Here's the front:
-
-
Wilhelm Kolwitz is the maker. The pin assembly is a bit odd in the sense that the pin can swivel around loosely. Is this intentional, our merely a mistake made during production? -
here's an oblique angle:Comment
-
I tend to think that the pin has loosened in its finding rather than being made to swivel.Originally posted by Eric Stahlhut
SteveComment
-
Eric,
That is an odd party badge IMHO, aside from the strange pin,the obverse exhibits some pre RZM characteristics oval Os etc, but the enamelling doesn't have that translucency I would expect of most badges. The reverse looks a bit crazy, the RZM marking looks odd, and I thought M9 was for day badges/tinnies rather than party badges. The only RZM marked badge I have seen with oval Os is the M1/17 for Assman. I would like to hear others comments on it.Comment
-
here's one more pic. Damn! I thought I scrubbed all of the oil from my hands!!
Comment
-
I agree with Steve on the pin, it just looks as it has worked slightly loose from the plate that secures it to the badge.Comment
-
Well, here's my opinion on this badge to start with the attaching pin is meant to swivel otherwise the retaining plate wouldn't have such a large loop holding the pin in place which is wrong for this badge also the pin should be in the center of the badge and there should be a raised border around the attaching plate that is found on most of these badges. As to the RZM code M9 yes that is meant for Day/Meeting pins (tinnies) it should have a M1 code instead. As to overall look of the silvered finish is wrong for the age of the badge and the lack of translucency and pebbling under the red enamel that you would normally see on these badges and the oval O put all togather says repro to me.Comment
-
I agree with James...dont like it....
for reasons described
mike
Originally posted by jnobleComment
-
Thanks very much, guys! I forgot to mention that 'enameling' seems to be a heavy laquer instead of a translucent enamel.Comment
-
Eric, Most likely it is plastic which is used in the reproduction of these badges instead of enamel.Originally posted by Eric StahlhutComment
-
James,
What is a good way to test it in order to find out if it is indeed plastic without damaging the badge? It sure doesn't appear to be plastic. If you look closely at the first pic of the obverse, see how the black filling of the swas sorta glows? The whole front does that when rotated in the right light. Plastic wouldn't 'glow', would it?
Anyhow, I'm not disputing anyone's opinion, or trying to beat a dead horse. I merely have never seen a similar example-real or repro--that matches the one I have shown.
Thanks, guys, for your help!
An afterthought: the material used on the front really reminds me of the type found on enamel ribbon bars..like these owned by another Forum member.Last edited by Eric Stahlhut; 06-04-2008, 08:50 PM.Comment
-
Eric, Let me start off with you were the one that said it was lacquer not enamel used on your badge as you can see by the two examples I have shown here the first one is lacquer the second is enamel as you see here the lacquer doesn't fill the badge like enamel or plastic would also it is made from zinc which is what all the late war lacquer badges were made from. As to a nondestructive test to verify lacquer over enamel I don't know of one, maybe someone else here does. But the bottom line here is it's your badge you have it in hand if your happy with it that's all that matters.Comment
Comment