Ultra large district triangle

[Chlodwig]

When I looked at this area triangle, I noticed the size of the triangle. We all know that there were actually different area triangles, for children and for young people. But this triangle seems particularly large to me. Of course, one could argue that the sleeve is in the foreground of the photo and that is why the triangle appears larger. But if you simply put it in relation to the HJ membership badge on the breast pocket or even the neckerchief knot, then it does not seem to be an optical illusion. Just tell me your opinion.

You don't have permission to view attachments.

 

[Pimpf359]

Hello Michael, It does indeed seem to be unusually large. The writing is after 1936 and such triangles are certainly a special order and were not produced in large quantities. A great picture and thank you for sharing it with us.

 

[Garry]

Kids and adults all wore the same size of triangle. The size was regulated so I can only think that the photo is distorting the actual size.

 

[Chlodwig]

I do have sleeve triangles three different sizes and from different periods. We know that there were a lot of unusual things in the Third Reich ... and that is why we are here and that is why it is so much fun to collect Hitler Youth. Thanks to all of you who gave or will give their comment.

 

[Chlodwig]

Hello Michael, It does indeed seem to be unusually large. The writing is after 1936 and such triangles are certainly a special order and were not produced in large quantities. A great picture and thank you for sharing it with us.

I agree to you Steve, that there must have been some manufacturers more than we know today . Manufactureres that produced only small numbers of sleeve triangles.

 

[Garry]

I do have sleeve triangles three different sizes and from different periods. We know that there were a lot of unusual things in the Third Reich ... and that is why we are here and that is why it is so much fun to collect Hitler Youth.

Okay then. Prove that there were three sizes of the sleeve triangle in different periods. No opinions and no anecdotes please. We are not here for those and we never have been.

 

[Chlodwig]

Hey Gary, nobody is disputing your knowledge and competence. We are talking about details in the millimeter range. Basically, you can say that there were large and slightly smaller area triangles. I have attached a few photos that measure the longest side and of course only the gold or white border. Because the differences are only in a very small range, it is hardly worth discussing.

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.

 

[Garry]

It's all cool. I was just talking about your statement "...that there were actually different area triangles, for children and for young people. There were, as you say, different sizes of triangle but not because small = young wearers and large = older wearers. The size was the same for all but there were differences in the dimensions of the actual triangle over time:

During the period there seem to be inconsistencies in how the triangle measurements are displayed. In 1933 the measurement is to the boundaries of the stitched line of the triangle. The first scan from 1934 has the same dimensions but measured to the edges of the completed insignia. The second scan from 1934 just states a dimension which is larger than for 1933/4. The 1936 scan gives full dimensions as you can see.

In 1933 the triangles were given as 62 x 88mm1.

You don't have permission to view attachments.

From 1934 they were initially given as 62 x 882

You don't have permission to view attachments.

and then 60 x 90mm3

You don't have permission to view attachments.

19364

You don't have permission to view attachments.

1Die Uniformen der HJ 1933, colour plate 2
2Die Uniformen der HJ 1934, colour plate 2
3Bekleidung und Ausrüstung der HJ 1934, p85
4Herstellungsvorschriften RZM 1936 p147

 

[Jack]

I checked two triangles of the 2nd version against the regulations of 1936, they are so far away from the prescribed 100 x 49 mm. In reality they are 84 and 85 x 45 mm respectively.
Far away from the permitted 5 per cent tolerance.

 

[Garry]

Hi Jack,

the 100 x 70mm is before the triangle was finished and ready to be sewn to a shirt. It's a bit tricky to measure but the finished triangle is indeed smaller,

 

[Jack]

Yes, sure, Garry, but even if I only measure up to the Stepplinie/stitch line, I still come up with a target of 94 mm. That's a lot.
And the height, the 49 mm mentioned, shouldn't actually change when cutting?

 

[Garry]

True Jack. That may then be a change to the size of the triangles generally from 1936.

 

[Jack]

That's exactly what I've been asking myself. One of the triangles is from the Sudetenland, so that puts us at 1938 or later. But I don't know of any regulations after 1936.

If anyone is interested, here is the permitted tolerance in black and white from 1936 (same page number as Garry's).

You don't have permission to view attachments.

 

[Chlodwig]

Garry and Jack, I'm always surprised what detailed knowledge you have. And you can prove it. I'm sure that the RZM knew less about its own products than you did back then. But no matter, I'm happy that I've sparked another interesting discussion that every collector of area triangles can learn from.