FAKE SS marking RZM 101/38 SS

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

Note to collectors: This fake marking is popping up on everything. No evidence is currently known this marking has ever existed on period originals.

So far it can be found added to:

- Belts
- Leader belts
- Open claws belts
- HJ leader belts
- Brocade belts
- Belt loops
- Dagger hangers
- Leather cross straps
- Bayonet frogs

[Honor]

Thank you JP very much

[Robert H]

years ago I remember 401 popped up... was this a legit number?

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

years ago I remember 401 popped up... was this a legit number?

VA 401/38 SS and VA 401/43 SS are. So most likely VA 401 never existed either.

[Erbsentarn]

Hello Jean-pierre, i know VA 401/37 SS on tornister and on Bayonet frog too...
I saw VA with 302,401, 419,423 (all on leather items).
Regards
gwen

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

Hello Jean-pierre, i know VA 401/37 SS on tornister and on Bayonet frog too...
I saw VA with 302,401, 419,423 (all on leather items).
Regards
gwen

All VA numbers are not fake. The two above are. Especially 401/43 (appeared in 1992 if i recall correctly)

[Erbsentarn]

Jean-Pierre, you think VA 401/38 is fake too...,i've got a tornister with marking SS 68/38 RZM and above VA 401/38 SS...the good one is 68/38...?
Thanks for answer.
regards
gwen

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

Marking 68/xx has been reproduced as well. Same as 134/xx and many others.
You already had you answer with my previous post. Also, I would not be surprised to find a leather belt marked with a regular RZM xx/yy SS Contract number plus a VASS 193y marking but both VA xx/yy SS and RZM xx/yy SS on the same belt will raise my suspicion

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

Just to be clear: 68/xx and 134/xx have been reproduced which means you can find those marking on perfectly original as well. Reproduction markings are not made the exact same as the original, so can still be detected if you know how the original was. If you don't ...

Some others, like the 101/38 and the two 401 I listed above, are not known on any certified original. So those ones are probably just creations rather than reproductions. You said you know some 401/37. What tells you they are certified originals?

[Erbsentarn]

Jean-Pierre,
Cobra_2001 had a tornister with VA 401/37 SS on sling...
Cossack1648 sell 98k pouch with same marking :
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...&highlight=401
a new from promo :
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...&highlight=401 made in 1937...
there's a lot of other exemple here on waf...
regards
gwen

[Martin Stiles]

Note to collectors: This fake marking is popping up on everything. No evidence is currently known this marking has ever existed on period originals.

So far it can be found added to:

- Belts
- Leader belts
- Open claws belts
- HJ leader belts
- Brocade belts
- Belt loops
- Dagger hangers
- Leather cross straps
- Bayonet frogs

Thank you JP good info

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

Jean-Pierre,
Cobra_2001 had a tornister with VA 401/37 SS on sling...
Cossack1648 sell 98k pouch with same marking :
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...&highlight=401
a new from promo :
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...&highlight=401 made in 1937...
there's a lot of other exemple here on waf...
regards
gwen

WOW! This is the kind of evidence you take to guarantee an original? For sure we do not share the same methods... Just to give you a bit of advise, the open claws belt marked RZM 822/38 SS, also shown in your "reference" links is a full bogus. Maker 822 was Richard Sieper but Sieper was a metal maker, not at all a leather maker. A very small order for open claws belts was made by the SS, but this was made in 1943, not in 1938 or else. Furthermore in 1938 not a single open claw belt was approved for the SS uniform. Only round SS buckles on the belt for leaders were approved.
Those totally fake RZM 822/38 SS markings on leather belts appeared in 1994 if I recall correctly.

[Erbsentarn]

Wow Jean-Pierre, like politician...you didn't answer to the question about marking 401 and date 37...
i didn't collect buckles and if i put an exemple of bad one, it's a mistake....
Could you explain your opinion ...
Regards
gwen

[Jean Pierre Redeuilh]

Wow Jean-Pierre, like politician...you didn't answer to the question about marking 401 and date 37...
i didn't collect buckles and if i put an exemple of bad one, it's a mistake....
Could you explain your opinion ...
Regards
gwen

Your bad example was not a buckle, it was a bad leather belt marked like a buckle. In fact a leather belt with a totally false marking.

I do not have reference for any 401/37, been certified original marking or fake. Of course there is many items showing this marking but I will not comment until I have at least one positive clue.
There is also many 68/xx items. Many are genuine but even more are just crap. 68 was one of the first number to have been reproduced.

[Erbsentarn]

Thanks for your opinion Jean-Pierre...perhaps some members who find or received items with these marking could tell us about origin of these...i 'm ok with you about crap, that's why i want to learn more and more....
Many thanks.
regards
gwen