Aluminium Deschler RZM 52 TK

[BenVK]

I've never seen another like this one.
Someone obviously tried to glue the prongs back on at some point.

[SScollector]

I don't like these skulls. This one appears to be molded, imo. The back is too flat and the area around the eyeholes do not look like they should look. Furthermore, RZM 52 should not still have been in use by the time aluminum skulls where being made. I will post a similar skull later this afternoon. You will notice the incorrect markings are of similar style.

Chris

[BenVK]

Thanks Chris.

I'm not sure when Deschler replaced RZM 52 with M1/52 but I do know that 1936 regulations specified aluminium insignia for the earth grey service cap.

[Funia]

Here is mine same style Alu made Deschler RZM 52 TK

[BenVK]

Thank you but that is an M1/52 marked Deschler, it's a different design.

(could you resize your large photo please? it makes looking at this thread a bit of a pain.)

I've actually found the exact same skull I have in my hands now.

So if seems it came from Peter Jenkins a few years ago.
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...=652288&page=2

[Funia]

I applogozize about this pics size.
I cannot resize it (due to technical problems)
Sorry again
Peter

[SScollector]

Here is quick comparison with an original, (original on the left), where I have pointed out a few areas that cause me great concern with this skull.

Chris

[SScollector]

Here is a back side comparison. Notice the metal around the eyes and the nose holes is incorrect. Hope this helps!

Chris

[BenVK]

Which original are you comparing it to Chris? An M1/52 marked one?

[Felix]

No one is god, but with metal SS visor insignias I have a hard time to argue with Chris. Few if none have studied the topic like him on this planet.

I dont think I have to say that actually, but any way...

//Felix

[PMan]

"These skulls"

I don't like these skulls. This one appears to be molded, imo. The back is too flat and the area around the eyeholes do not look like they should look. Furthermore, RZM 52 should not still have been in use by the time aluminum skulls where being made. I will post a similar skull later this afternoon. You will notice the incorrect markings are of similar style.

Chris

Hi Chris, You say "These Skulls". you have seen others? This same skull has made the rounds. I believe it was first offered by Peter Jenkins at Kassel. I had it in my hands there and again at the MAX. This was a few years back. I looked at it closely and felt it was right. Enough of the sharp detail still remains. The only thing that prevented me from buying it was the damage on the front side. I have never seen another.

[SScollector]

Yes, the skull I used in the comparison photos is a standard M1/52 aluminum skull. I can easily tell that the skull in question is also of that front die pattern, (not the actual "RZM 52" front pattern). So, it should be the proper skull to compare with, IMO.

As for your question Peter, I have only seen similar skulls with other wrong markings and they all had flaws that are similar to this skull and I believe that these are all from a run of high quality fakes. You can see these skulls in the thread that is linked to here in this thread earlier. One, is the one that has the marking; "M/1 52" instead of "M1/52".

No one is god indeed, but we have a lot of red flags here, IMO, and these are my thoughts.

All the best,

Chris

[BenVK]

If we're making comparisons with known originals, I don't think we should compare it with an aluminium M1/52. The designs are completely different.
I've created this image to show you what I mean.

[BenVK]

Much closer in design is the RZM 52 "Neusilber" variant. Not exactly sure what alloy they used to make these.

[BenVK]

Here is a back side comparison. Notice the metal around the eyes and the nose holes is incorrect. Hope this helps!

I'm not sure it's incorrect but I know what you mean. Most skulls have the alloy pushed through to form prominent ridges on the back around the eye and nose sockets.

But some others don't. I guess it all comes down to how sharp the cut out tool was and how much force was used. Maybe some were even cut out from the back to the front rather than the other way around.