structure of a web-belt, so it
even could have been an A12 manufacturer: manufacturer of stockings!

I will return the golden enlisted buckle-subject later.
 
Just out of personal interest, are those markings ever found on legitimate items? Obviously markings on Buckles cant be translated across to those found on small badges, and indeed small badge manufacturers skipped out the pre M1/ prefix MA/ altogether, and so you never find MA/ on a small badge, you also do not find a mix of transitional markings and M1/, for example Nr.34 -M1/34 together.... do you find this on buckles? the full name (or logo as is here, STL) KH prefix as well as M1/ ? seems a bit overboard to me?
 
I said I would return the golden coated buckle from post 1 and specifically what is said
in the regulations about HJ-buckles and its color. Maybe I will give information with two posts:

Uniformen der HJ, 1933;
The naval guy on page 13 wears a regular DJ-buckle; with page 14 the regular HJ buckle, which was
not in golden color;
Uniformen der HJ, 1934:
ibid as 1933;

Bekleidung und Ausrüstung der HJ from January 15, 1934:
page 18-19 shows a Marine HJ-Führer. He wears a black belt and the regular HJ-buckle (HJ-Schloss). No mention of gold;
page 20-21 shows a light colored buckle with the figure. The text is as with page 18;
page 23: text as before;
page 24: Marine-DJ, wearing the regular DJ-buckle;
page 28: ibid.
With a later description in the section Bekleidungsstücke der Marine-HJ nothing was said about different color buckle;
pages 104-105-106: here is included the description for the HJ and DJ belt and buckle. Page 106 mentions Neusilberblech.
The further text does not include a golden version. In a later hand-typed addendum no changes in color for the buckle is included;

Verordnungsblatt der HJ: the years 1933, 1934, 1935 nor 1936 do mention the introduction of a golden buckle. Not at all
for the Marine-HJ. March 21, 1935 things about this force were explained. No golden buckle is mentioned.
June 4, 1937 the regular HJ-buckle for wearing by the DJ is mentioned. No change in color. The buckle had to be worn since January 1938.
Per July 16, 1936 the Verordnungsblatt was renamed as Amtliches Nachrichtenblatt;

Reichsbefehl from February 12, 1937:
here the leaders buckle is being mentiond first: HJ-Feldbindenchloss. This is as such noted in the Mitteilungsblatt der RZM from April
10, 1937. It is said: legiertem Aluminiumblech.

Rundschau-Deutsches Schneiderfachblatt from October 13, 1934. Page 1706:
Marine HJ: black belt in contrary to the brown belt for regular HJ. This is specifically noted. No other color for the buckle was mentioned or included;

Reichsbefehl from March 18, 1938: the order to change old DJ buckles into the HJ version. No mention in this order for gold or gold colored.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top