personally i dont like it,the colour looks off , the numbers on the back look odd , the rzm mark is diff to any other i have seen all the ones i have ever seen on these badges have a line through the z ,and the clasp looks odd,could be be these diffs are down to the fact this is a very early numbered badge,be interesting to see what others think
stu
Lowest numbered badge i have seen, i see the differences Stuart pointed
out, but personaly i think it,s ok. If it is wrong it,s a good effort
Regards
Mametz
Obviously it seem very different than the more known originals. I don´t think that the fact that it´s a low number make reasonable the differences. If you look Detlev Niemann´s guide (the second edition) in the page number 395 you can see the reverse of the number 51, and it´s similar to the tipical model for this badge.
Stuart show some points to research. But I don´t like specially texture in the metal surfaces. If you take in your hand an original and comparing you can see what I´m saying.
IMO the sample shown may be a nice fake.
Greg
Unless the photo has a poor color resolution, the badge does not appear correct to me. No fire gold glit on this piece and I don't like the texture of the enamel behind the front piece. This is in addition to the other comments concerning the number. Not like any of the originals that I have had or have now.
JMO,
Ron Weinand
Comment