Richard- The material in the frogs is an artificial leather that was specified in police regulations requiring the discontinuance of the use of leather in the manufacture of most of the parade dress accouterments in the 1937/38 period. Some leather had to remain where extreme flexibility was needed. Please note that when these materials were produced seventy-three years ago, they were still pliable and capable of accepting stampings and impressions into the surface.
The make of the white frog in the photos at the bottom of pg 37 is Hans Romer of Berlin, a well-known manufacturer of police accessories including shakos. I sold a parade dress set of belt, shoulder harness and instrument hanger similar to yours a year or two ago to a dealer. I notice the impression of the TK on the frog at the top of p 38 has broken the surface of the hardened material, while the original markings of the manufacturer applied 70+ years ago are impressed into the material. How would you explain why that TK marking shows the obvious signs of being impressed into a hardened surface to the extent that the finish cracked?
And also on p 38 near the top, I can't say that I am impressed by the marking you call a police star L on the S84/98 that also has some kind of TK mark engraved. It is quite crudely done and looks nothing like any Prussian police acceptance marking as seen here on a police bayonet. Notice the L was engraved to the side of what is supposed to be a star/sunburst,unlike any other Prussian acceptance marks.
And as Andy pointed out. Why would white parade accessories used by the LAH be marked with a TK and not the LSAH marking. I have show a faked LAH marking applied to a white police frog.
No TK units used white parade accessories. The only SS unit with white was the LSAH. So you are saying that these TK marked pieces are LSAH? Or they are not original.
