UBB.threads Forums Uniform & Accessories Belts and Buckles Forum RZM 57 SS versus SS 63 RZM: The MW saga

For many years we asked which factories were behind SS EM buckles marked RZM 57 SS and SS 63 RZM? In fact the point started as how to read RZM 57 SS and SS 63 RZM markings since both SS buckles have SS runes added to their respective RZM number. Should it be as any early RZM number (SS runes just added to such code to comply with new SS requirements)? In that case we could rely on the M1 list like we did with accuracy for many makers. RZM M1/57 could bring Martin Winter as maker of the RZM 57�s and RZM M1/63 could bring Steinhauer & L�ck as maker of the RZM 63�s. But it could also have been early "RZM/SS" contract numbers. In this latest hypothesis we do not have a clue in the history of early RZM/SS contracts numbers (like for example how Overhoff ended with RZM/SS contract number 36 when his early RZM number was 24 � but 24 number kept as M1/24).

We already have evidence the Steinhauer & L�ck firm did offered a SS EM buckle in their catalogue (Item K 8966) but unfortunately no physical evidence of such buckle. So SS 63 RZM marked buckles could perfectly be potential candidates if 63 was an early RZM number (M1/63 = S&L). But in that case we had to find a valid clue RZM 57 SS marked buckles were made by Martin Winter to follow the same path.

Another oddity is the fact both SS 63 RZM and RZM 57 SS buckles were made by the exact same firm for their vast majority. For someone having both 57 and 63 buckles in his hands it should be obvious they were stamped with the same die (same die flaw left on the swastika�s back) . So how could they bear different contract numbers leading to believe they were manufactured by two different factories?

In reference books, RZM 57�s buckles were known only under their latest marking: 57 RZM stamped by the catch and SS runes under the post sleeve assembly without any additional marking. This was very unfortunate since their earlier marking is the one which brought the clue to their maker. Few years ago I was able to obtain my first lead: a RZM 57 SS buckle with remains of an older marking! Under the classical RZM 57 was still clearly visible �GES. GESCH.M� and something else erased after the M. From that moment I was convinced finding the erased marking would lead to know who the maker of RZM 57 SS buckles was.
A large diffusion of this new buckle via the internet forums along with its publication in Peter Nash�s book brought many other examples to my attention. On their vast majority remained only "GES.GESCH." when on few others GES.GESCH.M was present. Any speculation was open, including the one brought by Peter Nash: he thought the missing part could be �K and so full prior marking been GES.GESCH.M�K with M�K denoting some kind of cooperative. Such idea could have explained why two different numbers were on a shared production. But it was just a question replaced by another. Finally after several months of investigations I received on my desk what I was looking for: a mint unissued RZM 57 SS with the full primary marking "GES.GESCH MW" left intact! So �W� was the missing part and not �K! As surprising it could be, this missing W was already clearly visible on my own photo sent to Mr.Nash! But to see it on that one, photo should be displayed in black and white like Mr.Nash did page 217 on top. I never paid attention to this feature until knowing what to look for! As an added note, I still do not know any GES.GESCH. MW not over stamped with RZM 57 SS.

Further observation of numerous 57�s and 63�s revealed something else: Most, to not say all, 63�s are in fact former 57�s which had their previous marking erased and replaced by SS 63 RZM. It is obvious when looking under the 63�s post sleeve assembly: anyone could notice remains of the former 57�s runes. On at least one 63 examined, the complete previous RZM 57 SS marking is still visible � faint but there. So in fact, for the majority of 63�s we are facing not a different buckle than the 57�s but rather a marking evolution of the same buckle. It became legitimate to believe that for most buckles their sequence in markings was: GES.GESCH.MW, then RZM 57 SS and lately SS 63 RZM. All on a single buckle.

In resume, former marking of the 57�s buckles been GES.GESCH.MW, there is strong possibility MW stands for Martin Winter. The M1 list also brings the name of Martin Winter as RZM M1/57 holder (so RZM 57 holder). So it could be perfectly legitimate to believe Martin Winter was the right maker behind RZM 57 buckles - SS runes probably added to earlier RZM codification to comply with equivalently earlier SS regulations.

Still remains the question why buckles supposedly made by Martin Winter ended with a 63 number? Is this 63 number rightfully in direct connection with a Steinhauer & L�ck production? Could Martin Winter have been from the start a S&L sale outlet of for Munich, cradle of the NSDAP and RZM? Could Steinhauer & L�ck have purchased remaining SS inventory from Martin Winter at a later time? Last, but not least, could 63 been a RZM/SS contract number assigned to Martin Winter and not an earlier RZM number? Still many questions to answer �.

At least one thing remains certain: several metallic SS items (not only buckles), marked by the above firms or marked with the above markings, are also sharing the exact same dies.

Copyright JP Redeuilh @ 2004
Copyright JP Redeuilh @ 2005
Copyright JP Redeuilh @ 2006

Tomorrow I will upload photos

Looking forward to seeing the pictures

A very informative thread thanks!

Don

Hallo JP,

thanks for this clear summary updating the MW saga.....may be other collectors could add some new clue found on non-SS buckles.

Best

Ric

Somewhere else I received this answer. Since I want to keep the discussion in one place I copied it. Here it is:

"Hello JP and everyone!

Good work on the 63/57 saga.
I just wanted to add a couple pieces of the puzzle, (I wish I had more).

Anyway, the first thing that I wanted to mention, further supports the theory that these items that are marked with the "57" code started earlier than the ones marked with the "63" code.
That is, the fact that I have seen early nickel SS overseas cap skull buttons marked with "RZM 57" but with no "SS" marking.
I have also seen a few of the "RZM 57" marked skull buttons
that did have "SS" on it. So, it seems to me, that these buttons
started before the "SS" marking rule, (or preference), came about
and then they started adding the "SS" marking to the buttons and
sometime after that, the "RZM 63 SS" marked buttons were introduced.
I can't tell if the "RZM 63 SS" marked buttons were remarked
from previously marked "RZM 57" or "RZM 57 SS" buttons,
but one thing is certain, and that is that the "RZM 63 SS"
marked buttons are much more commonly encountered,
than either the "RZM 57" or "RZM 57 SS" marked buttons
and I have never seen a "63" marked button that did not have
the "SS" marking.

One more thing JP: You mentioned the possibility that
the 63 and 57 numbers could have been SS contract numbers
instead of early RZM numbers, but I highly doubt that is true
because I have never seen any SS item with an SS contract number
that did not include the year that the die was made,
(such as, "155/36", or "36/40", and so on).
Lastly, I have seen proof that M. Winter made at least some of those skull buttons because Bob Hritz showed us one skull button from his collection
that is identical to the other nickel skull buttons, except that it is marked
"RZM M5/69", (M. Winter), and this proves that M. Winter
was still manufacturing these buttons after the "M5" prefix was
introduced, (and also would have been produced after the "RZM 63 SS"
buttons). So, my guess is that M. Winter sold them to S. & L.
while still continuing to sell them himself, (or something similar).
Maybe the owners of these two firms were cousins or something.

Does anyone know which of these two firms was the most popular
and how popular were they?
Maybe M. Winter sold them together with S. & L. because of low popularity reasons or maybe M. Winter was just trying to help S. & L.

Well, good luck with the 57/63 saga.
Looking very forward to your buckle pics, JP.

Best, Chris"

quote:

Originally posted by Chris:
Anyway, the first thing that I wanted to mention, further supports the theory that these items that are marked with the "57" code started earlier than the ones marked with the "63" code.

It is not a theory but a fact based on obvious markings added over erased others.

quote:

That is, the fact that I have seen early nickel SS overseas cap skull buttons marked with "RZM 57" but with no "SS" marking.

Further enforcing earlier RZM codification where the M1 list comes handy

quote:

I have also seen a few of the "RZM 57" marked skull buttons
that did have "SS" on it. So, it seems to me, that these buttons
started before the "SS" marking rule, (or preference), came about
and then they started adding the "SS" marking to the buttons and
sometime after that, the "RZM 63 SS" marked buttons were introduced.
I can't tell if the "RZM 63 SS" marked buttons were remarked
from previously marked "RZM 57" or "RZM 57 SS" buttons,
but one thing is certain, and that is that the "RZM 63 SS"
marked buttons are much more commonly encountered,
than either the "RZM 57" or "RZM 57 SS" marked buttons
and I have never seen a "63" marked button that did not have
the "SS" marking.

Same with SS buckles. So far, not a single RZM 63 (no SS runes) buckle known.

quote:

One more thing JP: You mentioned the possibility that
the 63 and 57 numbers could have been SS contract numbers
instead of early RZM numbers, but I highly doubt that is true
because I have never seen any SS item with an SS contract number
that did not include the year that the die was made,
(such as, "155/36", or "36/40", and so on).

Maybe these are part of what you are looking for. We do not have any document stating earlier RZM/SS contract numbers were not the exact same as earlier RZM numbers to begin with. Those earlier RZM/SS contact numbers could have been evolve in several steps in a matter of just few weeks toward the latest codification we do recognize today. Earlier RZM numbers did, why not earlier RZM/SS ones? It is a possibility which cannot be discarded so fast.

{QUOTE] Lastly, I have seen proof that M. Winter made at least some of those skull buttons because Bob Hritz showed us one skull button from his collection
that is identical to the other nickel skull buttons, except that it is marked
"RZM M5/69", (M. Winter), and this proves that M. Winter
was still manufacturing these buttons after the "M5" prefix was
introduced, (and also would have been produced after the "RZM 63 SS"
buttons). [/QUOTE]

Indeed. But does not mean Martin Winter and/or S&L were still manufacturing SS buckles at that time.

quote:

So, my guess is that M. Winter sold them to S. & L.
while still continuing to sell them himself, (or something similar).
Maybe the owners of these two firms were cousins or something.

Does anyone know which of these two firms was the most popular
and how popular were they?
Maybe M. Winter sold them together with S. & L. because of low popularity reasons or maybe M. Winter was just trying to help S. & L.

S&L was (and still is today) a very large company. Martin Winter seems to have been close to nothing. If MW was supplying S&L would be like Tucker making cars for Ford. Very unlikely.

For this article I am going to use only 5 various 57's and 63's from my own collection.
57's are on the left (3 of them) and 63's on the right (2 of them).

Closer comparison: 57 left / 63 right

Backs. 57's left / 63's right

57 back

63 back

More photos tomorrow

In the meantime, can someone spot where the die marks common to both are?

Is it the small "L" mark at the bottom of the Swaz?

Cheers
Don

You found one

How many am I looking for?

Cheers
Don

There is three others. Unfortunately, since I had to use the flash, only two others can be seen. And to be honest, one of those two is not so obvious if you don't know where to look at. But obvious in reality.

3 more! Oh man....

There's a similar "L" mark at the same place but this time on the left arm at the 3 o'clock area which seems to be on both buckles. Also the dot at 12 o'clock on the bottom picture worries me, there is a mark in the same area on the other buckle but I don't think it's the same.....


Cheers
Don

Three "L" and break

Ahh, I would never have spotted those last 2

Cheers
Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Scowen:
Ahh, I would never have spotted those last 2

Cheers
Don

At least you tried the best you could, and this is all to your honour!!! Indeed the break is hard to spot from my photos but is obvious in reality. This break is on ALL 57's and 63's I was able to look at (just over 20 at current time). So, since now you know where it is, please look at any 57's or 63's YOU could know in collections and you are probably going to find it as well.

57 Over stamped detail - Various ground off can be find ranging from totally ground off (no GES.GESCH.MW prior marking remaining at all) to full prior marking left intact. Still, I do not know at current time even a single buckle which was not over stamped (marked GES.GESCH.MW without RZM 57 SS).

SS marking under post sleeve assembly on all 57's. This is the marking which is ground off but still visible on most 63's. Reason been obvious: it is easier to ground off a marking lightly in relief than one deeply stamped - along with marking location.

Mint 57 barely worn. Buckle purchased from my friend Philippe at http://www.majorplm.com/

Detail of the above mint 57. It is impossible to say if this buckle was ever with a prior GES.GESCH.MW marking

63 in very good condition.
Buckle purchased from my friend at http://www.majorplm.com/

Marking of the above 63

Ground off marking detail. Remains of the former "57" ring can be seen between the SS and 63.

Ground off marking detail 2. Remains of former 57's runes ring is still visible.
Note: on some 63 buckles even part of the runes are remaining.

Well, I guess this is all for now.

I would like to express my deep gratitude to the people who helped me those last years in this particuliar research. Without their active collaboration I will still seek answers where they were not. Among those, some should be highlighted:

- Christian (aka.Wickie) (Germany)
- Karl Ortmann (aka.) (Germany)
- Philippe (aka.MajorPLM - http://www.majorplm.com) (France)
- Andrew (USA)

As I mentioned above, a truly interesting & informative thread, thanks again.

Cheers
Don