Original HJ armband?

[magnnat]

Hi Guys, please tell me if the hj bandage is original or not?
Thanks everyone.

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.

 

[magnnat]

And 2.

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.

You don't have permission to view attachments.

You don't have permission to view attachments.

 

[bertl59]

hi
the 1st one is ok , the second i don t know and i have never see a AHS stamp with this form

 

[Nazarel]

Hi. The first option is a great classic. I can't say anything about the tag on it, but at first glance it looks normal. I can't say anything about the second armband, as the subject of the printed ones is quite complicated.

 

[bertl59]

Yes , you are right the printed armband are a special subject and even for me after so many years I find it difficult to give a firm opinion! . The tag is oK

 

[Jack]

As Bertrand said, problematic. Not to say suspicious. Because it has been proven in the forum that the printed armbands only existed in the initial phase and were then immediately banned. If you then see the AHS stamp and know that these schools only existed from 1938 (decree of January 1937), something doesn't quite match up.

 

[Jack]

I forgot: the first one is, as the others have said, a good one. Bevo standard. The RZM tag also fits. The B letter stands for a Pfennig fee and also matches.

 

[Nazarel]

I forgot: the first one is, as the others have said, a good one. Bevo standard. The RZM tag also fits. The B letter stands for a Pfennig fee and also matches.

Hi. Please tell me what do you think about this tag? I have it pasted on the armband of HJ. How much is this correct?

You don't have permission to view attachments.

 

[Garry]

The stamp on the first one in post 2 says:

HJ Gebietsführerschule 'Erich Niejahr' Gebiet 12 Westmark.

As Jack says, we can prove that printed armbands existed in the early period. However, the available evidence does not allow an unequivocal answer to the question of whether they were made in the late-war period. As the guys have said, adding a printed armband to a collection is a bit of a gamble.

 

[Jack]

Hi. Please tell me what do you think about this tag? I have it pasted on the armband of HJ. How much is this correct?

You don't have permission to view attachments.

To be honest, I wouldn't add something to an original artefact that wasn't there before.
This is especially true in this particular case. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this RZM tag is fake. Why?

Even if it cannot be ruled out that there were red tags without serial numbers in later wartime, this statement does not apply to the early blue examples.
The serial number is missing here.

In addition, the font type is wrong, as we are talking about the period up to spring 1938. It should be in Fraktur. Antiqua is only plausible after January 1941.
The printing is strangely unclean and a bit blurred, see the ‘e’ in Hersteller and the blue stripes on the right.

For comparison, on the left the first blue RZM tag with TA for textile badge manufacturers, directly from tge 1936 RZM regulations, and on the right an original armband with an authentic blue A4 tag at one pfennig. The new code A4 was published in RZM-Mitteilungsblatt No. 10/1935 of 9 March 35.

You don't have permission to view attachments.

 

[Nazarel]

To be honest, I wouldn't add something to an original artefact that wasn't there before.
This is especially true in this particular case. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this RZM tag is fake. Why?

Even if it cannot be ruled out that there were red tags without serial numbers in later wartime, this statement does not apply to the early blue examples.
The serial number is missing here.

In addition, the font type is wrong, as we are talking about the period up to spring 1938. It should be in Fraktur. Antiqua is only plausible after January 1941.
The printing is strangely unclean and a bit blurred, see the ‘e’ in Hersteller and the blue stripes on the right.

For comparison, on the left the first blue RZM tag with TA for textile badge manufacturers, directly from tge 1936 RZM regulations, and on the right an original armband with an authentic blue A4 tag at one pfennig. The new code A4 was published in RZM-Mitteilungsblatt No. 10/1935 of 9 March 35.

You don't have permission to view attachments.

Thank you very much. You're helping me out a lot.