Tirpitz Tinnie ?

[Martin W]

Just picked up this tinnie.I believe it's for the launching of the Tirpitz on April 1st 1939.

Thanks,Martin

[Martin W]

Reverse.

[burgerhaus]

Martin Now this one is very interesting in that not only is it nicely made and designed but it has an RZM 1 designation and not RZM 9 as tinnies are supposed to as I have always been led to beleive. I am curious as to what others have to say. Thanks for showing sir. Robert

[Mike Pinkus]

i had this tinnie at one time...and really liked it...Hitler was there that day and commemorated the event....i dont remember how mine was marked but i always regretted selling it....
mike

[ben baars]

Here a nice link...http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz...tirlaunch.html
Cheers,
Benten

[ben baars]

Here a nice link...http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz...tirlaunch.html
Sorry, I posted it one time too much here and can 't delete this second post , Benten

[Martin W]

Benten,thanks for the link .

Martin

[sjl]

Robert is right - Party-related commemoratives are supposed to be marked "M9" not "M1". By 1939 there was no confusion about it.

But, this wouldn't have been a party-related event - military - and so it is unlikely that any commemorative badges for the launch would be RZM marked at all.

More than that about this specific badge, I cannot say.

[burgerhaus]

Stephen Thanks for acknowledging my imput. Another interesting tidbit I just dicovered was that M1/35 is Wachtler & Lange Mittweide and M9/35 is one Gebruder Gloerfeld KG Ludensheid. For some reason I was under the impression that the makers number ie. 35, desiganted the same company for each regalia category. But no, each category has diferent number designations for manufacturers. Learning something new today. Robert

PS Can you guess where I got those lists?

[Martin W]

Robert,
The M1/35 is the manufacturers code for Wachtler & Lange of Mittweida.Sorry i cannot explain the RZM marking on the same badge.

Thanks,Martin.

[sjl]

Mistakes were known to be made in the RZM system, but they are relatively rare, especially later. The mark looks like the typical M1/35 mark seen on authentic NSV badges made by Wachtler & Lange.

There were hefty fines for producing insignia in a category a company did not have a permit for (like an M9 license for tinnes and day badges).

[Gregorio Torres]

I had never seen it before, but I don******180;t like this tinnie. First of all we have this RZM M1 mark (absolutely and highly irregular), and on the other hand if this item was been made as an event tinnie, they wouldn******180;t launch it after this day, and the image used to ilustrute the item is clearly taken from the pictures taken the 1st april (Of course the image in the tinnie have been simplified but you can test it in the link provided by Ben, Thanks Ben, and you******180;ll find both very similar), so, the tinnie had to be launched at least several days after the launching of the ship (why then?).
Just my oppinion.
Regards from Spain
Gregorio

[Mike Pinkus]

while what Stephen says is correct, in his statement below, in most circumstances i think it is important to state that though the Nazi administration is thought by many to be faultless in their execution of their limitless regulations and decrees that this is not always the case...many legitimate badges that were supposed to be marked in one fashion or another have been not marked as they were supposed ...many documents that were supposed to be stamped were not...many documents that were supposed to be signed were not...so while this particular piece raises some questions or concerns...in and of itself this is not an automatic thumbs down on the piece....i know that Stephen and i have disagreed about this in the past and he is much more a stickler while i am a bit more lax in this...neither is totally correct or totally right but it is important for the general population to realize imo that there are no absolutes when discussing these items...in fact the misplaced m1 and m9 marks are one of the most common errors in markings on pins and badges....
my .02
mike

Robert is right - Party-related commemoratives are supposed to be marked "M9" not "M1". By 1939 there was no confusion about it.

But, this wouldn't have been a party-related event - military - and so it is unlikely that any commemorative badges for the launch would be RZM marked at all.

More than that about this specific badge, I cannot say.

[burgerhaus]

Gents Well then, if the fact that it is improperly marked is not criteria for giving it the thumbs down what is? I am curious as to exactly what kind of reference each person who has responded uses when evaluating a piece. I personally prefer researched evidence as opposed to the looks good to me method. What do you other folks think? Have a Nice day. Robert

[Mike Pinkus]

Robert you have seen mismarked pieces before that you know are real correct?...what comes to mind immediately is the m9 marked westmark(?) pins and the mismarked juncker close combat clasps...i have/had award documents that have not been properly stamped or signed that i know are 100% original....point is imo that if the piece is correct in everything but markings...have you seen the same error before?
with that being said....strange markings naturally cast question on a piece...and it is worthy of making furthur investigation.
in this case we should see if these exist with any other markings?
are these tinnies accepted as having been produced for the event described?
by research we may be able to come up with a definitive for this tinnie.
who else has one?
mike

ps...btw the double hole pinplate with waffle crimps and the fact this is probably made from aluminum speak to me far more for being an original piece than the "incorrect by the book mark"


pss...i just confirmed one other data point in my mind at least...hitler was present for this launching ( that had to be a huge local nazi party event)... this was big news at the time, the launching of the tirpitz really caused some big "waves:...() in world naval circles at the time...it is not inconceivable for me to see the local party commisioning some commemoratives and not having all their ducks in a row as far as markings etc......

Gents Well then, if the fact that it is improperly marked is not criteria for giving it the thumbs down what is? I am curious as to exactly what kind of reference each person who has responded uses when evaluating a piece. I personally prefer researched evidence as opposed to the looks good to me method. What do you other folks think? Have a Nice day. Robert