Пряга СС

Унтер1

Унтер1

Участник АК
Регистрация
14 Апр 2009
Сообщения
292
Реакции
0
Адрес
Великие Луки
Вот попалась такая мельхиоровая пряга.Что можно сказать по ней?Фотки пока только такие.:drinks:
 

Вложения

  • DSCN2405.JPG
    DSCN2405.JPG
    829.4 KB · Просмотры: 857
  • DSCN2407.JPG
    DSCN2407.JPG
    813.3 KB · Просмотры: 854
оригинальная, ранняя, редкая пряжка, с клеймом 57(производитель до сих пор под вопросом).
Состояние правда....:mda:
 
Унтер1 написал(а):
Спасибо Владимир.:drinks: А можно по производителю,что нибудь по подробней?
Нажмите для раскрытия...

Можно...
Штамп пряжки идентичен производителю оверхоффу, но согласно маркировки принято считать что это производитель Martin Winter (маркировка ранней серии 33-34гг), т.к. попадаются пряжки на которых читается дополнительное клеймо МW.
Есть замечательная статья Жана Пьера Редулха по маркировкам 57 и 63, ниже я её и привожу в полном виде.

RZM 57 SS versus SS 63 RZM: The MW saga

For many years we asked which factories were behind SS EM buckles marked RZM 57 SS and SS 63 RZM? In fact the point started as how to read RZM 57 SS and SS 63 RZM markings since both SS buckles have SS runes added to their respective RZM number. Should it be as any early RZM number (SS runes just added to such code to comply with new SS requirements)? In that case we could rely on the M1 list like we did with accuracy for many makers. RZM M1/57 could bring Martin Winter as maker of the RZM 57’s and RZM M1/63 could bring Steinhauer & Lück as maker of the RZM 63’s. But it could also have been early "RZM/SS" contract numbers. In this latest hypothesis we do not have a clue in the history of early RZM/SS contracts numbers (like for example how Overhoff ended with RZM/SS contract number 36 when his early RZM number was 24 – but 24 number kept as M1/24).

We already have evidence the Steinhauer & Lück firm did offered a SS EM buckle in their catalogue (Item K 8966) but unfortunately no physical evidence of such buckle. So SS 63 RZM marked buckles could perfectly be potential candidates if 63 was an early RZM number (M1/63 = S&L). But in that case we had to find a valid clue RZM 57 SS marked buckles were made by Martin Winter to follow the same path.

Another oddity is the fact both SS 63 RZM and RZM 57 SS buckles were made by the exact same firm for their vast majority. For someone having both 57 and 63 buckles in his hands it should be obvious they were stamped with the same die (same die flaw left on the swastika’s back) . So how could they bear different contract numbers leading to believe they were manufactured by two different factories?

In reference books, RZM 57’s buckles were known only under their latest marking: 57 RZM stamped by the catch and SS runes under the post sleeve assembly without any additional marking. This was very unfortunate since their earlier marking is the one which brought the clue to their maker. Few years ago I was able to obtain my first lead: a RZM 57 SS buckle with remains of an older marking! Under the classical RZM 57 was still clearly visible “GES. GESCH.M” and something else erased after the M. From that moment I was convinced finding the erased marking would lead to know who the maker of RZM 57 SS buckles was.
A large diffusion of this new buckle via the internet forums along with its publication in Peter Nash’s book brought many other examples to my attention. On their vast majority remained only "GES.GESCH." when on few others GES.GESCH.M was present. Any speculation was open, including the one brought by Peter Nash: he thought the missing part could be üK and so full prior marking been GES.GESCH.MüK with MüK denoting some kind of cooperative. Such idea could have explained why two different numbers were on a shared production. But it was just a question replaced by another. Finally after several months of investigations I received on my desk what I was looking for: a mint unissued RZM 57 SS with the full primary marking "GES.GESCH MW" left intact! So “W” was the missing part and not üK! As surprising it could be, this missing W was already clearly visible on my own photo sent to Mr.Nash! But to see it on that one, photo should be displayed in black and white like Mr.Nash did page 217 on top. I never paid attention to this feature until knowing what to look for! As an added note, I still do not know any GES.GESCH. MW not over stamped with RZM 57 SS.

Further observation of numerous 57’s and 63’s revealed something else: Most, to not say all, 63’s are in fact former 57’s which had their previous marking erased and replaced by SS 63 RZM. It is obvious when looking under the 63’s post sleeve assembly: anyone could notice remains of the former 57’s runes. On at least one 63 examined, the complete previous RZM 57 SS marking is still visible – faint but there. So in fact, for the majority of 63’s we are facing not a different buckle than the 57’s but rather a marking evolution of the same buckle. It became legitimate to believe that for most buckles their sequence in markings was: GES.GESCH.MW, then RZM 57 SS and lately SS 63 RZM. All on a single buckle.

In resume, former marking of the 57’s buckles been GES.GESCH.MW, there is strong possibility MW stands for Martin Winter. The M1 list also brings the name of Martin Winter as RZM M1/57 holder (so RZM 57 holder). So it could be perfectly legitimate to believe Martin Winter was the right maker behind RZM 57 buckles - SS runes probably added to earlier RZM codification to comply with equivalently earlier SS regulations.

Still remains the question why buckles supposedly made by Martin Winter ended with a 63 number? Is this 63 number rightfully in direct connection with a Steinhauer & Lück production? Could Martin Winter have been from the start a S&L sale outlet of for Munich, cradle of the NSDAP and RZM? Could Steinhauer & Lück have purchased remaining SS inventory from Martin Winter at a later time? Last, but not least, could 63 been a RZM/SS contract number assigned to Martin Winter and not an earlier RZM number? Still many questions to answer ….

At least one thing remains certain: several metallic SS items (not only buckles), marked by the above firms or marked with the above markings, are also sharing the exact same dies.
 
Войдите или зарегистрируйтесь для ответа.
Сверху