Certainly have to admire the stying and ingenuity that went into that one, vs the standard style. The Bullit film's holster was made by Safariland, though. Yes, Berns-Martin created the first one, which used a spring vs. the elastic; very hard to mass produce so the mid-60s to late-70s saw a lot of the elastic style made. Nope, though Bianchi bought the name (1974) the company was already producing the original 9R (1971) that replaced the elastic-loaded 9. The best of them, if I do say so, are the 9R-1 and 9R-2 with the hammer guard and twin belt slots. In close second are the 208 and 209, which were a return to elastic but configured very differently, and all examples I'm aware of STILL pass the factory test; to wit:
There is a factory test for these holsters, that judging from the OP's image I reckon it won't pass, which is: with the unloaded revolver seated as best you think it should be, grasp the rig by the middle of the leather harness opposite the holster itself; hold the suspended revolver and holster over your bed; lift and then SNAP the set,
hard, towards the bed. It must stay in with three of these snaps
in a row (no fair re-seating the revolver) to be safe to wear. Clearly if the revolver is dangling from the holster even on the third, it's a fail.
Now: that particular holster is not one of the known versions of its era (everyone made the elastic one), which suggests that it was made by a modern leathersmith and so he/she is unlikely to understand its physics. So I do not expect it to pass the snap test. Let us know

.