- Joined
- Feb 17, 2020
- Messages
- 796
- Thanks Received
- 665
I recently received a 30-part bundle of correspondence between a company and the RZM. The majority are invoices. The company E. Schiemenz from Wuppertal-Elberfeld was a manufacturer of leather goods (mainly belts and cross straps, leather knots), licence number L2/1300 and L5/13.
On some of the invoices there is a note stating that it is possible to identify the manufacturer on the basis of the consecutive counting numbers and that the RZM tags may therefore not be passed on to other companies (this is what the cyan-coloured sticky note says).
The COD letter from RZM contained a commercial agent's identity card. The RZM's own red advertising stamp at the top is interesting.
Unfortunately, of course, the RZM permit was not included, but at least the invoice for the annual renewal was.
And you can see that in the early years, confiscations by the RZM were not uncommon. In the letter from August 1934, 3 such actions are mentioned. Schiemenz was unsuccessful in getting his delivered goods back (233 RM loss).
There was a reprimand because he had not had the authorisation from Bennewitz shown to him and had delivered improper equipment to Klesmann.
What I find astonishing are the many inaccuracies, wrong places, wrong names and twice the wrong licence number. Not so much with "deutsche Gründlichkeit" (German accuracy) at the RZM.
You don't have permission to view attachments.
On some of the invoices there is a note stating that it is possible to identify the manufacturer on the basis of the consecutive counting numbers and that the RZM tags may therefore not be passed on to other companies (this is what the cyan-coloured sticky note says).
You don't have permission to view attachments.
The COD letter from RZM contained a commercial agent's identity card. The RZM's own red advertising stamp at the top is interesting.
You don't have permission to view attachments.
Unfortunately, of course, the RZM permit was not included, but at least the invoice for the annual renewal was.
You don't have permission to view attachments.
And you can see that in the early years, confiscations by the RZM were not uncommon. In the letter from August 1934, 3 such actions are mentioned. Schiemenz was unsuccessful in getting his delivered goods back (233 RM loss).
You don't have permission to view attachments.
There was a reprimand because he had not had the authorisation from Bennewitz shown to him and had delivered improper equipment to Klesmann.
You don't have permission to view attachments.
What I find astonishing are the many inaccuracies, wrong places, wrong names and twice the wrong licence number. Not so much with "deutsche Gründlichkeit" (German accuracy) at the RZM.
