Another Gau Treffen Tinnie

[Wood]

No, that ones OK.
Pete

[David North]

Dear Jack

Just returning to the badge which started this post, as I do genuinely empathise.

There are hundreds of posts within the forum on the said subject and which quite frankly, reads like verbal table tennis. As I initially suggested, it is my opinion that "the jury is till out" on the subject badge. For the moment at least, I think that it is an act of self flagellation for any of us to try and dignify your badge. There hopefully may be some supporting period evidence somewhere that the badge is pre 1945 in origin, although I am not aware of the existence.

On the purely subjective and somewhat irrational basis of heart over head, I will not add this type of badge to my SA collection. Anecdotal suggestions of these badges suddenly being overly abundant in the 1980's, of them still being widely and freely available now (to include on some dubious web sites) coupled with a lack of supporting period evidence of wear, makes myself at least a tad uncomfortable.

As I suggested before Jack, if I held this badge and which had a good source, I would do exactly the same as you insofar as wait for more information to hopefully surface, rather than completely dismissing and demonising it now.

Regards,

David

[dolchmann07]

SA Treffen

David, A well known collector, put out a book in the mid 1980's and he said these pins started appearing in the 1980's. But I was collecting in the early 1970's and I had seen several of each of the 3 pins, by then. So I do not believe they just started appearing in the the 1980's. But I do believe the inverted lettering was the one that was sold at the event. and the others were made because they had so many requests for more, after the event. That they continues to produce them for at least 3 years after the event.
The solid back zinc RZM marked version that is acceptable is at least partial proof of that.
But I read all the postings before I posted mine and like you said, it was like a ping pong game, going back and forth. But I might post it again in a few years and some one might just have a picture that proves it is period. The misconception in the mid 1970's through the mid 1980's was that the version I first posted was as value-able as the inverted lettering pieces like yours and that is where this all started. I called mine a type b. With the solid back zinc being a type c.
If you look at Foreign reference books, they are more likely to have a picture of the type b, than of the type a, I think the type a, is very rare.
I thank you for the discussion, and all others for their opinions,
Jack Neeley