SS2 tabs

[Dan M]

I've have a chance to pick these up. Are they good ones? If so, what is a fair price to pay? I've seen them as high as $3000.00.

Thank you for looking and your opinions.

[Dan M]

Ss2

Reverse

[Hohenstaufen]

Dan,

Hello, they are a nice and real set. 3K is not a bad price for them. Good luck in getting them. Regards, Grant

[Felix]

Better photos would help.

There are a few things about these tabs that I do not like. Wrong shape of the number 2, strange code on the rzm tag for a numbered bullion tab, and I have never seen an early style "not-so-tilted" runes with a rzm paper tag.
Even though the runes are rather well shaped the symetry of the line SS and the "2", is a bit off. Notice how low the 2 sits. (Btw, last remark is a minor thing, but still adds to the whole picture.

These are observations to consider...

Remember, a set like that is over USD 3k for the pair, more likely close to 4K at the "glamour dealers sites". One needs to really evaluate very rare and expensive insignias and check with references before any purchase. And I think you have come to the right place, because here are some very knowledgeable and advanced collectors who will help you.

I would like to see better photos. So for I am not on the positive side.

/Felix

[Lupara]

What strikes me as odd ( as stated by Felix) is the weird alignment of the #2 and the shoddy stitching on the top of it ( might be age or something) Also shouldn't the black stripe on the Litzen ( is that the name for the silver and black stripe ?) be thinner or doesn't that matter that much?

I am a SS noob,to put it in internet terms,so I would wait for the experts to give their say.

[relicstashr]

I am not a big fan of these either. To me the tags look to fresh. the numbers just do not look right. They also look like they were stamped yesterday. The runes and #2 just do not look good either. Mike

[Dr. Strangelove]

Felix

I agree with Felix, better safe than sorry and those folds in the back are sure thick. They lack that laid down for 70 years look.

[PMan]

Alignment?

What strikes me as odd ( as stated by Felix) is the weird alignment of the #2 and the shoddy stitching on the top of it ( might be age or something) Also shouldn't the black stripe on the Litzen ( is that the name for the silver and black stripe ?) be thinner or doesn't that matter that much?

I am a SS noob,to put it in internet terms,so I would wait for the experts to give their say.

See period photo. What is not right with the alignment? I'm confused.

[Felix]

See period photo. What is not right with the alignment? I'm confused.

Please, it would really be better if you gave comments on the other issues instead.
The symmetry is not the main problem. Odd ones can be shown, but they do not make the rules, by being just a bit off in shape.


Thanks

//Felix

[PMan]

Other issues

Please comment the other issues instead!
The symmetry is not the main problem. Odd ones can be shown, but they do not make the rules, by being just a bit off in shape.

//Felix

The "C" code RZM tag with a low serial # and series "A" would be the very earliest of paper tags used during the 38-39 pre-war time frame. 1938 was the last year for cloth tags. Granted, a cloth tagged piece would be nicer, but the very early paper tag is OK for the staggered runics, IMO. Also, the "B" tag for the rank side is OK as well. The litzen is fine. I cannot see much other detail as the photos are poor. An in-hand would be nice, I agree.
Regards, Peter

[Felix]

The "C" code RZM tag with a low serial # and series "A" would be the very earliest of paper tags used during the 38-39 pre-war time frame. 1938 was the last year for cloth tags. Granted, a cloth tagged piece would be nicer, but the very early paper tag is OK for the staggered runics, IMO. Also, the "B" tag for the rank side is OK as well. The litzen is fine. I cannot see much other detail as the photos are poor. An in-hand would be nice, I agree.
Regards, Peter

Peter,

A numbered bullion tab, with a paper RZM tag, would be with a D tag if correct. So far I have not seen any proof that the early style "not-so-tilted" SS runes were tagged with RZM paper labels. I do not rule it out completely, but so far I have not seen any examples. I have seen a few.
The main issue is the shape of the number 2, that is not what one would expect. Way off.

All in all, a problematic set, that I am very sceptic about.

//Felix

[PMan]

Peter,

A numbered bullion tab, with a paper RZM tag, would be with a D tag if correct. So far I have not seen any proof that the early style "not-so-tilted" SS runes were tagged with RZM paper labels. I do not rule it out completely, but so far I have not seen any examples. I have seen a few.
The main issue is the shape of the number 2, that is not what one would expect. Way off.

All in all, a problematic set, that I am very sceptic about.

//Felix

Felix,
I am of the opinion that "D" codes are reserved for officer shoulder boards and armbands. I have seen mostly "C" on runic tabs and do recall a "D" on occasion but am not 100% on that. I really think a better photo of the front side would help as well.
Peter

[Felix]

Felix,
I am of the opinion that "D" codes are reserved for officer shoulder boards and armbands. I have seen mostly "C" on runic tabs and do recall a "D" on occasion but am not 100% on that. I really think a better photo of the front side would help as well.
Peter

The real numbered bullion tabs with a rzm paper tag I have seen, have the D tag. I have seen a few examples of that and have one example is in my collection. C are for runic bullion tabs without a number. It is about the complexity of the work understaken and not reserved for any special items. Unless they meet the limit of complexity, that is.

//Felix

[Robert H]

CDF code is for either hand or machine embroidered tabs, the higher the letter as higher the costs. Further the tax was higher if piping was added by the manufacturer. Rune tabs mostly with CD, skull mostly with CDF.

[RobertE]

For comparison purposes, here's what an original (1935 version) original looks like. regards, Robert