creskol said:
exactly! Well put, CBG HHTheCannonballGuy said:I've been watching this discussion since it first began, hoping somebody would manage to come up with a well-substantiated ID of the object. Because nobody has managed to do that, I think it's time for me to speak up with the observations and research I've done while watching the discussion ...and my efforts coincidentally happen to provide some Substantiation for Broken Knee's just-now-posted theory.
Most of my past 30-something years as a relic-researcher involved a lot of laborious effort in libraries and museums, digging through old paper records and microfilm/microfiche. Thus I've been delighted by the advent of electronic records, and especially computer keyword-search capability, which has freed me from the need to visit dusty archival basements and filerooms. In particular, keyword-searching has been helpful for investigating markings on known and unknown objects.
But first, please examine the object itself, as shown in the photos posted by Creskol. (I've re-posted one of his photos in this post, below.) The characteristics of the corrosion on this object indicate it is made of cheap potmetal, or a similar high-zinc-content alloy. Also, the object's front appears to have remnants of very thin brass (or perhaps nickel) plating atop the potmetal. A great many cheap souvenir belt-buckles have that composition and thin plating. This object does not strike me as being any sort of "official" (i.e., government-issued) Inspection-tag.
Next, let's examine the markings on the object. Very importantly, only two parts of the marking ("INSPECTED" and the "$" sign) are in raised lettering - which means that lettering was part of the object when it was manufactured (apparently by metalcasting in a mold). Therefore, the object was manufactured as a "blank" or "stock" item ...with empty spaces left for individualized markings to be added at some point after it left the original manufacturer.
Note also that the largest of all the markings is the $-sign. There must be some reason it is the biggest marking. That seems to indicate a commercial rather than governmental purpose.
The rest of the markings on this object are die-stamped, and are positioned in the spaces that were deliberately left blank by the object's manufacturer.
If this object was issued by one particular country's (or state's) government, why isn't its name in the raised, cast-in lettering ...but instead, the name of a country is die-stamped into one of the blank areas on the object?
Now, let's move on to keyword-searching. My google-searching produced no results for the phrase "Department of Leather Goods Association." Apparently, DoLGA does not exist ...or there'd be a mention of it somewhere on the vast internet. The DoLGA surely would be mentioned somewhere on the 'net if it was a government agency ...especially an agency in charge of inspecting products or the importation or export of products.
My google-searching did produce mention of six countries that have a "Leather Goods Association" ...which, rather importantly, is a commercial business/trade group, not any kind of government agency. Canada and the US have a Leather Goods Association ...but I think more importantly in regard to this object, most of the countries which have a Leather Goods Association are in Eastern Asia (Thailand, Pakistan, India, and China).
Noting the cheapness of the object's construction (junk potmetal), and it being a generic blank/stock type which allows you to die-stamp whatever name or info you wish onto it... I think the "most likely possibility" is that it was produced by a leather-goods manufacturer or Exporter in an East-Asian country as a way to "promote" the supposed high quality ("Inspected" with a nation's name and official-sounding "Department") of its large leather products such as luggage or a pack or totebag.
That is my interpretation of the evidence seen in the photos of the object, and extensive websearching. Other people's interpretation of the evidence may (and probably will) vary from mine.
