CollectorToCollector

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PlM Godet or Not

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    PlM Godet or Not

    Keeping the personalities out of this, are these Godet PlMs or not? The one on the left has been described in a thread here as a match to a PlM in an Otto Schickle catalogue of a Godet PlM Otto Schickle was selling postwar to 1945.



    Opinions welcomed.
    Last edited by Brian S; 03-10-2007, 09:27 PM.

    #2
    If anyone thinks this PlM is the real deal they should speak up. I do not want to hurt another member by placing my opinion out there and mess up someone's chances to make a fast buck.
    Last edited by Brian S; 03-10-2007, 09:27 PM.

    Comment


      #3
      Brian,

      For one, it would really help to see the entire series of pics on the piece at the left. In the slingfest that has ensued, those of us that came into this to give some researched opinions now cannot find all the photos as they have been pulled from eBay and the other thread. I am making some comparisons now that I will post. I'm not an expert, but I will present a few points on Godets and what the piece is on the left. Stating it is a fake I believe trashes other similar pieces out there. If that is a fake, it is one of the finest out there and no others like it have surfaced. It bears marks of a Godet type bronze-gilt piece that could have been made by Godet, Meybauer, Hemmerle or Schickle. And to state that no bronze-gilt interwar examples were manufactured, sold or worn defies ample evidence to the contrary. There is also broad photo evidence of many PlM recipients that owned two and even three examples in their stash.

      I will post some side by sides below and show some possibilities on the above left piece and also to point out the Godet syle highpoints. Steve
      Last edited by regular122; 03-10-2007, 10:02 PM.

      Comment


        #4
        Brian,

        The first thing I will take head on is your very good question in post #2, "Is this the real deal?" I believe based on the pics that it is. It is a Godet style made in bronze-gilt. But the center is broader and the eagles are slightly different--the heads and beaks mainly--but cut on the Godet style (legs, bodies, etc). Has another been seen like this one? Yes. Below is a side-by-side of one that is identical except for the scoring of the letters and possibly the metal content. This was offered in an auction and could be the elusive Schickle example. Sorry I can't remember where the photo came from. The center is too broad for the Meybauer and Hemmerle variants. A re-worked die? It is possble, given that Schickle advertised PlMs in their 1940 catalogue. We may never know. But the piece that Andreas offered has a twin and it is pictured below. More to follow on other variants in the Godet style and in bronze-gilt. Steve
        Attached Files

        Comment


          #5
          The pic below shows the other known Godet variants sold into the post-war period. The one on the left is from my collection and is from Paul Meybauer. The one on the right was sold in an auction as being from the firm Hemmerle. Again, can't remember where it came from. They are identical pieces except the Meybauer is single-sided. The traits of these are near identical to the wartime and post-war Godets: narrow center, overall eagle style, open-gapped crown on the right edge. The differences are the closed-beaked eagles and head variation. But these are definite Godet lineage.

          Note that the closed beaked eagles are very close to the Andreas piece on the left and its twin in post #1. What does that mean? Well, the Godet style variations in the post-war period appear to have the same style eagles. And, except for the broader center on what we will call the Schickle piece in post #1, the lettering and other characteristics are very, very close. More to follow.
          Attached Files

          Comment


            #6
            I've borrowed Andreas' fine photo of the silver-gilt wartime Godet from his website to illustrate the typical marks of a Godet. These characteristics are similar on all Godet pieces. Other maker / vendor variations show most of these traits with deviation mostly on the eagles. The piece in post#1 is unique in that it shows a broader center. But the other traits are similar enough to still tie it to the 'Godet style.' One more to follow.
            Attached Files

            Comment


              #7
              So, in the final analysis, we have a wartime Godet, an unknown, possible Schickle, a Meybauer from what is believed to be the 1920s, and a later period but pre-45 Hemmerle. Andreas' offering in post#1 is bronze-gilt. So is the Meybauer, so that checks as possible. Andreas' offering has closed-beaked eagles with flatter heads. So do the Meybauer and Hemmerle. Andreas' offering has a known twin shown in this quad comparison photo below. The only thing not known is the broader center but that could make the argument for a reworked die, and if a Schickle, then an established post-war date of 1940 is known and not out of the realm of late enough for a rework.

              All I can say Brian is that his piece looks good to me. Who made it may never be known, but it has more going for it than against it, to be a fake. And a good authentic twin is shown in this thread, although that piece looks like it might be better metals.

              I'll open myself up for discussion. And as I stated, I am no expert. I only researched much of this because of the Meybauer that I have in my collection so, became familiar with Godet look-alikes. Hope this helps. Steve
              Attached Files
              Last edited by regular122; 03-11-2007, 06:03 PM.

              Comment


                #8
                Brian

                Here's the PLM ordered from the Orders Chancellory by Theo Osterkamp for Josef Jacob's in 1967.

                And here's the thread that touches on it.. Pour le Merite with Crown

                Whether it is Godet, Schickel or Disney, I don't know - it is a post war PLM and is 'legitimised' I guess by its presentation to Jacobs via the official channel. Niemann has sold them in the past too.

                Marshall
                Attached Files
                Last edited by Biro; 03-11-2007, 01:18 AM.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Steve, there are vast differences IMHO to the one Andreas posted and the other one you post. And whether this one is legitimate or it's the "finest fake ever made" really doesn't make it real does it? How many years since the end of WWI? Almost 90? Of course they can make a fine fake, technology and all those years add up to quality fakes.

                  I'm asking you Steve, does a fabulous made PlM make it real? Not for me. It either matches a PlM with provenance or it's probably modern junk until proven otherwise. I appreciate all the effort you put into your posts. You've thought about and presented good photos and comparisons. Thanks!

                  Marshal, I'm not sure what you're saying... I do know there were PlMs made postwar. Of that I am sure and positive. What about the one posted by Andreas, can you match that one to any particular known example with provenance and with certainty?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I don´t profess to know the first thing about PLM´s, but the manner in which the topic is being debated here, makes me sad.

                    I have read both this thread and its predecessor, which the moderator wisely closed down last night. Steve and Andreas have made reasoned arguments as to why they believe the Plm posted by Andreas could be what Andreas claims it to be: a 1920-1940 bronze-gilt piece. Steve, both in this thread and the previous one, has provided interesting fotocomparisons that could help any scientific debate on the topic forward. I believe that, if this thread is about more than simple Rechthaberei, these contributions merit a better response than the view that

                    "there are vast differences IMHO to the one Andreas posted and the other one you post. And whether this one is legitimate or it's the "finest fake ever made" really doesn't make it real does it? How many years since the end of WWI? Almost 90? Of course they can make a fine fake, technology and all those years add up to quality fakes."

                    especially since this series of threads started with the rather seroious accusation that a fellow WAF member was trying to sell off a PLM that was not what he professed it to be.

                    Regards,
                    Sandro

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Brian S View Post
                      ...What about the one posted by Andreas, can you match that one to any particular known example with provenance and with certainty?....
                      Only second hand.

                      Marshall

                      ...."Bavarian Oberstleutnant Hermann Ritter von Lenz, amoung other units, he served as Chief of Staff 6th Army, in the end volonteered for front service and commanded the 4th Bavarian Infantry regiment, severely wounded in October 1918. In 1939 finally promoted to Generalmajor: - Award document to Pour-le-Merite at 10.4.1918. original signature by Kaiser Wilhelm II. - Pour-le-Merite. silver gilded, nice 2 piece-cross, marked on the loop "900",and "Silber". By quality a very good cross from around 1920-1930, most likely by company Godet. With the original,worn neckribbon. With the old presentation frame,as on the wall for 50 years. It was opened by me to check closely.(On a sideline, this group has been handed over many years ago to a dentist in Berlin to pay for the families bills...)".....
                      Attached Files

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by GdC26 View Post

                        Steve and Andreas have made reasoned arguments as to why they believe the Plm posted by Andreas could be what Andreas claims it to be: a 1920-1940 bronze-gilt piece.

                        Regards,
                        Sandro
                        Could be? Exactly. This forum has never been about could bes it's always been about what is and what is provenanced and true. And if you read that thread you should have noticed that Andreas does not bring forward a proof about the PlM in question he attacks my family. That in and of itself does not bother me except it take a lot of wind out of the could bes.

                        Andreas claims this to be a Godet. I'm waiting for the proof this is a Godet. I will apologize sincerely if indeed this is a Godet. Not that it Could Be something original.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I have no doubts PlMs were indeed crafted as original items to recipients sold up to the end of the war, I do not argue that.

                          I question the claim that the piece shown and auctioned is a Godet made piece.

                          Let's get to the cross in question and the claim made, this comment directly from the eBay auction, not my words, not my paraphrasing;

                          <font color="#66FF66">
                          In any case here it is:
                          the piece comes for the Godet dies enameled and finished and was sold by one of the companies mentioned above after WWI into the 1940<SUP>th</SUP>.

                          The Pour le M******233;rite is made from gilt bronze in the hollow constructed fashion Godet was known for even far before World War I. Excellent marksmanship on this full size original 1920<SUP>th</SUP> "Blue Max". The lettering - Godet typical - is hand detailed. Only the tail feathers will give away its after war creation.
                          Last edited by Brian S; 03-11-2007, 11:33 AM.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Brian,

                            If you check any section of the forum, you will see "could be" is as good as it gets in most cases. None of us were around when a particular item under discussion was made, so the best we can do is arrive at conclusions on the basis of comparison with known originals and contemporary photographs etc.. "What is" is therefore not nearly as absolute as you make it sound.

                            I may be wrong, but personally I believe Steve, Andreas and others have put forward enough information to support Andreas claim, quite apart from the fact that in most cases, it is up to the accuser to prove his case, not to the accused to disprove the allegations. I´ll be watching with interest to see how you will back up your humble opinion expressed earlier in this thread that "there are vast differences ..... to the one Andreas posted and the other one you post."

                            Regards,
                            Sandro

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by GdC26 View Post
                              Brian,

                              If you check any section of the forum, you will see "could be" is as good as it gets in most cases. None of us were around when a particular item under discussion was made, so the best we can do is arrive at conclusions on the basis of comparison with known originals and contemporary photographs etc.. "What is" is therefore not nearly as absolute as you make it sound.

                              Sandro this IS AS ABSOLUTE as it gets. This is exactly what I am asking Andreas to do. Show his PlM to be of Godet origin as he claims from period photographs or other provenanced PlMs.

                              I may be wrong, but personally I believe Steve, Andreas and others have put forward enough information to support Andreas claim, quite apart from the fact that in most cases, it is up to the accuser to prove his case, not to the accused to disprove the allegations. I******180;ll be watching with interest to see how you will back up your humble opinion expressed earlier in this thread that "there are vast differences ..... to the one Andreas posted and the other one you post."

                              Regards,
                              Sandro




                              OK Sandro, that's easy.

                              Evidence: In Post #1 above, I show a photo from the Otto Schickle catlogue with a genuine PlM by Godet. Next to it I show Andreas' PlM.

                              Arguement: They do NOT match.

                              Proof: Therefore, the PlM posted by Andreas on eBay is NOT a genuine PlM by Godet.

                              My problem with all of this was Andreas standing firm in his eBay ad that this IS A GODET PlM. Not that it COULD BE a PlM of between war origin. He chose to make the statement that it comes from the Godet dies. It clearly does NOT.

                              Comment

                              Users Viewing this Thread

                              Collapse

                              There is currently 1 user online. 0 members and 1 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 10,032 at 08:13 PM on 09-28-2024.

                              Working...
                              X