A Minty Zincer

[KC1]

Very nice buckle Ivan.

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

Very nice buckle Ivan.

Indeed. Those are the only two 43's I still kept for myself

[schorschi]

Hello J.P.
what is wrong with the "Ausfall=muster"?

Not good enough to be "sell" / supply, but good enough
to be show as an pattern / sample?

Best

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

Hello J.P.
what is wrong with the "Ausfall=muster"?

Not good enough to be "sell" / supply, but good enough
to be show as an pattern / sample?

Best

The buckle is exactly the same as any other 43. You are not the only person to do not understand the exact meaning of the tag. Another collector saw a similar tag with "Ausfallmuster" on a buckle not SS but the tag was dated just after the buckle's introduction. Of course this was making more sense than a tag dated at the end of the year of production.
I do not speak or read German myself, so I rely on help/translations provided by German collectors or by a German neighbour. It seems that this tag could have different meanings in your language.
For myself, at that point, the explanation I could have is the following:
- Context: we are already at the end of 43 and we have evidence of just a handful of SS buckles marked in 44 with none yet recorded for SS officer.
- Fact: Plenty (if not all) 1942 and 1943 SS officer buckles made by Overhoff were RZM/SS 36/42 or 43 marked on the back. Plenty (if not all) late war SS officers are marked on the back with the Overhoff trademark, none (as of today) with a RZM/SS 36/44. But ALL zinc Overhoff's are built the exact same with the exact same front design.
So, in my opinion (and once again this is only my personal opinion at the moment I am writing those words), this sample could have been submitted to the RZM to be approved by the SS for the upcoming year of 1944. The same could already have been done at the end of 1942 since, other than the date, Overhoff SS officer buckles were the same for 1942 and 1943. Since, like from 1942 to 1943, 44 should not have any change requested other than the date of the contract on the back, it is logical to believe the maker would not bother to send anything else than a buckle from the current production for approval. Then the buckle could have been returned to Overhoff with approbation for the design for future production to the SS but not approved to be sold at RZM stores (no RZM tag neither) or under RZM control. Logical since the RZM barely supplied SS buckles to the SS by 1944.
So the sample could still be used as muster/ design sample for die engravers or for the design of its assembly method but not produced or sold with any RZM marking for the upcoming year of 1944.
This sample could also have been sent first to the RZM who rejected it since no longer in charge to supply them with buckles, then to the SS who approved for 1944 the buckle design and built. IMO the exact meaning of the tag is known only by whoever wrote the tag at Overhoff's...

[schorschi]

Thanks

Best

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

Thanks

Best

Please keep in mind this is only my own opinion based on the elements I have so far. Nothing is carved in stone and any other opinion could be also valid!

[schorschi]

Hello J.P.

I know.

For me the word "Ausfallmuster" stay for
there is somthing wrong.
To big, to small, wrong die, .....

Best regards

[Wickie]

For me the word "Ausfallmuster" stay for
there is somthing wrong.
To big, to small, wrong die, .....

No, "Ausfallmuster" means (design, quality,...) pattern/sample.

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

For me the word "Ausfallmuster" stay for
there is somthing wrong.
To big, to small, wrong die, .....

No, "Ausfallmuster" means (design, quality,...) pattern/sample.

This is what I was talking about! Obviously there seems to be a conflict for the exact meaning of the tag among Germans. Since obviously I did not know who was right I had been careful to not come up with a definitive answer. What I wrote above satisfied my logic one way or the other, including the late 1943 date on a buckle already produced since a full year.