Warning: session_start(): open(/var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php74/sess_20319c1355d88f64005b1dc9e10ae42548f7b6cf068596ea, O_RDWR) failed: No space left on device (28) in /home/devwehrmacht/public_html/forums/includes/vb5/frontend/controller/page.php on line 71 Warning: session_start(): Failed to read session data: files (path: /var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php74) in /home/devwehrmacht/public_html/forums/includes/vb5/frontend/controller/page.php on line 71 TK totenkopf Skull - Wehrmacht-Awards.com Militaria Forums
Vintage Productions

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

TK totenkopf Skull

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
    #16
    Very nice and rare skull. So I'm assuming that on this style of TK skull the RZM 52 was the first Deschler type, which was then follow by the 254/42 and then the M1/52 am I correct or not?

    Anyway in my web site you can see the 254/52 skull:

    http://axis101.bizland.com/CollarTabs02.htm

    Rene Chavez
    http://axis101.bizland.com

    Comment

      #17
      I believe that the "RZM 52" was between the first two, and the "M1/52."
      The "254/42" would have been later, (1942).

      Best, Chris

      Comment

        #18
        The 254

        Originally posted by Rene Chavez View Post
        Very nice and rare skull. So I'm assuming that on this style of TK skull the RZM 52 was the first Deschler type, which was then follow by the 254/42 and then the M1/52 am I correct or not?

        Anyway in my web site you can see the 254/52 skull:

        http://axis101.bizland.com/CollarTabs02.htm

        Rene Chavez
        http://axis101.bizland.com
        I find it difficult to tell the difference between the 254 and the M1/52 from the front. They appear to be the same. Am I blind?
        Peter

        Comment

          #19
          Hi Peter what do you mean the difference at the front they are both made by the same company "Deschler" so both should have the same similarities in design now the metal composition I would say is different.

          Rene Chavez
          http://axis101.bizland.com

          Comment

            #20
            254

            Originally posted by Rene Chavez View Post
            Hi Peter what do you mean the difference at the front they are both made by the same company "Deschler" so both should have the same similarities in design now the metal composition I would say is different.

            Rene Chavez
            http://axis101.bizland.com
            Hi Rene,
            I did not know that 254 was also Deschler Why the 2 different #'s??
            Thank you for enlightening me.
            Regards, Peter

            Comment

              #21
              Not sure why the different numbers or how this code number system started with RZM...... all I know is that later on the M1 prefix were removed and replaced by the two or three digit manufacturing codes.
              Perhaps other members can provide us with more information.

              Rene Chavez
              Http://axis101.bizland.com

              Comment

                #22
                The "M1/52" and "254/42" front side details, as well as the materials are the same, (to my knowledge). However, the prongs, prong discs, and the finish can be unique on the "254/42" marked skulls, or they can be the same as the M1/52 skulls as well, or a number of combinations.

                Best, Chris

                Comment

                  #23
                  Skull

                  Here Is One Of M1/52 Skulls Nickle Over Bronze Just The Same A The254/42 That Rene Has On His Site.
                  Attached Files

                  Comment

                    #24
                    Front

                    Front
                    Attached Files

                    Comment

                      #25
                      Skull

                      The Second Pic Is Unlear To The Viewer So I Am Adding This Pic
                      Attached Files

                      Comment

                        #26
                        Originally posted by Rene Chavez View Post
                        Not sure why the different numbers or how this code number system started with RZM...... all I know is that later on the M1 prefix were removed and replaced by the two or three digit manufacturing codes.
                        Perhaps other members can provide us with more information.

                        Rene Chavez
                        http://axis101.bizland.com
                        That's not right. It was not an evolution of the RZM numbering system, which resulted in the differences; it was two different systems, one for the RZM and one for the SS contracting directly with manufacturers.

                        In December, 1934, a law was passed making it illegal to produce unauthorized NSDAP articles, including insignia, and in 1935, the RZM began issuing official marking requirements for insignia. First, this meant that Deschler had to change their markings and add their two-digit RZM manufacturer contract code (52) to their SS insignia. Then, the RZM refined their marking requirements, specifying a code to reflect the material and type of item, in addition to the manufacturer. For Deschler the complete RZM marking code became “M1/52”, in which “M” indicated the material (metal), “1” indicated the type of item (insignia), and, following the slash, “52,” as before, indicated the manufacturer (Deschler).

                        <O</OHowever, also by 1936 (perhaps earlier), the SS had begun to contract directly with manufacturers for the production of insignia, independent of the RZM contracts. The SS assigned their own three-digit numbers to manufacturers, which were entirely unrelated to the codes some of these companies already been assigned by the RZM. The SS required that insignia produced under their contracts be marked with their own manufacturer number followed by a slash and the two-digit year. Most insignia produced directly for the SS by RZM-contracted manufacturers still retained the RZM symbol.

                        <O</OAs a result, we now find insignia having been produced by the same manufacturer but with different markings, dependant upon whether that particular lot had been produced under contract with the RZM or with the SS. For Deschler, the SS contract number was 254, so, we find Deschler skulls marked with either 52, produced for the RZM, or 254, produced directly for the SS.

                        As a side note, in one case, an eagle produced by Zimmermann, both marking codes were used on the same piece of insignia (SS marking “499/42” and RZM marking “M1/72”), indicating the likelihood that that portions of that production run were delivered separately to both the RZM and to the SS to satisfy two different contract requirements simultaneously.<O</O

                        Comment

                          #27
                          Originally posted by bwanek1 View Post
                          <O</O......by 1936 (perhaps earlier)..................
                          <O</O
                          <O</O
                          They were doing this by 1934. I don't know the exact date they started.

                          Comment

                            #28
                            Originally posted by bwanek1 View Post
                            In December, 1934, a law was passed making it illegal to produce unauthorized NSDAP articles, including insignia, and in 1935, the RZM began issuing official marking requirements for insignia......<O</O

                            Thanks for the clarification..... good information

                            Rene Chavez
                            http://axis101.bizland.com

                            Comment

                              #29
                              Originally posted by bwanek1 View Post
                              That's not right. It was not an evolution of the RZM numbering system, which resulted in the differences; it was two different systems, one for the RZM and one for the SS contracting directly with manufacturers.

                              In December, 1934, a law was passed making it illegal to produce unauthorized NSDAP articles, including insignia, and in 1935, the RZM began issuing official marking requirements for insignia. First, this meant that Deschler had to change their markings and add their two-digit RZM manufacturer contract code (52) to their SS insignia. Then, the RZM refined their marking requirements, specifying a code to reflect the material and type of item, in addition to the manufacturer. For Deschler the complete RZM marking code became “M1/52”, in which “M” indicated the material (metal), “1” indicated the type of item (insignia), and, following the slash, “52,” as before, indicated the manufacturer (Deschler).

                              <O</OHowever, also by 1936 (perhaps earlier), the SS had begun to contract directly with manufacturers for the production of insignia, independent of the RZM contracts. The SS assigned their own three-digit numbers to manufacturers, which were entirely unrelated to the codes some of these companies already been assigned by the RZM. The SS required that insignia produced under their contracts be marked with their own manufacturer number followed by a slash and the two-digit year. Most insignia produced directly for the SS by RZM-contracted manufacturers still retained the RZM symbol.

                              <O</OAs a result, we now find insignia having been produced by the same manufacturer but with different markings, dependant upon whether that particular lot had been produced under contract with the RZM or with the SS. For Deschler, the SS contract number was 254, so, we find Deschler skulls marked with either 52, produced for the RZM, or 254, produced directly for the SS.

                              As a side note, in one case, an eagle produced by Zimmermann, both marking codes were used on the same piece of insignia (SS marking “499/42” and RZM marking “M1/72”), indicating the likelihood that that portions of that production run were delivered separately to both the RZM and to the SS to satisfy two different contract requirements simultaneously.<O</O
                              Interesting, but odd that the SS would be allowed to contract for RZM controlled goods. This seems to defeat the purpose of the RZM which controlled the design and quality of the goods. Did the SS provide their own quality checks and design checks on their contracted items? Could they step in and make changes on the fly? I think we have to assume that permission to contract insignia must have been ultimately controlled through the RZM.
                              Peter

                              Comment

                                #30
                                Originally posted by Peter Manzie View Post
                                Interesting, but odd that the SS would be allowed to contract for RZM controlled goods. This seems to defeat the purpose of the RZM which controlled the design and quality of the goods. Did the SS provide their own quality checks and design checks on their contracted items? Could they step in and make changes on the fly? I think we have to assume that permission to contract insignia must have been ultimately controlled through the RZM.
                                Peter
                                In the case of metal cap insignia, it seems that the SS was content to simply establish their own contracts with the same manufacturers who were already under contract with the RZM. However, I think it a mistake to assume that the RZM maintained anything which could be described as "ultimate contral," or even condoned the private SS contracts. I think they simply looked the other way. The SS senior leaders established a huge network of industry to line their own pockets from the purchase of materiel. Considering their power and influence (including the police, Gestapo, Sipo, etc.), who in the RZM would come out against the SS provate contracts?

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next

                                Users Viewing this Thread

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 2 users online. 0 members and 2 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 10,032 at 08:13 PM on 09-28-2024.

                                Working...
                                X