Real or no?

[jonc]

Sorry guys, I see this is a common question but at least I know I'm in the right spot - I notice there is no . after the A?

Thanks

[carpediem]

Not one I would want because all the examples of this maker have the RZM logo displayed on the back. This one doesn't. The missing period is kind of a red flag as well. Then there is a seemingly high number of painting "mistakes".

[bloodyamon]

Not being able to sleep its the best time to reply to super old threads
IMHO the badge is quite original. The letters of the M1/27 (Müller) have the perfectly correct font expected from a Müller. The tin has the correct coloring, luster and aging you would expect from such a badge. The original egg-color-yellowish enamel which can still be seen in traces at the borders was overpainted with an incorrect colored pure white enamel paint or an enamel pen. Same for the black Swas which seems overpainted by black CD-Marker, that is actually not really black but will then shimmer blue when color settles and trickles off due to the solvent in the white enamel paint with this blue shades in a sad attempt to repair the missing black painting. Finally, you can also see two types of red coloring on it. Also an attempt to repair the missing red spots without having shake-free hands . The lower part of the backside seems to have had some sort of tin pest and looks polished or rust stripped to me, you can clearly see that the original rough surface of the aged tin is not there on the lower part - but if you look closely you can still see a slight hint of a round shape and lettering of a RZM. RZM Marks on a Müller are known to be super tiny in some cases. Missing dot - well, rare, but not unheard of on a late war tin example. Could also be overpainted as well, would need to check under microscope. Giving the badge some soft swiping with acetone could remove the modern repainting - but not for too long, otherwise the original paint will be gone too