Label - Sealed RTI Test Pressings

Apologies if this is covered somewhere, I have searched but not found anything definitive.

I have a couple of sealed RTI Joy Division test pressings for the Rhino US 2007 reissue series. I've created subs for them:
http://discogs.versitio.com/Joy-Division-Still/release/5740487
http://discogs.versitio.com/Joy-Division-Still/release/5844946

sebfact has kindly worked with me on these and some other subs. He's commented that Rhino really wouldn't be the Label and I agree. As they are sealed in plastic it's not possible to absolutely confirm, but I am fairly sure they will look like this one here from the same time period with large RTI logo on the record label:
http://discogs.versitio.com/viewimages?release=5575757

So based on 4.1.2. I've used RTI as the main label
http://discogs.versitio.com/help/database/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog#Labels_And_Companies
4.1.2.Normally, listing the main label (usually the largest brand or logo on the release) is sufficient for cataloguing purposes.

seb's posted a comment that "...usually, Not On Label (Joy Division) would be the correct label"
http://discogs.versitio.com/label/136514-Not-On-Label-Joy-Division

I had looked at that, and its owning rule set 4.4.2, but Not On Label (Joy Division) states: "For unofficial releases containing music by Joy Division." and I didn't believe they would / should be classed as "unofficial". So should they be Not On Label (4.4.1), Not On Label (Joy Division) (4.4.2), or remain as RTI (4.1.2)? Happy to go with whatever, I'd just like some other opinions / consensus.

http://discogs.versitio.com/help/database/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog#Not_On_Label
4.4.1. Releases which have no discernible label, such as self-released albums, limited edition tour merchandise, white labels, bootlegs, etc. should be listed under the "Not On Label" meta-label.

4.4.2.Not On Label pseudo-labels have been created to gather distinct set of releases without labels. The most common groupings are based on similar content and catalog numbers, and by artist:

Not On Label (ArtistName) -- for unofficial releases containing music by a certain artist.

RTI is a pressing plant, not a record label. Rhino handles a lot of the vinyl reissues for Warner and other labels, and these are all pressed at RTI and have the RTI 180gm sticker on them. I do think Rhino would be the label for these. I would think that the stamper number in the dead wax is the exact same as the 2007 Rhino reissues, but it obviously can't be checked since it is sealed.

For http://discogs.versitio.com/viewimages?release=5575757 , the record label is Mobile Fidelity (hence the MFSL catalog number). RTI presses all Mobile Fidelity releases, but again they are not the label.

Thanks for your comments. Very familiar with who/what RTI are. They were contracted here to press and manufacture all parts for Rhino, no question. The issue is the use of "Label" under Discogs rules, where "Rhino" will appear absolutely nowhere, while "RTI" will be slapped largely all over both sides on the vinyl labels, and no other company whatsoever will be mentioned. For what it's worth I had Rhino too to start with, but I'm fairly sure now that isn't right based on my read on the DB rules - but there again I'm here to be happily told otherwise. Cheers.

foozealand
but Not On Label (Joy Division) states: "For unofficial releases containing music by Joy Division." and I didn't believe they would / should be classed as "unofficial".

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that profile. Of course, Not On Label (Joy Division) isn't exclusively for Unofficial releases. That would also interfere with 4.4.1.
I will adjust the profile of NOL(JD) and then the releases can be assigned there.
BTW: When the test pressings/white labels feature the same matrix numbers as the commercial editions, the commercial label can be assigned - as sort of an extension of 4.7.10: "for example, the extracted catalog number matches the catalog number format on the label's other releases."
AFAICS, when we know that only a company was involved, we should not assign that company as label but use the NOL(xyz) label. OTOH, the pressing company was always acting by order / on behalf of a record company/label. Albeit, for the US test pressings, we cannot specifically say if Rhino indeed was the ordering company or Warners etc.

It's arguable whether the final label of the retail release should be used for a test press but I certainly would not use the pressing plant as a "label" (they didn't "release" that test press after all).
There are tons upon tons of test pressings that are just plain white labels. Just because some plants have their own generic test pressing design does not excempt them from "true" white label test pressings, imo. I'd either use the final label that released it or simply Not On Label (Joy Division). If the runouts etc. match with the retail I'd use the label that released the retail version.
It's the same with dubplates/acetates that sometimes have a center label of the studio where it was cut. It's by no means a label.

Thanks everyone - Not On Label (Joy Division) it is. At least we got that label entry tidied up as a result. Yes Seb agreed/read/figured orig Label could be "subbed in" where the tie can properly be made. Rhino vs Warner makes that extra hard here regardless and I'm not opening them up right now just to have a nosey at the matrix numbers.

Question / Issue closed - cheers.