The problem with the RZM mark, is that they went from being "like this" i.e: primitive and individually interpreted from late 1933 until around 1936, then from that time on, through to the other areas who acquired Licenses, Sudetenland and Austria from mid, resp. late 1938 to being not Standardized as such, or standardized to the effect that say the Obverse of the Membership badge becomes, but semi-standardized, and well executed, with most RZM logos looking decent, after all, by late 1939 or early 1940 all RZM M/ makers would have had enough time to "get it right" BUT, then when we look at the RZM logos and numbers on mid-late war made items, i.e: the items in lesser quality, made from Messing-plated eisen and Zinc, and the materials that took over from this date, we find makers reverting back to primitive designs, as well as the look of the later war items being primitive, or not made as well, not hard to imagine with Bombs dropping on your head and a German workforce of only invalids and old woman..so as much as the RZM mark look s crap on this, IF it was late war, it could still be accepted as good...as the reality of late made items support crap marks, or marks that reverted back to the transitional days..
A good idea would be to look at the maker, and see if they didn't possibly loose this license long before the war? some early numbers are mentioned in the RZMmtlbr.
But an honest answer would be that i dont like the mark in general, especially from a M4/ maker who held this number from before the introduction of the M4/ codes in March 1935, so they would have had enough experience by the late war period, although i must also add that i know Jack about Buckle RZM logos, and am referring ONLY to the RZM logos found on small badges. With a surface as big as the space afforded to this RZM logo, it should be much better IMHO!
A good idea would be to look at the maker, and see if they didn't possibly loose this license long before the war? some early numbers are mentioned in the RZMmtlbr.
But an honest answer would be that i dont like the mark in general, especially from a M4/ maker who held this number from before the introduction of the M4/ codes in March 1935, so they would have had enough experience by the late war period, although i must also add that i know Jack about Buckle RZM logos, and am referring ONLY to the RZM logos found on small badges. With a surface as big as the space afforded to this RZM logo, it should be much better IMHO!