A Study of the Godet Style PlM

[Biro]

Sorry - you may be right Brian. I checked again and Gordon did seem pretty sure most of the pictured items were photographs "Replacement" PLMs .

The process you are referring to I think is 'Rotogravure'... ?

Marshall

[Les]

Sorry - you may be right Brian. I checked again and Gordon did seem pretty sure most of the pictured items were photographs "Replacement" PLMs .

The process you are referring to I think is 'Rotogravure'... ?

Marshall

It's "photogravure". The process uses photographs to etch an image onto a copper plate, which is then used for the actual printing process, however the original image photographed for the process can be a drawing, photograph, handwriting, text, et cetera.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photogravure

[Brian S]

In this case it was a photograph, we've matched the LCTB exactly.

[regular122]

Will do what I can on the Wulff rim marks. May have to work the over flashed rim images I have (not ideal) or hope that others can be obtained or I may perhaps have a chance to see them in person. Thanks to all for their input on these crosses. Steve

[Zepenthusiast]

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it..."

Melodramatic and a bit unoriginal, but I think it may belong here. Most of you contributing to this thread, perhaps all, are familiar with the thread "PLM Godet or Not"

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ferrerid=34230

from 2007, in which Brian took Andreas to task over a stated postwar Godet-type PlM. The latter was very much the brother of the Wulff cross under discussion here. Only significant differences being 1) the size of the center area 2) the material (though Andreas furnished a "brother" at the time in silver-gilt) and 3) the perhaps all important markings. Brian was asking for die-matching evidence, and Steve, Marshall, Andreas of course, and others sought to draw parallels to crosses of presumed similar time of manufacture and the Schickle catalog, which we again have under consideration as evidence.

As one of my favorite professors used to say (he was Hungarian and the accent did it more justice): "it was the right answer....to the wrong...question."

Brian, you were looking justifiably for die-matching, but missing that these crosses are all (far as I can put together, 100% of them) hollow. Sure, Godet made hollow gold crosses until Wilhelm said no, but after that they made solid silver crosses, which not only needed new dies, but you can easily see by photos that the expected changes in detail occurred. To go back to making hollow crosses, new dies again had to be made. Therein lies the explanation for your straight-tailed eagles, with their somewhat simplified feathers and unopened beaks. Expediency.
The complex detail of the earlier eagle was fine when a single set of probably fairly costly dies (in itme and effort, if not monetarily, too) could produce several hundred. Later though, the needs of a hollow cross made it more practical to solder the eagles on (that they are is obvious in several photos of these crosses.) The straight feathers were not only much easier to finish--and I'm guessing these guys are cast and probably solid, even if the crosses aren't--but in particular you can cut them down a bit to get a better fit and it doesn't show except under very close inspection.

Now, look closely at the junction where the arms come together on these crosses--see the little seams where each arm meets? It's easy to lose it with the enamel tending to overflow a tiny bit in the area, but inspection of the pictures reveals it to my eye anywhere the magnification would allow. The arms were joined together. That's why they are characteristically a little out of alignment, as Marshall picked up in the older thread. It is also the ultimate explanation for the variation in the width of the central junction. All of these differ from the solid wartime Godet because, again, they were made from different dies and it must have been easier/more expedient to produce a hollow cross with a wider waist--something which had not been too much a challenge for an earlier and less pressured Godet working in gold. If you give a good look to the scale of the lettering in the wider vs. narrower waisted crosses, it is pretty close to identical, relative to the arms' width, etc. Only difference is "Pour" is a little closer to "le" and the bottom of the "F" is a little closer to the top of "Rite"....because somebody cut a little bit off the base of each arm, causing them to fit slightly closer together and shrinking the overall width of the cross. This should be readily verifiable (the dimensions of these are for some reason never printed, to my review.) Betcha moving those arms apart until the lettering is the same distance apart as in the narrow-waist version (photoshop, anyone?) and you will be able to continue the line of the arm edges right to a center of the same size as the narrow-waist version. They didn't alter the angles, you see, so it all still fits together--eagles and all--proportionally right. As expected, the eagles "surface" a bit more than they should relative to the arms, but it would appear they cleverly cheated that by shaving a little off the tails--again, disappears to most inspection because those linear tail feathers give nothing away.

The Schickle in the picture is thus more likely than not by inference an older image, still maintaining the original narrower waist. The higher "dip" on the M always was there in the new die for the hollow cross. The variation in it and even the "e"s can be accounted for by the way the enamel sits around and occasionally over-rides the edges of the letters. My bias remains that the latter is by no means accidental, but was rather the preferred way of refining the lettering as a finished product.

So you will never find a die-flaw to tie these to the solid silver Godet and shouldn't waste any time looking. If I am right that they are all--or at least the wide-waisted versions--joined at the center, you will be able to track down identical flaws and provenance these accordingly. Why did they cut the arms shorter? Maybe the die cracked across the center and they had to repair it...who knows.

The burning question still--when did Godet (it would be illogical to think it was anyone else) make the die for this later hollow design? Historical speculation will likely be all we will ever have, but this is archaeology now, as Andreas pointed out in the other thread. However, it would seem more logical that a still active/"humming" Godet in 1918, with the Kaiser still on the throne and some faith things might work out yet, would invest the time and effort to craft the dies and mold the new eagles, than would a metaphorically decapitated ex-Royal jeweler in the chaos and uncertainty of the post-war situation. Somebody apparently wanted hollow crosses still in this time period, perhaps out of respect for the work done in earlier times. Hard to imagine they were just trying to save silver, but they were becoming desperate times (and hand-work and steel were definitely cheaper than any precious metal--the bronze crosses to come later testifying to that truth.)

In fairness, I have been a kind of concerned skeptic from a scientific point of view about the Wulff cross under discussion--not that it was a Godet "family member," but that it was fashioned before the end of the war. Meaning no disrespect to any of its supporters, especially Detlev and the owner, it seemed hard to rationalize it as making sense prior to the war's end, and it's greater identity with the appearance of what is a pretty readily identifiable "post-war" type seemed to weigh against it, as did Wulff having a typical solid Godet simultaneously. But now, pause for thought....

And why would Wulff have bought two Godets so close in time? Well, as the world fell apart around him, maybe he figured he may yet need the badge--which remained meaningful when so much else was gone--and there may not be anyone left to make one.

[Brian S]

Rather than rip into your post Jim, how would you like to state the basis of originality for a PlM? If it came from the 4th generation of a winner and they say it is what it is it is? If it has "characteristics of an original PlM" it's genuine?

How would you as a "decider" set the bar of originality?

And a note to Andrea's site, please. He has placed many photos from other sources onto his pages. This does not represent first hand knowledge or 100% infalliability. If I'm pressed I'll give an example. At this moment we'll leave it at that. But because he or a dealer or a score of dealers agree, is no more in my opinion, the "bar". Provenance to a catalog or a grouping and these days if it doesn't fit you'd better have photographic evidence of the piece belonging to the grouping.

[Zepenthusiast]

A good and fair question, Brian. I would judge authenticity by one of two criteria: 1) acceptably "perfect" match (that is, within reason after accounting for effects of hand finishing and wear) to known metal die flaws from a known period piece, even without history/provenance being known. This presupposes it stands up to microscopic analysis showing it was stamped and not cast.

2) Reasonable ability to fit it into a historical context in terms of material, worksmanship/technology, and provenance.

Provenance is not necessarily secure itself, as you know, since there is in the end no way to prove an authentic wartime cross (by criteria "1") is in fact the medal described in the provenance. That yet requires trusting the source/sources. This would be the only category at present which would apply to these Godet-types, and I think from a historical perspective one could stand on either side of the fence there and defend your position. The value of the defence will remain in the eyes of the beholder.

To these we may be able to add high-tech "fingerprints" eventually, but at present they have not been established.

[Zepenthusiast]

And now a fair question for you, Brian:

I know you would likely grant my criteria grouped under number 1, but that will by necessity exclude some of what may be historically important and authentic variants. How many of those 600 odd PlMs issued during the war (note that the number actually made cannot be precisely known, given Godet's production such as it was) have been accounted for? What number of crosses are being used to establish the "what is?" Stephen Previtera has accumulated a handful of them in Prussian Blue and we know the late silver crosses he presented have characteristic die flaws with one exception. He actually presents one as authentic and provenanced that lacks very significant flaws--what do you make of that? Was he tricked? Should that cross be excluded now, provenance or not?

For my criteria 2, where does the provenance become suspect? You will have a blue-ray DVD of your mother relating first-hand knowledge, but you alone of all of us will know it is her. Four generations from now, how will anyone know how to rate the provenance value of what we know is, but to them will "appear to be" a first-hand account? How will they know the DVD is real, that it is dated accurately, that the person in it was who they are told she was? How will they know the von Etzel cross they might see is actually the von Etzel cross of which the recording speaks?

So the die flaws don't lie...at least not yet...but neither can they tell us the whole truth.

(By the way, I do understand your critique of Andreas was focused on his saying the cross in question was a Godet-style, post-war authentic PlM, as opposed to "could be a ...." There is an important distinction, philosophically. Ideally, he should have said it was in his scholarly opinion such a cross, but I would imagine a recognized authority with his gravitas assumes people should be able to come to that conclusion. After all, if I found the old Godet solid silver dies in someone's garage and started making crosses, they would have all the correct die flaws, but that wouldn't make them any more "real" either, right? Back then to provenance and all its flaws.)

[Biro]

I would have to say Jim that I have yet to read a better hypothesis for the wider central juncture issue on these 'Schickle' types than the one you have raised. The seams are evident in all the examples I have on file.

In fact I'd go as far as to say I think you've cracked it. Dimensions correlating what you are suggesting would pretty much convince me.

With the information we currently have, the 'WHY' they did it can only ever be speculative.. and the 'WHEN'... well that's a whole 'nother ball game. Certainly, as the Schickle catalogue is our sole historical pictorial reference, then pre-WW2, which rules out the illustrious Kleitmanns...

However murky that makes the waters about there post war production status - and crucially, by whom, I think the essence of the 'HOW' they did it is extremely well presented.

Well done.

Marshall

[Les]

I would have to say Jim that I have yet to read a better hypothesis for the wider central juncture issue on these 'Schickle' types than the one you have raised. The seams are evident in all the examples I have on file.

Photos can give a different sense of "reality" than holding something in your hand and examining it directly.

Parallax or camera angles is always a possible source of problems when photographs are taken by hand. Unless the camera is set up in a fixed and stationary "jig" with the center of the lens directly over the center of the junction of the arms, the photograph will be taken on an angle. That can cause the eye to perceive an angle.

Jim's hypothesis centers on pieces being joined together. That may not be the case since not all post or interwar crosses were made using multi-piece construction, and the eagles were stamped with the cross together.

Let's look at the technical aspects of the hypothesis he presents.

Shops use jigs, or set forms to place pieces into position for assembly. If the arms were made separately, and joined at the center, jigs or forms would align them to fit correctly at the center junction. The perceived misalignment would not happen under those circumstances. For Jim's theory of arms made as separate pieces joined at the center, the arms would be joined before the eagles were added, therefore why should there be a misalignment on the eagles when the use of a precisely made form would prevent that from happening?

Jim's comment about the straight tail feathers being easier to fit to the cross is a good observation, and yes the edges of the feathers can be trimmed to fit. There is another factor that should be considered here. The angle at which the arms join is different on the pieces with wider center junctions, than on those with narrower junctions. That means the angle is smaller, and the meeting spots between arms is narrower.

That narrower fit of eagle to "V" between the arms is harder to solder cleanly and without soldering being washed upwards along the sides of the v, and even over the upper rims of the junction. Are the "seams" excess solder that is seen where the eagles were joined to the cross, and is too thin to be removed by filing or other mechanical means?

Engineers, machinists, jewelers, carpenters/house builders, and others who make things, design and put things together and the items are made and assembled in specific ways, for a reason.

Godet and Wagner prior to 1916, already knew how to make hollow cross with multiple parts and assemble them. After the solid crosses were introduced and the war was over, along comes the "Schickle" which was made in silver, bronze-gilt, hollow and solid.

Jim's hypothesis for joining pieces at the center, represents a very complicated process for making a hollow piece of the type once owned by Tony Colson. Tony's is hollow, which means the front and back of the arms would have to be joined (2 pieces per arms, eight total), then eagles applied, and then the pie-wedge suspension. The joining of that number of pieces would result in seams almost everywhere. From an artistic point of view it's messy looking, and an artist or craftsman who wants to exhibit his skill the goal is to try hiding how it was done, and making seam lines appear invisible to the eye, or to use a method that uses as few seams as possible in order to show off their skill.


The older technological processes were already known and used. The method of making the arms separately is more complicated than the earlier methods, and to anyone thinking about the technological issues involved, the question of why do something requiring a more complicated process comes to mind.

Regarding the use of the name "Schickle", Gordon Williamson has pointed out the firm may not have made them, however, no one has been able to demonstrate that they did not make them either. A PlM is represented in one of their two known catalogs (the 1938 edition, not the 1940 one). Whether that represents an actual cross made by the firm, a sub-contractos, or even a clay/wax prototype, is not definitely known.

A broken or damaged die, might require a jeweler to adopt new methods so he could keep using the dies for a while. That doesn't appear to be the case with the "Schickels" or pieces with wider center junctions. The angles of the arms as they converge on the center are different than earlier pieces, and the placement of the letters, crown, etc, required being shifted to accommodate the new geometry of the altered design.

Old dies were not used, and recycled, so that rules out claiming a seam was the result of using old dies that had been damaged, and used to make smaller parts which were then joined at the center.

Soldering the eagles to the center was probably not done freehand, and if batch work was done, the artisan-jeweler may have used typical production methods and made jigs to hold the eagles in place while soldering them to the cross. I'm not surmising what the jig or clamping method looked like, but a "seam" can result from where a tool, or something else, masked part of another item while two pieces were being joined. The "seam" might be nothing more than where the clamp or jigs covered part of the junction, while soldering was done, but the solder did not cover places covered or masked by the clamps, etc.

[Les]

I've been going through some very hi-resolution close-up photos I have on file. The Colson piece I can say, -did not- have it's arms soldered together at or near the center junction in order to make the piece. There does seem to be an irregular shape to the center junction of the cross, however, that I suggest is a function of the fact the lines formed by the arms of the cross as they merge towards the center, are parallel, and convergent on the center point. That creates a new geometric design to the cross, which is different from the standard wartime crosses.

From the perspective of personally handled Colson's piece, I do not believe it was made by having the arms soldered together, or this method was used for actually producing pieces.

How the die itself was made....that's another matter. There are at least two ways a die could have been made for the pieces with larger center junctions. The hardest method is to cut the pattern directly into the material used for the intended dies. Another way which has it's own set of problems is making the parts separately out of plaster, wax, clay, etc and making a representation model. (This is usually done for molding pieces.) I know the eagles on the Colson piece were cast, although how the cross itself was made is not easy to determine because of the large amount of enamel covering the cross and no damage that could reveal manufacturing methods used to make the cross.

[Zepenthusiast]

Hi Les,
Appreciate your comments, but I think you may be misconstruing what I mean by the center alignment (please correct me if I'm wrong.) Here is an image from the thread "PLM--Godet or Not" cited below. I am borrowing the image from one of the latter postings and its full origin can be traced through that thread. I would like to use it to illustrate my point and can of course remove it if anyone objects. The red arrow was from that thread, used to emphasize the shape of the "l," and is not applicable to this immediate discussion.

[IMG][/IMG]

The misalignment to which I was referring is that the top arm is not centered (midline, that is) over the bottom arm to perfection. The variation is slight, and is likely invisible to the naked eye, but shows readily in this magnified view. I do not believe this could be a trick of parallax over this small an area at this magnification. In the case of this cross, the postulated seam between the arms is very visible in two locations and I don't believe could be explained by either solder overflow from the eagles' tails or any other external artifact. It is not a formation I have ever seen in any close-ups of solid crosses. In theory, the discontinuous finishing marks at the vertex of each cross could have been formed by careful filing/polishing in parallel to each arm only, avoiding any "spill over" to the adjacent arm and causing the two sets of finishing marks to meet in a pseudo-line, but it rather looks more like the mitre at the corner of a picture frame (which I contend is closer to the the truth.)

At first, I also thought it would change the size of the angle where the eagles go to cut down the arm length, but in fact it doesn't. The arms are straight edged, correct? Moving them closer together does not alter the angle of convergence. Geometrically, they must remain the same angle relative to their midlines. The only discrepancy would be in relation to mis-alignment of the arms on attachment as discussed above, and that would be very slight/able to hide in the finish of the tailfeathers and solder.

Acknowledging as well that 8 part construction could be complex, on the other hand it allows each arm to be dealt with as a single construct, such that if one area of a stamp doesn't meet muster, the whole cross is not a loss--kind of miniaturized "mass construction" if you will. Put the parts together in a jig to join first each face, then join the two faces, and you don't have a whole lot of complex soldering. The majority of the joint would disappear behind the enamel. Such construction could actually be easier than the earlier hollow pieces, given the complexity and fragility of the latter. Many ofl the old hollow gold Godets and Wagners were three piece construction, based on the pictures in Prussian Blue, so this is not radically different in complexity.

Are we talking about the same alignment? Let me know if I'm off base.

[Les]

Jim,

Brian commented the images in the Schickel Catalog are photos. Not everyone replying to that thread agreed.

In the thread you quoted to Brian, regarding his position on Andreas' (medalnet's) cross, another forum member who had first hand experience with how companys advertise, advised that what it pictured in a catalog may or may not be what the company finally has when it reaches the sales department. Here's a case in point: Marshall and Greg have shown images from the 1930 catalog. One of the images shows a mini PlM suspended from a ribbon, not worn on a boutonniere, or buttonhole device. To date, no one has ever seen a genuine example, conventional wisdom hols the piece as never having been made.

Brian will contend the images in the Otto Schickel catalogs are based on original items that were photographed. That is his position, not everyones. Did Schickle make mock-ups or -some- prototypes that were used for making images to be put in the catalog, but those specific examples never made, and something else instead? Until an exact match surfaces, there are questions. That said, let's not get hung up relying on images, but known examples and how they compare to the piece with the straight tail feathers attributed to Wulf.

If Schickel made a prototype that was changed before final production types were made, we will be looking forever for one to match the image in the catalog. The Colson piece, whatever one wants to call it, is the first piece to be directly compared to the Schickle catalog image, and regardless of who made it, has since become the first of similar pieces to be called a "Schickel" regardless of who did or did not make it. The term has a convenience to it which avoids referring to every perceived variation as a "Colson", or "Niemann sold (date)", or "Weitze example" and so on.

I follow what you're saying about the lower edge of the "l" and the angle, but to an artist, changing one element of how a letter is shaped should result in similar changes to other letters, and more than a few of those changes would be odd, and not work. Someone may have taken one look at the angled lower l and said..."Nein, niemals!" and sent it back to be redone so all of the letters had similar elements. Angling the lower part of the "l" while not angling other elements may have not appealed to the eye of the person who decided to put the piece into production.

Jim, the problem of cutting and moving the arms inwards means that in order to keep the same overall dimensions of the cross (width and height) would require extending the length of the arms or the result would be a smaller cross. A change in one part of the geometric shape of the cross will require changes to other parts of the cross, repositioning the crown, letters, the location of the suspension, in addition to changing how the eagles and other elements of the cross orient to each other, etc.

They didn't cut the arms and move them inwards which would have resulted in a smaller corss. They made a new design and made a new die set. The Colson piece has -no- cut or seam marks where the arms would have been soldered together.

The Colson cross is not completely flat across the sides ad have the same edge profile with slight rounding on where sides and top meet found on a typical Wagner or Godet.

Jim, you missed my point about the arms of the cross not converging. Look at the right hand arm of the cross (top edge from the 2 o'clock to 8 o'clock angle) and the corresponding arm on the lower left. The two edges -PARALLEL- each other. The same situation exists for other "paired" and opposing arms of the cross. This represents a distinctive design aspect that was intentionally done and marks a different geometrical design concept than wartime pieces.

[Les]

[quote=Zepenthusiast;3754499]Hi Les,
At first, I also thought it would change the size of the angle where the eagles go to cut down the arm length, but in fact it doesn't. The arms are straight edged, correct? Moving them closer together does not alter the angle of convergence. Geometrically, they must remain the same angle relative to their midlines. The only discrepancy would be in relation to mis-alignment of the arms on attachment as discussed above, and that would be very slight/able to hide in the finish of the tailfeathers and solder. [quote]

It's not that easy. Try printing out a photo of a PlM. It would help to enlarge it some. Then try drawing lines along the arms of the cross, watch as they cross the center, and whether they paralell the opposite edge, or converge. Once that's done, cut the picture into pieces, and try fitting them together. What happens to the geometry and symmetry of the profile, not to mention the lettering, crown, etc?

Acknowledging as well that 8 part construction could be complex, on the other hand it allows each arm to be dealt with as a single construct, such that if one area of a stamp doesn't meet muster, the whole cross is not a loss--kind of miniaturized "mass construction" if you will. Put the parts together in a jig to join first each face, then join the two faces, and you don't have a whole lot of complex soldering. The majority of the joint would disappear behind the enamel. Such construction could actually be easier than the earlier hollow pieces, given the complexity and fragility of the latter. Many ofl the old hollow gold Godets and Wagners were three piece construction, based on the pictures in Prussian Blue, so this is not radically different in complexity.
.

Jim, soldered joints are seldom as strong as stamped or cast ones. The soldering bonds are softer metal than the parent material and consequently far more prone to breakage than a single piece item.

Germans can be finicky about workmanship, even if materials are substandard. During WWI, German aircraft had wooden struts and framing covered by fabric. The internal woodwork was usually without exception of the highest quality possible, with sawn edges sanded smooth even if they would never be seen, did not move, and were not in contact with other pieces.

The idea a German jeweler prior to WWII would slap enamel over areas to hide defects or short-cuts in worksmanship cuts across the grain, with those who are familiar with older standards of workmanship. Modern day standards may accept the idea of slapping auto body filler to hide poor workmanship, or slap a new coat of paint on to hide problems.

Someone once told me, the measure of a man is not what he does in public, but what he does when he thinks no one is watching or will ever see or know what he does. The buyer of a enameled covered cross may never know the jeweler used enamel to cover bad workmanship and solder joints, but the jeweler would know....and so would the buyer if the piece was ever damaged.

[Zepenthusiast]

Les,
Looks like we are both online now--this is a first for me posting. A pleasure to make your real-time acquaintance! I did not misunderstand what you mean about the edges being (or forming) parallels, rather that is not the misalignment of which I was speaking. If you drop an imaginary "plumb line" from the intersection of the upper arm on the left, straight down to the intersection of the lower arm on the left, they do not line up. This imaginary line is parallell to the vertical axis of the cross, not to any of its tapering edges. Ditto the horizontal. It would appear in the case of the one I have shown the close-up of that the left side and right side arms are kind of "telescoped" into the vertical pair, judging from the position and angulation of the purported seams at the vertex of each "notch."

Re the strength of the solder, it is my understanding a "hard" solder joint--also called "silver soldering" as you will undoubtedly know--is like a steel weld actually stronger than the base material due to the nature of true molecular bonding. I can give you a reference on that, if you like. Lower temperature soldering is more fragile, to be sure.

I am going to do exactly your experiment with printing out two copies of the "Schickle version," will use the Colson cross in fact if I can find a good shot of it, and perform xerox surgery to see if I can replicate the infamous wide-waist version of the "Schickle." Note please I am not claiming you can make any version of these from a classic hollow or solid Godet with the ultra-narrow waist (must have put a corset on those critters.) This is undoubtedly a different type and would require new dies, whether made as a pair of single faces or the postulated 8-piece wonder. The Colson cross not having seams would suggest that at least originally each face was a single stamp. Whether the apparent seams in these other photos are a later development or some kind of optical illusion would still need explanation. As mentioned, I don't see anything like those lines in any solid pieces or any other hollow close-ups other than these crosses. While the one pictured below seems to feature them despite being of narrower waist (? same as the Colson?), it needs to be shown it does have the same waist dimensions as the Colson before an anomaly is declared. If it is wider at all, same argument applies all the more.

Also, I agree the wide waist cross would have to be shorter and narrower as you say...I'm guessing they are. Does anyone have the measurements on one of the wide waisted "Schickles" such as that bearing Jacobs' crown (not the Colson or similar "narrow waisted')? I haven't been able to find any measurements for one, so far.