My newest acquisition - comments welcomed

[KC1]

another view

[KC1]

better view ... hopefully (and last)

[KC1]

There was one more question that David asked, "What is the buckle metal?" This buckle I am sure is made from heavy zinc. I believe these buckles were made only of zinc or aluminum.

Dan

[David North]

Dan

Many thanks for the additional images.

Not really quite sure if there is anything more to say, other than it would appear that Christian was quite correct in suggesting that the initial period strap, would originally have been matched with a similar early period buckle - in aluminium.

As you confirm, the buckle is zinc and as such, post 1941 or 1942, again, as confirmed by Christian.

Excellent makers code to the buckle reverse though.

The odd thing is the RZM tax label. It does appear to be Assmann, although in theory, by the early 1940's, Erbe would have enjoyed a full and designated RZM approved status.

Has the folded label been glued to the back of the buckle ?

Regards,

David

[KC1]

David,

I agree with your assessment that the tag is attached in a very peculiar manner. The RZM label could very well be glued on, and if so, I am the first to admit that it is done very well as the label is loose except where the staple (or glue) resides on the buckle. I am fearful if I tinker to much with it, it could become torn. I will keep a very good eye on this piece for awhile.

I do howerver disagree that this would or should be an aluminum PLB for a 1938 era belt as both the aluminum and heavy zinc PLBs were produced in 1939. Please reference Angolia's book, page 161, showing both the aluminum and heavy zinc from 1939.

My guess, and I wll continue to look for more history on this, is that the belt and buckle are fine being from the same era but that, yes, someone has afixed the RZM label (authentic albeit) via glue (most probable) to create more interest to the item. I do not have any reference material as to the RZM labels and their associations to manufactors. I do have the Assmann Catalogue showing the various Third Reich metal items he manufactored and am somewhat surprised to see that he did not dabble in the Political belt buckle realm. What reference material do you recommend that provide RZM label numbers to the manufactorer?

I am including photos of both the aluminum and heavy zinc PLB.

Cheers,
Dan

[KC1]

First was aluminum PLB obverse and this will show the reverse

[KC1]

Once again.. the heavy zinc PLB

[KC1]

and reverse

[Wickie]

Dan, PL buckles made in zinc are for sure not from 1939. In this year there was no reason to produce them in zinc, and the regulations from 1939 tell that this buckle has to be made in aluminium.

I believe that tag & buckle belong together. As mentioned before, zinc M4/43 buckles come many times with the M4/39 Assmann tag. The reason for this is unknown. Assmann produced of course PL buckle marked with their own number and the buckle is shown in the Assmann catalog.

It is hard to tell if (for what ever reason) the tag was originaly glued to the buckle, maybe yes maybe not.

Anyway, I still have big doubts if belt & buckle belong together.

Christian

[David North]

Dan

This is not meant as a criticism toward any of the buckle reference publications, however I really do "take with a pinch of salt", anything that I see or read in any of the books and without exception. None of the reference works are perfect, although some are better than others. The key is really to use any reference as a rough guide, rather than a definitive.

It does seem most unlikely that the first issue of PL buckles would be made in zinc. As Christian has confirmed, there is even a known and printed regulation supporting this.

I still consider that your PL strap and buckle are super, although I do not think that they started life together.

Interesting that you should mention the RZM tax labels, as this is a subject not often discussed. They are however briefly mentioned in at least two of the buckle reference publications.

A suggestion that these labels were provided by the RZM, although the styles differ somewhat and of course, those seen, sometimes incorporating a particular organisations emblem. The letters A and onward indicating a batch issue of 100,000 and I think (as per Reid), that the final allocation was M. The A-M letters not always appearing on the labels though and instead, just a batch number. The makers number was usually the M4 assigned, or an abbreviation of this. Numerous variations of RZM tax labels of course and there are many that do not adhere to what I presume, was required and dictated by the "RZM Mitteilungsblatt". A final point is that it has been suggested that the colour of a RZM label, indicated a tax banding (?).

Regards,

David

[KC1]

Christian / David,

Thanks for all your input and guidance and suffice to say, I need more reference material. All in all, I think the PL buckle is a very handsome piece and am fortunate to have in my collection both the heavy zinc and aluminum. So, how do I go about finding the best references? Right now my best source of reference lies within the forum members like yourselves. This in itself is fantastic but I like to read and absorb so if there is any reference material you can suggest please send let me know or send me an email.

If we substantiate that the belt and buckle are not a mated pair, should they be separated from this point forward? Should they be kept together with the possibility of a future trade or sale, with full disclosure, of course, of these findings?

Again Gentlemen, thanks for your assistance,
Dan

[David North]

Dan

Perhaps what is being slightly overlooked here, is that although the PL buckle and strap are not fully in simpatico by their date of manufacture, it is still reasonable to assume that they were once worn as one, in say the mid 1940's. If the PL was comfortable with his original strap, why should he replace both items if he had say lost the original aluminium buckle. A purest may baulk at the chronological irregularity here, although I do not think that it overly detracts on say the value or desirability.

If the buckle and strap are ever offered for sale or trade, then state the facts by all means. I think that you would be somewhat loathe to separate the two items, however do not forget that other than for say an historical or sentimental value, there is no tangible linking of the two items. Initial period and slightly worn PL buckles in aluminium, are not difficult to find.

It is the missing runner which is the nuisance.

Reference books - now that is a question and a half !!

You are already aware of my attitude, although I am blissfully unaware as to how others feel. I tend to use all of the references as rough guides, however and with all due respect to the esteemed authors, never accept anything as 100% correct. This is not vanity, smugness or pomposity on the part of David North and instead, a cautious attitude based on bitter experience.

No particular favourite, although I do have a slight leaning toward the second edition Angolia.

A mixed bag of reference works currently available and to include Angolia (first and second editions), Baldwin, Bichlmaier und Hartung, Catella, Cowdery, Evans, Nash, Patzwall, Reid, Ulyanov, et all.

Regards,

David

[KC1]

David,

Thanks for your candid honesty and I agree, a mixed bag approach can provide you more tangible information in the quest for knowledge.

Best regards,
Dan