Announcement

**Gary Wood** · 03-18-2003, 08:02 PM

OK here is another fake 155/36 it is the same as the one posted earlier in this thread but I actually have this in my hand so have had a better look at it, it has been cast from a 155/36 this is again evident by the stump post's of the broken pins that are cast into the badge, the pins look the same as the other posted early in the thread round with blunt ends.

cheers,
Gary

**Gary Wood** · 03-18-2003, 08:11 PM

here are the pin detail on both the repro 155 eagles posted here

**Jean Pierre Redeuilh** · 03-19-2003, 05:43 PM

...which confirms what was obvious when looking at Langemark photos.

What could be more beneficial is to realize how dangerous it is to rely on some list to ascertain which marking had been faked/duplicated versus which one has not been. It is playing with fire since it is assuming having records of everything been produced, both original and fake, condition which is very unlikely.
And more one rely to such list, more he has chances to ending up buying a fake or passing on many originals.

On a personal note, if everyone agree that some original SS cap eagles or SS skulls made by Overhoff were marked M1/24, it is very likely than there is original Assmann marked M1/17 as well...
...and not only fake ones!

**Gary Wood** · 03-19-2003, 08:04 PM

"..which confirms what was obvious when looking at Langemark photos.

What could be more beneficial is to realize how dangerous it is to rely on some list to ascertain which marking had been faked/duplicated versus which one has not been.

It is playing with fire since it is assuming having records of everything been produced, both original and fake, condition which is very unlikely.

And more one rely to such list, more he has chances to ending up buying a fake or passing on many originals. "

Jean Pierre,
Everyone who collects plays with fire, the list Rick compiled is a guide nothing more as he would tell you himself nothing is set in stone, although there are numbers on the list that are outright fakes that have no known corresponding original examples and that is the consensus of advance collectors, specialist in there fields,

The list gives an indication of what can be encountered, to rely on only the list solely would be fool hardy, as you have to know what you are looking at, just like someone buying a 822 buckle because they know that is a valid makes code, but as you know they are faked to death and getting better all the time so its only buy studying known originals in collections that the differences are noted, is there original m1/17 eagles and TK's, I have not seen one yet that I have been happy with, Have I seen them all, NO!,one thing noticeable about the m1/17 you see is the over stiff pins encountered on the examples seen, this is different from other assaman badge pins and other period originals, but on that note my mind is not closed there might be original m1/17 out there I have just not seen one yet,

Also there are new bogus contract/makers numbers appearing every day, there are copies of copies which also confuse the issue as well, there are reproductions that vary the base metal, vary the position of the pins, vary the pin attachments all to fool the unsuspecting collector, who turns around and says but my example is slightly different, that is what the faker wants you to believe

Will every bit of information given out on forums or in books be supported by documentary evidence, NO, as relying on the list solely would be fool hardy so would holding out for documentary evidence for every piece of insignia produced would be fool hardy as most does not exist today, so in the main we rely on the old collectors and advanced collectors who collected these items when fakes were not a patch on what they are today and easily spotted, do you have to believe everything you are told no, the information offered is only advice, and in the end people will believe what they want.
cheers,
Gary

**RzM** · 03-19-2003, 08:37 PM

Eagle.

Gary,

This is the eagle I was referring to. Marked "SS 475/42", it is also zinc. I couldn't get the best resolution on the pictures.

Regards,

John

<img src=http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid55/p9ed7ec8db9fe48f3184d764f0ff81949/fc7a76cc.jpg>

<img src=http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid55/p09afdd02b16d9abea929c75eb7659b87/fc7a76ce.jpg>

**Gary Wood** · 03-19-2003, 08:49 PM

John,
do you have a scanner? or know someone with a scanner as a scan would be better if that is possible,
cheers,
gary

**Jean Pierre Redeuilh** · 03-20-2003, 10:07 AM

Gary,
You are right, but you see collecting with clever eyes, meaning your mind is kept open to admit new evidence. But this is not the behavior of many collectors, even some older ones, who will prefer to rely on quick "give away" like such lists for example. It's easier and do not request lot of analysis. Problem, it increases over time to ultimately become "carved in stone" like saying (it is just two examples) than maker 822 was unknown and maker 880 was C.T.Dicke. This believing stayed in mind more than 40 years!! There was no maker 880 and 822 IS C.T.Dicke. The same apply for Gau Essen buckles. Any book relates those buckles to the SS. Any author will give you the same explanation: it was printed by "X" before and so, it is common knowledge. Ask "X" and he will tell you it was printed by "Y" before and so, it is common knowledge. And so on... nobody is able to say why, including the city of Essen archives or the very particular vet who found all of those in a single box!!

I guess it would be much wiser to print/publish what was never been an original marking (like SS within a diamond for SS Buckles and tunic buttons as example) based on strong evidence but leave other field open.

What happened here with the 155/36 eagle illustrates what I mean perfectly. As of today, you have to agree we still didn't heard a word proving than the shown original example IS original (even if we think so, me included, it is does not prove it is) BUT it is part of a list saying it is an original marking (and once again I believe it is). On the other end, we have to wait for Langemark eagle and later your to finally open eyes that this eagle was duplicated since... 30 years - and it is NOT part of the fake list.

I am sorry if I hurt feelings since it is not what I meant, but based on what I can read in many recent books (some authors are even studying their subject for no more than one year before printing) there is more and more fakes listed as original and originals listed as "potential fakes" since nobody took the time to perform any research in original documents. So, what will we let to our children?

Just my thoughts and of course everybody can disagree.

Best Regards

**Rick Turner** · 03-31-2003, 03:06 PM

It is unfortunate that our hobby is filled with those that have such a holier than thou attitude that they will go out of their way to discredit anyone that they disagree with.

Those like Gary and Tony that truly have an open mind have accepted that the only thing that people like myself have done is try to bring some form of order and understanding to a very difficult hobby.

The whole reason for the list to begin with was to create a starting point for discussion, nothing more, and nothing less. I clearly stated that as more information came to light the list would be updated and revised.

In many of my postings I have stated very clearly that the list provided was nothing more than a consensus of “opinions” from numerous collectors from all over the world. Yet for my efforts in trying to help the new collectors avoid being burned I’ve received nothing more than innuendo and insults from those that claim to have open minds.

I have found that I no longer have any stomach for this hobby and no longer have the urge to spend so many hours trying to help only to be kicked in the teeth, repeatedly. And just so the collecting community knows, there are individuals that have been asked to apologize (in public) for the unfair comments they have made but are not man enough to do it, and never will.

These are also the same individuals that have never in a single post offered any information, photographic or otherwise to support their contentions, insults or ridicule.

In recent months I requested information from those that claim to have information only to receive nothing, zip! This proves to me that many in this hobby are still operating on assumption, both in the “fact” that they state and the argument that they give others.

Assumption is the Mother of all screw-ups.

As a result I have sold most of my collection and will continue to sell off items to those truly interested in “real” pieces in the months to come. Every individual that has purchased any SS or other Third Reich item from me or has seen my collection knows that I’ve done my homework and that the pieces they now own are correct and legitimate.

I want to thank Gary and Tony for inviting me to participate in this forum and it is my hope that anyone using the information that I’ve supplied will find it useful.

I wish all of you the best of luck in the future.

Best Regards
Rick

**Jean Pierre Redeuilh** · 03-31-2003, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Rick Turner
[B]Assumption is the Mother of all screw-ups.

B]

Exactly. The best example been this eagle marked 155/36. Many collectors still "assume" there is no 155/36 fakes...
...and they are around since 30 years.
Many collectors still "assume" there is no original Assmann marked M1/17. Could be (it is not my field), even if it does not makes sense at all from a logical point of view, but yet, it is also based on "assumption", no strict evidence. Maybe there is some originals, but like the fake 155/36 they are seldom seen.
Based on the "strong evidence" we have so far, we can also "assume" there was no SS cap eagles made by Assmann in 1936: no 155/36 and no M1/17. Assmann could just have moved those items for someone else, and not producing those.
So, you are very right IMHO.

Regarding people not providing informations, nothing is a due. Everyday I am facing the same problem but I have to admit some persons have their reason and I accept this as part of the research process. If someone takes a trip to Germany, spend many time to the Berlin archives, find something new very interesting, order and pay for copies of this document, could we logically agree he has to share it with everybody? I do not think so. Certainly, depending on the person he will share with his closest friends but it will be it. One golden motto remains: "give if you want to receive". Unfortunately, in today's world I would have to add that many gave and received nothing.

Best Regards

**Rick Turner** · 03-31-2003, 11:22 PM

Information posted by Jean Pierre Redeuilh to the Wehrmacht Awards SS forum-

“Here is the Assmann SS eagle from the Assmann catalog
you will note Item number 24096. Assmann item number 24065 was introduced (started in production) in 1936.

Assmann item number 24250 was introduced (started in production) in 1936.

So, it confirms the Assmann SS eagle was introduced in 1936 as well.”

So the information you shared with the public above is incorrect?

**Jean Pierre Redeuilh** · 04-01-2003, 01:50 PM

Hello Rick,
When you do a copy/paste of my own message, please do it completely. My own full text is still above but to make it short here is the missing part:
“So, it confirms the Assmann SS eagle was introduced in 1936 as well. Still remains to know if the earlier 1936 production was marked RZM M1/17 (which is said to be marked on fakes) or RZM 155/36 SS?”

I am sorry if I did not also repeat some other parts of my previous posts, like this one: “Second, we also have to keep in mind Assmann was not only a maker but also a huge wholesaler. In his catalogs there is items he never produced himself, but just selling from others.” But once it is written I am supposed to do not repeat it over and over within the same thread. One has just to re-read the full thread which could be easily done.
I also have to ask many collectors, who are using the English language as their main language to forgive me for my text, but my own main language is French and even if I try my best to write in English it is still no perfect and sometimes I can appear un-clear. Please keep also in mind that writing some text in English which would take 10 minutes for“English speaking persons” takes an hour for me, and this without adding time to verify the information to post it the most accurate as possible.
But in this case, my words are very clear: “it confirms the Assmann SS eagle was INTRODUCED in 1936”. The other sentences (above in my original post) which are including other Assmann numbers are in the form: “…introduced (started in production) in 1936”. You will note the text within the parenthesis, text absent from the last sentence (referring to Assmann SS eagle). This was due, and looked to me logical, since we have evidence of “production” by Assmann for items 24065 and item 24250, but no evidence of “production” for item 24096. This item is listed in the Assmann catalog, and bears number 24096, so it was “introduced” by 1936, it is a FACT, but no indication whatsoever could certify it was “produced” by Assmann, and not “sold” by him. The only certified information you or anyone (at least within people sharing this thread – including myself) have is that Assmann HAD AVAILABLE FOR HIS CUSTOMERS A SS CAP EAGLE BY 1936, period! Even if I am going to supply a photo of the original catalog (what apparently you do not have since you did not have photo of the re-print neither – sorry if I still did not sent it to you but I do not recall everything people are asking me to do for them) it will ONLY show the front of this SS eagle, which will not provide ANY evidence as if it is marked RZM 155/36 SS, M1/17 or whatever else (including M1/xx with xx could be 24, 72, etc… if item is moved)!!

Of course, it is more logical to “assume” (but I let others to “assume” – I prefer rely on evidence) that such huge maker would have “produced” his own production, and not moving for someone else. But in such case could someone explain to me why there is so few “original” marked RZM 155/36 SS” SS cap eagles available and why there is numerous “fake” marked M1/17? Based on the posted list – I am using nothing else and I understood this list was for skulls only but could be, without guarantee, a reflect on what available for SS cap eagles – except for 155/36 there is NO OTHER RZM/SS contract numbers listed as original before 1942 but instead RZM numbers like M1/24, M1/52 or M1/72 are widely available. So, I am sorry to disappoint some, but there were some regulations sets by the RZM and/or RF-SS authorities which had to be followed. Just read the March, 23rd 1934 order (available in English also – one has just to spend time and find it) and it is very clear how makers and wholesalers of SS items will be prosecuted if their were not complying to written orders! So, if you agree that M1/72, M1/24 and M1/52 are original markings (and I agree they are), nobody can certify M1/17 been not also an original marking as long there is no document proving Assmann was denied to use this number for SS cap eagles!
So, in summary for some, Assmann is a huge maker, has an item listed under number 24096, list it in his catalog still by 1939 and is “producing” it, but we are not able to find any? Where is common sense? Are we “assuming” all his production was marked RZM 155/36 SS, based on just a close up photo? No 155/37, 155/38, 155/39, etc…? For the records, and it is backed up by original documents as well (sorry but I am not a quick search engine so interested persons could easily find it), one maker could not “produce/make/manufacture” an SS item if an order was not received. Furthermore, such maker with such order was not allowed to produce more than what was initially ordered. Wholesalers had to comply with some restricted regulations as well. This rule was enforced from March 1934 to December 1943 to the best of the documentation available as of today. So, if “logically” Assmann could produce by 1936, “logically” could use the marking RZM 155/36 SS, at least “certainly” he could not supply more than what was produced during this year. So, there is one thing I agree, is that SS cap eagles marked RZM 155/36 SS (IF original - once more, I “assume” and sincerely hope they are) are rare since produced only in 1936, but I do not agree it was the end of the Assmann production. The wholesale input was just to bring another possibility backed up by original documents, but “logically” the use of M1/17 is more appropriate, without any guarantee as long no evidence is available but at least supported by no 155/37, 155/38, etc… available and many other M1/xx numbers attributed. In this case, I am like Gary but just on another end, but I respect and understand his position since he follows his own knowledge based on his own personal experience of original items.

I still do not understand your anger toward some persons since so far nobody made criticism of your contribution to this hobby, or discredit the content of the posted list. It was just logical to comment it since we soon found out some inputs were not backed up by “evidence”, and reader has to be aware of such. If this thread reached 2500 hits so far there is a reason and this is positive IMHO.

If we are talking about “evidence” and “evidence” ONLY, let’s try to prove, or at least find out (at least):
a) what is behind the SS eagle listed in all Assmann’s catalogs as item 24096 (looking the page behind does not bring anything – you can safely believe me)

b) If Assmann received his number 155 by 1936
c) If number 155 is legitimate, why he did not use it by 1937 and after
d) If numbers in the form M1/xx are valid numbers for an extended period of time and for other smaller makers, why M1/17 could not be valid as well
e) Evidence Assmann NEVER produced SS cap eagles marked M1/17
f) A photo showing at least a complete ORIGINAL eagle marked RZM 155/36 SS (front and back view)
g) Know at least if one of those 155/36 marked eagles can be safely tracked to WWII origin (vet pickup, ground dug, etc…)
h) Etc…

So, if we are talking strictly about "evidence" and we want to pass on assumption which is the Mother of all screw-ups, we need to open our eyes and continue to provide the 2500 readers something reliable.

Until further “evidence”, and this is my own “assumption”, Assmann “produced/make/manufactured” some of his first SS cap eagles marked RZM 155/36 SS (note I said “some”, not “all”) and produced later eagles marked, like competitors, M1/17 to comply to regulations.
Even if another “possibility”, based on a mix of original documentation and the relying on the current posted list (taking it as granted, so ignoring it is not carved in stone) could still be Assmann “produced/make/manufactured” some of his first SS cap eagles marked RZM 155/36 SS and later re-sale someone else production, I do not believe this one – but it CAN NOT be rejected neither.
The one which could be safely rejected (and yet it is still an “assumption”) is Assmann “producing/making/manufacturing” his first SS cap eagles marked RZM 155/36 SS and forgiving all about SS cap eagles later.

I hope this time I have been clear and I will kindly ask others to provide some unknown “evidence” if we want to go further.
I will also ask members do not contact me off line for copies of the original documents stated above since they are all readily available, and this since many years.

Best Regards

**Rick Turner** · 04-02-2003, 11:21 AM

Hello Jean Pierre-

Doesn’t matter anymore, don’t worry about it. You have a problem with the language; I have a problem with the interface.

I do admire you’re bilingual ness however, I could never respond in French.

Peace Jean Pierre...

**Jean Pierre Redeuilh** · 04-04-2003, 09:17 AM

Hello All,

Just to go a little bit further on the subject of lists and their dangerous potential if accepted as final:
http://daggers.infopop.net/2/OpenTop...1&m=9823076907

NOTE: I do not criticize at all persons making lists to help others, but would like collectors relying on any list to quickly adding items in their collections or rejecting right away others to realize many inputs are not carved in stone! The wise collector needs to be ready to reset himself at any time.

By the way, I received yesterday another input from a digger in East Europe (one of the few I trust to be a reliable source) and he said he never found himself, or has a friend who did, any SS cap eagle marked M1/17 so far.

**Gary Wood** · 04-05-2003, 10:52 AM

"NOTE: I do not criticize at all persons making lists to help others, but would like collectors relying on any list to quickly adding items in their collections or rejecting right away others to realize many inputs are not carved in stone! The wise collector needs to be ready to reset himself at any time. "

Jean Pierre,

As has been pointed out to you the list was not set in stone, you seem to have made the list an issue and all you have seem to do is slam the list. I do not want to sound rude here but As you know little about ss insignia give it a rest some maybe it is the language? .

You also imply that a LOT of collectors are naive and will go out and buy an example just because it is on list, the markings are one thing but there is more to it than that, materials, finish and construction, just because it has the correct code means nothing as EVERYTHING is copied, you need to know what you are looking at

If you have irrefutable proof that any of the codes on the fake list did exist, and I mean not just documentation but examples that conform with the materials, finish and construction used in that period then please share that information with all

Your work on belt buckles is exemplary and I would say you are top of your field in that,

again sorry if I sound rude,
cheers,
gary

**Gary Wood** · 04-05-2003, 11:00 AM

"except for 155/36 there is NO OTHER RZM/SS contract numbers listed as original before 1942 but instead RZM numbers"

well there is 499/41,

Announcement

WSS caps eagle and tk marks

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread