I think I did good...opinions?

[135C/C]

Both magazines are stamped and other than on the bases, are unmarked. The aluminum based mag is "1" and has what appears to be a tall "W" resting on a circle with what almost looks like a flag outline on the right of the "W"....hopefully it's visible in the pic. With my admittedly limited resources/knowledge, I can't match this mark with anything.... any significance to this proof mark? The wood based mag is "2", stamped with the serial number & "a" suffix, and has what appears to be a "+" underneath the "a"....any significance to the "+"? If you look closely it appears the serial # has been stamped over a smaller "5964". Is it fair to assume this was done at the beginning of its police service at the armory?

The police holster was converted from a military and has very pronounced stitching holes from where the original military strap was stitched on the main holster "body". Besides having VERY FAINT Friedrich Böttger, Eisleben, and either 1915 or 1916 stamped on the inside flap near the stud, it is unmarked (aside from the hand-written "FB"). Is there any trick to make the stampings more obvious/readable? When I was trying to make out the year stamp, the round black leather piece to cover the back of the stud came right off. What should I use to re-attach it, or should I just leave it? The holster looks to be black, but under bright light and camera flash it almost appears to be a brown. I'm assuming this is from the mandated "black" fading over time and the original brown dye applied in 1915 or 1916 showing through. The belt loops are definitely brown. The holster appears to be a bit rough, but it's complete and nothing is broken, would this rate as "fair"?

The loading tool has no markings. It "looks" to me to be original just because of the old blue apperance and evidence of wear. Is there any other way to determine originality?

I've got even more pics if needed.