Erma Deaths head Ammo-pouch

[Bergflak]

Leon, the MP41 was a combination of the MP38/40 and the MP28II chassis. I thought straight MP38/40 magazines fit? Did they have to make special magazines for it.

The standard mags will fit. The mag well is identical to the MP40. The markings was just a part of the export, i.e. the mags marked MP41 followed the MP41 guns exported to Rumenia!

Incidentally, a lot more of the mags must have been marked than just the export ones. The MP41 magazines are not uncommonly found among MP40 mags here in Norway, and extremely few MP41's ever found the way up here!

[JoeW]

Bergflak, I am sorry that I misread your first post. You asked for confirmation of your belief that the TK was an early "SS-WaA" and had nothing to do with the SS-TK. I believe the comments that Scott and I made apply in either case. The TK cannot be considered a "property mark" of any sort. The early acceptance marks of the SS-VT have been discussed on various forums for some time and all involved a combination of letters/numbers and either the SS or a small TK. The oversized TK would signify nothing as an acceptance or property mark. Please provide a bit more information about the book you cite, "The PO8 Luger Pistol". Publisher or author?

[leondes]

Hi Joe & Scott,

I know this won't convince you of what Bergflak and I believe but I bought my DH marked mag pouch and two P.08 holsters from a very astute long time collector who could easily recognize post-war applied markings. If the DH had been more recently applied, the leather would show tearing rather than just compression, in my experience.

Also, please see "Military Holsters of World War II" by Eugene Bender, page 105. The holster shown is accepted as authentic among the collecting community that I associate with which includes several long time collectors and dealers.

Regards, Leon

[JoeW]

Leon, we can debate the DH/TK stamps without result. Our respective opinions are subjective;both are difficult to substantiate as we see things differently. But from an objective point of view, explain to me historically and technically, what the DH/TK stamp is supposed to represent. I think that the arguments made by Scott and I are more objectively sound. I can see no logic in the use of the TK/DH stamp, nor any historical basis for its use. It didn't identify a unit to the level that would require property markings, nor was it an acceptance stamp for the SS.

As for Bender, I believe he identified a post war West German traffic police holster as a parade dress holster for the SS.

[Bergflak]

The book I mentioned is one in a series on German handguns. So far 4 volumes exist, K98k, MP40, Luger and MP44. The interesting thing is that they all display only PK pictures from the Bundesarchive. The picture in question clearly shows the stamp on a Luger holster carried by a SS Feldgendarmerie. (The text even points out the fact that these markings have always been associated with copies, and that the picture in that regard is astounding!). Book is published by Special Interest Publicaties BV and is sold on ebay all the time.

[JoeW]

Bergflak, can you scan the photo from the book, giving proper identification as to the source? Will this be accepted Mr. Moderator? I would love to see this photo. In the meantime, I will see if anyone locally has purchased one of these series.

[sszza2]

I am very open to accepting legitimate period photographs from a reputable source as primary evidence of the existance of such a mark on a holster. The interpretation of the mark is another story. I have learned to shy away from trusting many collectors books as they can be packed with fantasy items and self serving information to justify them. As I recall the series you speak of draws photos and specimens from the Bundesarchiv and a few European museums too. In the case of their book on the K98k, the series also uses modern reference sources such as 'BBOTW' to interpret information. 'BBOTW' being a profound example of the fantasy and self serving information problem. So the message is, trust a period photo but interpret on your own.

Scott B

[JoeW]

I found a copy of the book at a local dealer. I will take a look at it when I can meet up with him. Sounds interesting.

[Ronnie Fry]

Gluteus Maximus!!

Showing my Gluteus Maximus here guys, but what is the book you call BBOTW???
Interesting thread, and am enjoying the interplay of the experts here!!

Color me "Ned in the Third Grade"

Ronnie

[leondes]

Ronnie,

That refers to "Backbone Of The Wehrmacht" by Richard Law. Although it contains a lot of misinformation and very limited information, it is the first real attempt to provide structured documentation on the K98k rifle.

The main problem I have with it is that he provided one page for a maker/year and shows what markings should appear. Markings were often changed several times a year, especially from 1942 on. So, especially for the later K98k's, you just cannot use the book to verify the authenticity of a rifle and that's what a lot of collectors try to do.

Regards, Leon

[Ronnie Fry]

THANKS LEON


Knowledge is power!!! You guys keep it up, I'm learning!!

r

[Matt Weber]

I am very open to accepting legitimate period photographs from a reputable source as primary evidence of the existance of such a mark on a holster. The interpretation of the mark is another story. I have learned to shy away from trusting many collectors books as they can be packed with fantasy items and self serving information to justify them. As I recall the series you speak of draws photos and specimens from the Bundesarchiv and a few European museums too. In the case of their book on the K98k, the series also uses modern reference sources such as 'BBOTW' to interpret information. 'BBOTW' being a profound example of the fantasy and self serving information problem. So the message is, trust a period photo but interpret on your own.

Scott B

This is a very good discussion here. I totally agree with Scotts' comments above. I feel that too often people use reference books as the word of God or something. Remember, anyone can write a book, and they can put anything in it, and say what they want about it. This doesn't make it true or correct though. Also, by that same notion, if an item is not shown in any reference books, that does not mean that it is not correct!

Scott gives a good example of the Backbone book. This book has a few errors, but the biggest error is what Leon mentioned, lack of infomation, or missing examples. A better example of this would be the Backbone Vol II, on snipers. Many collectors use this book as a bible for snipers. In all actuallity, there is very little information on snipers in this book, and very few examples of correct snipers shown as well. Some people think if you have a sniper and it doesn't match any shown in Backbone II, then it must be a fake! This theory is laughable at best.
Perfect example would be the ordanance assembled low turret sniper. Laws' book shows only one example of these, and only has one small page describing it, and the information on it, is full of errors. (Example: he states in the text that the scope should be etched to number the rifle, yet in the photos he shows of his only one, clearly there are no numbers on the scope!)
I just sold one of these recently (it was on the estand here too), and you wouldn't believe how many emails I got from people telling me it was a fake, becuase it didn't match the one shown in Laws' book! I had a few good laughs about this. BTW: I had double the number of emails from people who thought the rifle was awesome! Go figure!?

Also, the same theory can be stated about the P38 shoulder holsters (or shoulder holsters in general). There are books that show these, and I know I've seen plenty of people have these, and swear that they got them "straight from the vet who took it off a dead SS officer he just killed," but the fact is, I have never seen a wartime photograph showing any German soldier actually wearing one of these. The German army was very strict on the uniform and wearing of holsters. It clearly states this in German dress code manuals that the pistol holster must be worn on the left side of the belt, with butt facing forward.

As for the mag pouch in question. I believe the pouch is definately genuine. Is the DH marking original? That could be debated until we are all blue in the face. Was the pouch made with it? Doubtful I think. As previously stated, it is not a maker trademark, and is not an acceptance proof mark either. Was it added later? Most likely yes. The question then becomes, When was it added?
Was it a period added by some unit? possilby. Or was it added post war by some would be scammer? Very possible as well.
The problem with trying to find a period photo of one of these, is that there is really no way you'll every be able to see if this marking is present or not?! It's just too small, and most photos are taken of peoples magazine pouches. So I really doubt that you'll ever find photographic proof of this markings on these type of pouches.

With items like this, I always tell people to take the item for what it is. It's still a nice original pouch, with a questionable DH marking.
Just like that SA PP holster that I have. It's still a nice PP holster with questionable markings. So take it for what it is.

Matt

[Carl Ellingstad]

I was wondering how many different manufactures and acceptance stamps that are found on this type of pouch? Im aware of two different: Larson and Fischer.

I cant understand the statement that the Polizei used a smaller version of the 3 pocket pouch? I have a identical pouch with only the Larson manufacture stamp in front and no WaAamt or Polizei acceptance stamps on the reverse side.
What is the size of this pouch you have Reidar?

Regards

Carl

[Jägermeister]

This is a very interesting discussion here. I would love to see the deathhead a little bigger? And perhaps with its measurements?

[leondes]

Will this do?

http://lmd-militaria.com/page583.html

Regards, Leon