TK totenkopf Skull

[Rene Chavez]

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

[SScollector]

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

[PMan]

The 254

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

[Rene Chavez]

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

[PMan]

254

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

[Rene Chavez]

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

[SScollector]

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

[john mack]

Skull

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

[john mack]

Front

Front

[john mack]

Skull

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

[bwanek1]

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

[Robin Lumsden]

<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.

[Rene Chavez]

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

[PMan]

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

[bwanek1]

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?