SS "106/38" marked leather belt - original?

[militaria.no]

Hello guys!

I hope you can help me out with this belt as I want to buy it, but have no experience with this kind of marked leather belts. Is the "SS 106/38" marking a known marking? What do you think?

Thank you in advance

Best regards
Marius

[TonyS]

Looks okay to me but I'm not a belt expert.

[militaria.no]

Looks okay to me but I'm not a belt expert.

Thank you Tony Anyone else who has an opinion?

[CWP]

To me, the crispness of the stamp looks inconsistent with the heavy wear to the stitching. It may just be the photo but I would be very cautious.

[militaria.no]

To me, the crispness of the stamp looks inconsistent with the heavy wear to the stitching. It may just be the photo but I would be very cautious.

Thank you Chris. When it comes to the "SS 106/38" marking it will be very interesting to find out if this is a known marking and code. I hope someone can help me to find this out for sure, if they have an item with the same marking or have seen anything like it?

[TonyS]

To me, the crispness of the stamp looks inconsistent with the heavy wear to the stitching. It may just be the photo but I would be very cautious.

I don't know how you can make that assumption - leather items will wear more or less, in different areas, depending on their use and who wears them. I have a buffalo leather belt I wear every day which is worn a lot around the buckle area but not nearly as much at the back. One of the reinforcing studs has the finish worn off to the bare metal but the other one an inch away from it still has almost all the finish.

Here is my 106/38 belt - an officers version.

[militaria.no]

Here is my 106/38 belt - an officers version.

Thank you for your time and help with this picture Tony. It is interesting to see the detail of how the top of number 3 is in touch with the / on both belts: /3
I am now more convinced everything is original and as it should be with the 106/38 belt – Thank you