Deschler Marked Party Pin - A Curiosity!

[TobyR]

Hi Everyone,

Here's something of a curiosity: a party pin with the full Deschler trademark. In addition to the maker-mark, it also has Ges. Gesch both on the badge reverse and the attachment plate, and finally, the RZM circle - no RZM code though.

In assessing this badge, take a moment to consider the following photos (badge shown on the right of the photograph) of another early Deschler pin I once owned (definitely original).

The maker-mark is a match both in terms of spacing and font used. Pin is a similar size too.

In terms of the obverse, although the font is not an exact match there are some characteristic Deschler traits, such as the positioning of the hyphen over the "L"; the background enamel pattern looks similar to the other example shown below too. Although, not apparent in my photo, the white enamel does exhibit impurities.

Finally, those of you with Mike Tucker's book, might want to take a look at the S&L pins shown on p.14 which also feature the manufacturer's trademark, Ges. Gesch. marks and the RZM circle (but no number).

Anyway, opinions welcome.

Thanks for looking.

All the best,
Toby.

[TobyR]

Deschler pin for purposes of comparison (badge on the right):

[TobyR]

Reverse of badge in post 1;

[TobyR]

Reverse of comparison badge (the one on the right) featuring the same maker mark (notice for example the small stroke at the top of the "R" - a trait present on both marks);

[Texasuberalles]

This is NOT a comment on authenticity of the pictured badge (post #3) but I'm curious why the RZM 'number' of the Mfr. is not included.

Two reasons occur to me:
1. because the name of the Mfr. is shown, the RZM number for that Mfr. would be redundant?
2. because is was a very early production piece and the requirement that the number be shown regardless (and the name not be shown) was implemented?

I'm curious!

[TobyR]

Thanks for your comment TUA.

The only reason I can think of (and this essentially echoes what you've said) is that the badge is at the very start of the transitional period, when manufacturers first entered the era of RZM control.

[Wim Vangossum]

I find it a difficult one. Never saw this before. But that's no reason for considering a piece as "Bad". Same of the lettering on the front matched with the one of the two others. Some are different like the "S" for instance.
But I give it a thumb up
Let's hear what the others have to say...

Regards, Theo

[sjl]

There was a very short period at the end of 1934 to the first few months of 1935 when the RZM logo was announced (but not yet required on badges), but the license numbers and prefix had not yet been established. This gap was too short for most companies to make anything, but I think Deschler, as one of the most prominent makers, probably jumped the gun and added the RZM logo ("Schutzzeichen") to their backs of the party pin for a short run before getting their actual license number, when it was again withdrawn for a whole new reverse die.

The badge looks good to me and must date from this brief, brief interval. Very nice.

[TobyR]

Theo and Stephen,

Thank you to you both for your replies.

@ Stephen - Thank you for the additional info on the transitional period. Given how brief the period must have been, it follows why I haven't encountered such a badge before.

All the best,
Toby.