How can a Party badge have an M9 RZM code?

[Greg]

Painted Party badge marked M9/312 - how can it have an M9 code, which was supposed to be for Tages- und Festabzeichen (tinnies)?

I've seen the threads about the M9/312 D.V.G. badges; does this fall into the same doubtful category?

Thanks,
Greg

[Winterhilfswerk]

Hello Greg

Party badge is ok M9/312 is Fritz Mannheim G.m.b.H from Kaiserslautern
gruss
Guy from Luxemburg

[Greg]

Hi WHW Luxemburger,

I'm wondering how it got an M9 code, when it should have been an M1 code ... did Fritz Mannheim use M9 for everything they made, and the RZM just never caught them, or what?

Best,
Greg

[Wim Vangossum]

Hi,

It's weird indeed. However, the badge looks fine IMO.

Regards, Theo

[Winterhilfswerk]

Hello
Many companies had often more RZM code M9/ is for Tinnies and small badges and conference badges M1/ with small medals one used for example HJ Leistungsbazeichen and member badges and there often occurs the M/9 or M/1 of the same company made most companies all small badges and approximately end from the war the RZM number also often changed if a company one closed
sorry my englich is bad
Guy

[sjl]

Hello
Many companies had often more RZM code M9/ is for Tinnies and small badges and conference badges M1/ with small medals one used for example HJ Leistungsbazeichen and member badges and there often occurs the M/9 or M/1 of the same company made most companies all small badges and approximately end from the war the RZM number also often changed if a company one closed
sorry my englich is bad
Guy

Sorry Guy, your English is fine but I have to disagree. RZM licenses were strictly controlled and enforced. An M9 license could not be used to produce M1 schedule badges. Penalty was severe fines, prison or loss of manufacturing permit. A company had to have separate M1 and M9 licenses to produce both kinds of badges, and each had to have the proper license number on the badge.

License numbers did not change when companies shut down - they were retired. Only 2 of over 1000 M-licenses issued were ever re-issed in the RZM's history.

RZM controlled badges were not just licensed by the RZM, their design and a sample was pre-approved before production, and then they could only be sold through RZM-approved outlets, making the possibility of blatant mistakes almost impossible.

A party pin was a pretty important piece of insignia, and while such a marking mistake is remotely possible, this badge would not be for me. Especially as the same back also appears on another questionable - or at least non-standard - badge that is also not a tinnie or day badge.

[Mike Pinkus]

Stephen
i know we have disagreed with this in the past...and your arguement about rzm laws and regs visciously enforced rings true...but...i have seen how the vaunted german efficiency in rules and regs does not play out in real life...with documents that should be signed and stamped not being so etc.....my question is this...do you have or can you reference any incident where these rules were enforced and what the punishement was?...not just what the regs said but a real life example?....
btw guys i believe the above pin is fine imo... ...my belief is that this was a foreign manufacturer and they probably made belts or other items and mismarked this piece...just like the other m9 pins that are about...
i would be more sceptical if it was an m9/4 marked piece(very german S&L or other some such named german maker)
mike

Sorry Guy, your English is fine but I have to disagree. RZM licenses were strictly controlled and enforced. An M9 license could not be used to produce M1 schedule badges. Penalty was severe fines, prison or loss of manufacturing permit. A company had to have separate M1 and M9 licenses to produce both kinds of badges, and each had to have the proper license number on the badge.

License numbers did not change when companies shut down - they were retired. Only 2 of over 1000 M-licenses issued were ever re-issed in the RZM's history.

RZM controlled badges were not just licensed by the RZM, their design and a sample was pre-approved before production, and then they could only be sold through RZM-approved outlets, making the possibility of blatant mistakes almost impossible.

A party pin was a pretty important piece of insignia, and while such a marking mistake is remotely possible, this badge would not be for me. Especially as the same back also appears on another questionable - or at least non-standard - badge that is also not a tinnie or day badge.

[sjl]

Hi Mike,

To answer one question, M9/312 was not a foreign maker. In fact, there were no "foreign makers" in the Party's RZM system. It was contrary to the rules and Aryan mission of the RZM to award licenses to foreign makers. In reviewing all the issued M licenses, there are no licensees outside the German Reich. In any event, M9/312 was Fritz Mannheim G.m.b.H., Kaiserslautern - a German company. The Fritz Mannheim company did not have a corresponding M1 license required to produce party pins.

The monthly bulletin of the RZM (the Mitteilungsblatt) had a section specifically devoted to reporting infractions and punishments, which usually consisted of fines or suspensions of their manufacturing permits, but there are even some cases where prison sentences were imposed. Breach of the RZM regs carried a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment. That is the warning seen in some RZM labels that specifically mention the 2 year in prison penalty, and apparently it was enforced.

Were mistakes made in the RZM system? I've seen a very small handful of badges with curious markings, none of which I would absolutely accept as unquestioningly authentic. Some look convincing, like this badge. But when you understand the multiple layers of approval in the design, inspection, approval, licensing, manufacture and controlled distribution of RZM-approved badges, you can see how the probability of one "slipping through" diminishes with each step down to practically nothing.

Just to appreciate the RZM process, here is the life of a badge from design to final sale:

1. A detailed design is submitted for approval to the RZM by an NSDAP organization or manufacturer.
2. Design is approved by the RZM and is published in the RZM regs (Mitteilungsblatt).
3. A master "Probe" or finished "proof" of the badge is produced as a master sample.
4. A manufacturer with the proper M license for the type of badge (in this case M1), applies to the RZM for permission to produce it.
5. Approval is granted, subject to a "Muster" or example of the badge being produced and submitted by the manufacturer.
6. Manufacturer produces a Muster sample and submits it to the RZM for approval prior to being given permission to produce. Muster sample is fully finished, front and back and includes manufacturer's RZM license number on reverse. It also has an aluminum ID disk attached.
7. RZM approves manufacture based on Muster submitted from master dies.
8. Badges are produced in approved numbers.
9. Badges are delivered to RZM-authorized retailers for sale.
10. Individuals entitled to badges buy them att RZM-approved retail outlets.

None of these steps are skipped, and you can see how many people have a look at them before they get out into the market. That is the reason so few variations and mistakes are found.

Stephen
i know we have disagreed with this in the past...and your arguement about rzm laws and regs visciously enforced rings true...but...i have seen how the vaunted german efficiency in rules and regs does not play out in real life...with documents that should be signed and stamped not being so etc.....my question is this...do you have or can you reference any incident where these rules were enforced and what the punishement was?...not just what the regs said but a real life example?....
btw guys i believe the above pin is fine imo... ...my belief is that this was a foreign manufacturer and they probably made belts or other items and mismarked this piece...just like the other m9 pins that are about...
i would be more sceptical if it was an m9/4 marked piece(very german S&L or other some such named german maker)
mike

[Mike Pinkus]

Stephen
as always a detailed answer...very good. first i thought we discussed 312 before and i was under the impression it was an austrian or czech protectorate located establishment....if not then thats news to me...
this badge is most probably a war time produced example as well;which indicates perhaps a lesser degree of crossing all the t's and dotting all the i's in the admin side of things...i ask again...do you have any examples of manufacturors being prosecuted or banned or just plain harrased for not following all these rules?
i am not trying to provoke anything with you..i figure if anyone will know if there was any prosecution for not following rzm rules of conduct you would be the one... ...
a final note...though not descisive in any event...the above pictured badge hits everything right in my eyes for a legit piece...down to the exact weathering on the high points of the obverse...if it is a fake...it seems incredible that the fakers would screw this up...though again..stranger things have happened

[sjl]

Hi Mike,

I don't have access to it right now, but I think the book "Handbook of RZM Codes", by C.R. Davis (1975) cites an example of a company where the owner was jailed for an RZM infraction (probably a very serious one - likely producing without a permit and therefore not sharing the revenue with the RZM). What secondary literature exists (copies of the RZM Mitteilungsblatt are extremely rare and valuable) often refers to penalties and fines levied.

As for the end of the war theory, the RZM was publishing its newsletter right up to March, 1945. If you still had the time to make party pins, you had the time to make them right.

This badge does look convincing to me too, but since it shares the same back with another badge that should not be marked this way (DVG badge), I consider this two strikes - far too many for me to be comfortable with no matter how convincing it looks.

[burgerhaus]

Guys I must go along with Stephen on this one. The fact that is aparty membership badge, late war or not, would not preclude it from strict RZM regs. My only conclusion would be that it was copied by the same folks who made the Westmark 312 (post-war to make $$$$ for survival) A system with so many checks and double checks would not allow a Party membership badge to slip through. And a Westmark as well? By casting doubt on the RZM regulations causes doubt on all RZM marked pieces. You might as well throw the regs. out then. We as collectors have to have a certain criteria to collect by or there is nothing to go by. Reference becomes opinion and not fact. This pin is an interesting conversation piece. If it were mine I would put it with my Kolwitz Fire Cross. Or is that one authentic? PS It might be fun to put a Westmark and this pin side by side to check out the strike similarities. My 3 cents. Robert

[Greg]

While the painted Party badge looks good, I am having a hard time imagining how it could legitimately have the M9 code.

But I don't mind too much, because it came in the same lot as this, and if one has to be fake, better the lowly painted Party badge!

Best,
Greg

[Don Scowen]

Here are the pair of 312's together (party & Westmark), not exact but pretty damn close........

[sjl]

Nice looking Gold Party Badge - nothing wrong with that one!

[burgerhaus]

Very close. Even the 2 slightly above the 1 in 312. M in RZM seems to match as well. Thanks for matching them up Don. Regards Robert