SS-Dienstglas RUKA Rathenow

[HJ-Marseille]

Hi
Again believe in what you want...
Seasons greetings

[sszza2]

HJ-M,

Just want to be clear on this. Are you saying that SS marked weapons and scopes selected from battlefields, depots and factories in the ETO and documented to have been added to our US Army Ordnance Museum (Aberdeen Proving Grounds) collection prior to wars end or immediately following the war are fraudulent and cannot be trusted by collectors/researchers?

HJ-M,

It should be clear to "most here" that your inability or unwillingness to answer this basic question demonstrates your position regarding SS marked weapons and optics is based on conjecture rather than evidence and therefore has no merit.

Merry Christmas.

Scott

[HJ-Marseille]

Hi Scott
show ( not write) all of us one single evidence from of your choice and we believe you...
so far we all only saw faked british and russian binos marked with skulls...no others...it was only written about "real things"... only refered to things none saw...only in writing...the fotos shown all russian fakes or British based forging...
convince me...and all others but with real docs...not only mentioning them...evidences with real documents,...
thx
merry x - mass

[Rusmann]

Hi Scott
show ( not write) all of us one single evidence from of your choice and we believe you...
so far we all only saw faked british and russian binos marked with skulls...no others...it was only written about "real things"... only refered to things none saw...only in writing...the fotos shown all russian fakes or British based forging...
convince me...and all others but with real docs...not only mentioning them...evidences with real documents,...
thx
merry x - mass

You are very unbeliever!
Confirmation documents you no one here will not show! And for sane people do not need it.
Here, special just for you, even a photo of two SS binoculars from the ground (from the battlefield):
http://s21.postimg.org/dnpoqnud3/ss12.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/6usrjvo9v/IMG_0694_Medium.jpg

[Mikedenmark]

I am no expert on SS marked anything. (I still like to buy a death head bino. I believe they can be original, and I have seen some here on WA, I like very much!!)

But that an item exist in a museum is no proof to me.

Get a 1945 original technical photo, taken when an item arrived at a US army installation at that date. Now that I would consider to be close to fact.

Even in 1946 exhibitions were made, and requests of all kinds must have been forwarded to the US military.

Meaning that there may have been a need to supply people with "hun" brutality items. Which very well could include an evil SS sniper rifle.

Now, to ensure that an autentic piece were on display, it is possible that even in 1946, SS markings were applied to items that would pass for ordinary people.

I admit it sounds pretty weird, but not more weird than US army binoculars refinished at Zeiss, with Zeiss lenses, (a 1945-46 occurrence)

Add to that how different museum employees over the years thought they could create a museum, or an exhibition.
(what we don´t have, we build. Call it a display item)
Or how anyone, who came across an SS marked item could, and can, donate that to a museum.

Here in Denmark many people were punished after the war for serving in the SS or other german formations.
For use at those trials, the danish secret police put together a collection of insignia´s used by danes in german service.

Great collection. Glued up on large plates. for showing up in the courts.
Later transferred to a national museum where the plates are still present.
A prime source for the "original" look of such insignia´s

Only, the museum has given some collectors access, and even left them alone in a room with the plates.

Today, it is visible that the glueing has been renewed under some of the items. And a few very rare and expensive one´s are clearly copies.
It has compromised the plates totally. No one can now tell what is original and what is a very good copy.

That is why I like to see a photo, taken i 1945, of an item claimed to original.
The present presence in a museum doesn´t really count.

US collectors have had access to items we rarely see in Europa. That makes their outlook different from the one we have over here.

And, for many years, passing off fake items seemed to be easier in the US markets. Some collectors over there were less knowledgeable, and many had a LOT more to spend than we had in Europa.


If I believe, I have genuine items, and everybody else do too about their own stuff, then we can all be happy.
And if I won´t buy an item, because I don´t believe it is original, well, that will only present a possible bargain for someone else.

So there isn´t really a need to bash eachother about their view on collector items.

We are, after all, collectors, not historians.

[sszza2]

Listening to some folks here we cannot trust that SS marked items (weapons, scopes, related accessories) in our US Ordnance Museum system are original. Nor can we trust the same in European museums. All because fraudsters have been selling and in the case of the US Ordnance Museum system donating items for whatever benefit since the end of the war. Therefore authors such as Nelson & Lockhoven (who wrote prolifically on 'The World's Submachineguns' including SS marked examples in 1963), as well as Senich and Speilauer who have both written about SS marked snipers and optics and who all to varying degrees relied on museum information are all incorrect and have been duped? IMO - this thinking sounds more akin to the flat earth society position.

While I am an extremely conservative collector and am aware of the current proliferation of fraudulent SS items on the market, in collections and references - I respect some early researchers and at least in the US our Ordnance Museum collection. For example this sszza marked PzB that came into our system in 1946. Is it fraudulent?

http://ww3.rediscov.com/spring/VFPCG...ABASE=32789965,


Do I believe that all SS marked rifles, scope and binoculars are original? No absolutely not - but I believe some. Do I believe that all R-R SS marked binoculars are period original? No - but I do believe some are. I have seen some in private collections which surfaced in the 1960's and 1970's as well as some that have been posted here on WAF.

Merry Christmas!

[Bill Parker]

Ss

There is a known serial number range for the SS Ruka binoculars. In additon, Ruka also produced Pol. Dienstglas binoculars in a similar range. Are they also fakes?

Shame the photograher did not take a better picture of the binoculars.

[sszza2]

Agreed. However, based on what I have read in this thread I believe some here would accuse any period photograph showing SS marked R-R binoculars of being photo-shopped.

[Bill Parker]

ss and police

Attached are pictures of both my SS and Police Rutka 6x30 binoculars

[Mikedenmark]

I am saying caution is in order. Not that any- and everything is a fake.

Regarding the PzB, is that a ZZa2 or a miss-spelled SSa2 WaA?
I don´t know, but as far as I know, both possibilities exist.

To me, a ZZa2 in a PzB makes sense. Taken the type of weapon.
That someone at the museum wrote, it was used by SS troops is not wrong. SS troops did use PzB´s. Only it may not be the marking that proofs it.
I have seen ZZ interpretated as Zentraler Zeugamt. But nor have I seen any proof of that either.
(It has been some years, since I went into WaA markings. New info may have been found since then)

So, if it is marked ZZa2, then why is it relevant for a discussion about SS marked items? Because someone at a museum wrote something ?
I don´t think I have made a point here, really.
Even this PzB business has open ends, which are hard to close. (a photo of the ZZa2 stamp would have been nice)


Did those people, who wrote books in the fifties get duped?
My guess would be, probably not.
But that is what it is: Probably.

I envy them the circumstances.
Few copies, if any. But even in 1960 prices were no longer to be completely disregarded, and some people in Germany had made good money selling all kind of stuff to americans.
(like all those dagger manufacturers who sold their entire stocks of spare parts for german WWII daggers to US dealers and collectors. Completely obsolete, but nevertheless, Swastika items did represent substantial value, even then.)

There is one thing I am afraid may happen to me one day. That I begin to believe I "know", when I see something that surely "must" be right or wrong.

I hope that won´t happen in 2014.

Happy New Year to everyone.

[Mikedenmark]

PS. Bill, I think it is a Goerz Bino, he is holding.

[HJ-Marseille]

Thanks Mike,
Bingo!
Happy New Year! to all.

[sszza2]

"Mikedenmark;I am saying caution is in order. Not that any- and everything is a fake."

Agreed - I don't think that anyone is disputing that caution is in order in whatever a person collects.

"Regarding the PzB, is that a ZZa2 or a miss-spelled SSa2 WaA?
I don´t know, but as far as I know, both possibilities exist.

To me, a ZZa2 in a PzB makes sense. Taken the type of weapon.
That someone at the museum wrote, it was used by SS troops is not wrong. SS troops did use PzB´s. Only it may not be the marking that proofs it.
I have seen ZZ interpretated as Zentraler Zeugamt. But nor have I seen any proof of that either.
(It has been some years, since I went into WaA markings. New info may have been found since then)

So, if it is marked ZZa2, then why is it relevant for a discussion about SS marked items? Because someone at a museum wrote something ?
I don´t think I have made a point here, really.
Even this PzB business has open ends, which are hard to close. (a photo of the ZZa2 stamp would have been nice)"

I suggest that you do a google search of - pzb m.ss.41 anti-tank – and see how information you find compares to the example at SA.

As far as I can tell this thread has to do with the legitimacy of SS specific markings applied during the Nazi period to R-R manufactured binoculars. My point for introducing the facts that SS specific markings were applied during the same period to some of their weapon types and some related accessories (to include certain Ajack sniper scope optics) is to establish patterns of behavior. Though patterns do not necessarily guarantee tangential or future behavior – they are relevant data points that cannot be ignored.


"Did those people, who wrote books in the fifties get duped?
My guess would be, probably not.
But that is what it is: Probably."

Regarding the US Army Ordnance Museum collection, Springfield Armory collection and early references derived from them - absent evidence that discredits them there is no basis to even consider these collections duped any early authors. So without evidence “Probably” represents nothing more than an opinion unsupported by facts.


"I envy them the circumstances.
Few copies, if any. But even in 1960 prices were no longer to be completely disregarded, and some people in Germany had made good money selling all kind of stuff to americans.
(like all those dagger manufacturers who sold their entire stocks of spare parts for german WWII daggers to US dealers and collectors. Completely obsolete, but nevertheless, Swastika items did represent substantial value, even then.)

There is one thing I am afraid may happen to me one day. That I begin to believe I "know", when I see something that surely "must" be right or wrong.

I hope that won´t happen in 2014.

Happy New Year to everyone."


Interesting comments regarding fear of “knowing” if an item “must be right or wrong.” Perhaps it’s just me but I always thought the goal of a serious collector/researcher is to become a subject matter expert in their chosen niche and have confidence in their ability to ascertain when an item is right or wrong. I can think of any number of circumstances which would indicate an item must be wrong. But no one is perfect so – mistakes will happen, debates will happen and all concerned should benefit. What WAF seems to be about and nothing to fear. Scott

[Sgt Bilko]

This isn't SS Binocular specific - but binoculars have been faked for a long time. Zeiss took French companies to court in the 1930's for using their logo on French binos -they still appear yet on Ebay!

And WW2 Leitz binoculars were routinely marked post war to look like Zeiss Septars and the like (I have one).

Museums are good but only as good as there last display or "relaunch". I thought the KM binoculars shown in the U505 display had come from that boat - but others say the museum called for Vets to hand in U Boat related artifacts;

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=481030

Even experts can get it wrong - Hugh Trevor - Roper, the British intelligence officer who, in 1945 examined (and later wrote about) Hitler's last days in the bunker, was fooled by the now notorious "Hitler's Diaries" - an East German originated hoax.

I don't know where all this leaves us. But I know we have to be careful. And, sadly, it's probably only going to get worse as the continuing fascination with Third Reich memorobilia forces prices ever higher....

[sszza2]

First - the post from the link above that questions the pedigree of items at U505 from what I read has to do with someone's "understanding" rather than knowledge. His "understanding" may or may not be correct or perhaps be partially correct. However it is not evidence. Personally I would have no problem with the pedigree of an item if it was donated by a former crew member who said he took it off U505. In any case the MOSI U505 curator should be able to answer pedigree questions.

Second - US Army Ordnance system had people in ETO assigned to take items for their testing, reference and eventually museum collection from captured weapons stocks, factories and wherever the hell they felt like taking them from. It wasn't a negotiation and payment wasn't involved. To the victor belonged the spoils. Questioning the authenticity of what was collected under those conditions is IMO ridiculous. If fake or massaged items from the ETO exist in that collection - show me the evidence.

Guys I do not believe all museums and their collections are perfect. Far from it. My issue is that all museums are not the same and questioning a museum or their collection based on assumptions and "understandings" without evidence is IMO irresponsible.

Scott