Warning: session_start(): open(/var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php74/sess_06cde683b6ac401beb834b193b349adafdcbc56f00653331, O_RDWR) failed: No space left on device (28) in /home/devwehrmacht/public_html/forums/includes/vb5/frontend/controller/page.php on line 71 Warning: session_start(): Failed to read session data: files (path: /var/cpanel/php/sessions/ea-php74) in /home/devwehrmacht/public_html/forums/includes/vb5/frontend/controller/page.php on line 71 2 Hitler Youth HJ Gold Honor Badges for Review - Wehrmacht-Awards.com Militaria Forums
GermanMilitaria

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2 Hitler Youth HJ Gold Honor Badges for Review

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 5
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
    #61
    Originally posted by TWALT View Post
    And I rest my case, onus is still on you to prove authenticity.
    That is the way it works in any legal system Mr. Twalt, I say it matches known originals, you say no, then please take apart the picture in post 27 and you have the burden of proof to prove it fake.

    So far, despite my invitation, no member can claim what defects the M1/70 in post 27 has.

    Why don't you be the first to take my dare.

    Talk is cheap.

    Go head, "counsel," I rest my case.

    Putting stupid icons to your post, adds nothing to your argument
    Last edited by Gary Symonds; 04-19-2017, 05:49 PM.

    Comment

      #62
      But Gary that is exactly my point. You say it is real, you say it is period, but you supply no real evidence to substantiate your claim. If you are unable to accept what everyone else has ages ago that is certainly your prerogative, but do not continue spewing your BS here in an attempt to undermine our hobby.

      Comment

        #63
        Badge #9340 RZM M1/70
        Badge #9341 RZM 15
        Badge #9389 RZM M1/70

        Perhaps there is a logical explanation as to how Ferdinand managed to sneak into Otto's factory and plant one of his pre "M1" transitional badges into one of the batches but it is going to have to be a beauty.

        I'm thinking that guy that got O.J. Simpson off is required but even then it's thin ice.

        Comment

          #64
          Originally posted by War Prisoner View Post
          .... how Ferdinand managed to sneak into Otto's factory ....
          No need for them to sneak in.. they were after all, the sole (only allowed) manufacturer of ALL Hitler Youth badges in mid-1933 (verordnungsblatt der RJF 5, folge 1.)
          Naturally that changed soon after as we know from multiple transitionally marked HJ membership badges (1st and second versions) from other makers - but, Hoffstätter were also the inventors of the Hitlerjugend Ehrenzeichen in gold, with their first version having ALTE GARDE on the outside edging.

          We also know that they indeed produced the first (normal-sans ALTE GARDE) HJ-Ehrenzeichen, as multiple examples found show us with numbers as low as 1 and 2 digits. (I believe Weitze has a few low numbers by them, as well on the HJ Research Forum)

          The reason for their funny stampings is easy to decifer, and they can also be found in this manner on many other small org. badges made during the transitional period by Hoffstätter as well as others. (Examples available - but not for trolls). When the HJ-Ehrenzeichen was first made, there was no such thing as the M1/ prefix, it was still the old Nr. prefix. (Which some makers used on small org. badges, but most just used the RZM logo and their Berechtigungsscheinnummer.)

          Another small factual nut would be that it is also well known that Hoffstätter produced B-Stücke - replacemernt badges - number prefixed with a B (as all early replacement HJ-Ehrenzeichen were) long before the regulation that no longer made it nessesary to include any number (just a B.) So any argument that Wim`s 9341 badge "may" be a replacement badge, is shot down before it gets off the ground.
          That is, of course, if someone wanted to use the B-stücke as a get-out-of-jail card on the 9341 Hoffstätter badge.

          I just found a(nother) thread started about M1/70 badges? (A one man show thread at present with near 400 views and no replies) with howling and stomping of feet and complete nonsense about maker M1/184 and my book?
          There is no RZM M1/ list in the bestseller - The Party Badge book - and the "info" there is about maker M1/184, actually talks more about the makers M1/185 and M1/186! the last two authorized M1/ licenses issued in late 1944. So, anyone who claims that "...maker M1/184 was the last maker" is working off outdated source material, or simply combing the web for a free M1/ list. (Every M1/ list ever compiled before the 2013 Super seller PB book, is wrong!)

          In closing, I still see no reason at all to entertain mentally challenged banshee-wailing threads that are started with the sole purpose of insulting historians & researchers, and praising fake Militaria. For the sake of the normal collectors here on WAF, I will answer the wailing Symond`s question of why M1/70 is still found in later lists.

          The Handbuch der Reichszeugmeisterei, the RZM Bible, containing all RZM contracted manufacturers, sellers and agents, was published months before Franz Otto had their M1/ license withdrawn... hence their number M1/70 being in that book. There was never a second edition, any "updates" were covered in the RZM Mitteilungsblätter, which is where the notice is found that Franz Otto had their license withdrawn in October 1935. Each and every maker/seller was obliged to purchase these announcement papers.
          There is no "maybe" or "could be" or "in my opinion" when it comes to black and white documented facts, ESPECIALLY NOT FROM THE LIKES OF SYMONDS!

          The RZM Mitteilungsblätter were always updated if there were any mistakes, and there is no mention of M1/70 again after they lost their license. There are also - and this part is relevant - no known org. badges whatsoever, marked with M1/70. Not a single badge has ever been seen apart from the fake HJ-Ehrenzeichen. The same goes for a few fake numbers used but that is another debate.

          Comment

            #65
            So I'm a little confused, which is not that unusual. I understand that the RZM M1/70 badges are reproductions from this discussion but I'm still unclear on the badge marked RZM 15. Is this one considered original?
            Richard V

            Comment

              #66
              Originally posted by Richard View Post
              ...I'm still unclear on the badge marked RZM 15. Is this one considered original?
              Richard V
              Yes. RZM 15 is the pre-M/1 Hoffstatter mark. Plenty of known good badges with that MM even going back into the three-digit range.

              Methinks Symonds does not understand the term "burden of proof" as it applies to this discussion. It applies both ways and he is failing consistently to meet his burden because claim, counter-claim, subjective opinion and flimsy comparative "evidence" do not constitute a believable, viable defence of his position

              Comment

                #67
                I have followed this thread and some others with interest. Although I am not a HJ collector this is what I have surmised from the postings:

                The M 1/70 has been deemed a fake by a portion/majority of the collecting community for the following reasons:

                1) No documents have been found associated with an M 1/70

                2) All currently known M 1/70 pins are numbered within the same block of numbers 8000-9999

                3) The company given the M 1/70 license was removed from approved manufacturers in 1935 (although some suggest they might have made a small run of pins before losing their license)

                4) According to Jo, the manufacturing technique of the M 1/70 is different than other HJ pins (reduction method, materials etc)

                5) The style/font of the number "4" engraved on some of these M 1/70 HJ pins is the same as the style/font number "4" on fake TENO badges and HJ Leistungsabzeichen (there is a crook/curve in the slanted portion of the "4")

                6) Jo is aware of the individual(s) who manufacturers these M 1/70 pins.

                Is this correct?

                Gary B
                ANA LM #1201868, OMSA LM #60, OVMS LM #8348

                Comment

                  #68
                  Originally posted by Gary B View Post
                  I have followed this thread and some others with interest. Although I am not a HJ collector this is what I have surmised from the postings:

                  The M 1/70 has been deemed a fake by a portion/majority of the collecting community for the following reasons:

                  1) No documents have been found associated with an M 1/70

                  2) All currently known M 1/70 pins are numbered within the same block of numbers 8000-9999

                  3) The company given the M 1/70 license was removed from approved manufacturers in 1935 (although some suggest they might have made a small run of pins before losing their license)

                  4) According to Jo, the manufacturing technique of the M 1/70 is different than other HJ pins (reduction method, materials etc)

                  5) The style/font of the number "4" engraved on some of these M 1/70 HJ pins is the same as the style/font number "4" on fake TENO badges and HJ Leistungsabzeichen (there is a crook/curve in the slanted portion of the "4")

                  6) Jo is aware of the individual(s) who manufacturers these M 1/70 pins.

                  Is this correct?

                  Gary B

                  Well summarized. You can also add that my example of the M1/70 has a very weird finish that immediately pops out in a line-up. Not the warm golden colour that you see on on originals. For almost 10 years know I look out for a matching Bezitsurkunde, I found the examples matching with the other makers already years ago: MM 15, MM M1/78, MM M1/120 and M1/52. M1/49 is also still without Bezitsurkunde but has no other red flags and is pretty rare and always found as a B- badge. My list of encountered M1/70's is the longest. They are everywhere...

                  Regards, Wim
                  Last edited by Wim Vangossum; 04-20-2017, 12:27 PM.
                  Freedom is not for Free

                  Comment

                    #69
                    m1/70

                    Ok guys I have had a dam good look at this m1/70 that I have in my collection and also in my collection I have 2 hj memberships badges and a HJ student league membership badge and two hj sharpshooter badges all original. This is my opinion on the m1/70: I think it is a 70s fake. Here are the reasons why I think its fake: first the white enamel on the m1/70 under a bright light and using a magnifying glass is pure white. On all my original HJ badges the white enamel is a off white. Next the "1" on the m1/70 on my originals: the downward dash is longer then on the m1/70, also the / is longer on my originals and short on the m1/70. Also the stippling on my original HJ badges all have a very, very, very slight tear drop effect. On my m1/70 there is none. Please note this is my opinion and I would like to hear your opinions on my finding. Please note that on the white enamel. I once had a fake HJ badge and on that badge the enamel was pure white.
                    Last edited by Dietrich Maerz; 04-20-2017, 01:21 PM. Reason: Heavy correction of punctuation so it is readable. What is wrong with using the time-honored tradition of using ".", ":"?

                    Comment

                      #70
                      Originally posted by Röhm1929 View Post
                      Yes. RZM 15 is the pre-M/1 Hoffstatter mark. Plenty of known good badges with that MM even going back into the three-digit range.

                      Methinks Symonds does not understand the term "burden of proof" as it applies to this discussion. It applies both ways and he is failing consistently to meet his burden because claim, counter-claim, subjective opinion and flimsy comparative "evidence" do not constitute a believable, viable defence of his position

                      Thanks for clarifying!
                      Richard V

                      Comment

                      Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next

                      Users Viewing this Thread

                      Collapse

                      There are currently 6 users online. 0 members and 6 guests.

                      Most users ever online was 10,032 at 08:13 PM on 09-28-2024.

                      Working...
                      X