A Study of the Godet Style PlM

[regular122]

Bunyip,

Here is a pic that I hope meets your desire. If not, oh well. It is the best that I can do with an actual cross in hand. I will follow it with a pic that shows a side shot of the eagle.

Clearly evident from these pics is the absolute high quality of Meybauer workmanship--as one would expect from everything else they made. The enameling, the chased letters common with the Godet style cross, the filing along the edges - all should be evident. There is absolutely no trace that I can see of this being a cast piece.

As to the possibility of cast Meybauers, I should like to see actual examples and in color if possible. Les over at the GMIC has had an interest in these over the years and believes that some of them might be cast, but in measurement, they were equal to or slightly greater than the standard Godet making casting problematic. Several of us here may differ with you on inclusion marks vice cast bubbles from the pic you posted, but I should like to see evidence of chasing that was cast and cast seams on a legitimate Meybauer cross. Thanks, Steve

[regular122]

Here is a side shot of an eagle and arm ray. Note the fine workmanship, smooth edges and complete lack of seam--and more evidence of finish filing on the eagle head and wings. Steve

[regular122]

'Schickle' Variant

I would like to continue the purpose of this thread in covering the various types of Godet style PlMs--this one being called for lack of better knwledge the 'Schickle PlM.'

I have not been able to find the level of detail about Otto Schickle's firm as I had on Godet and Meybauer. Otto Schickle produced a wide array of medals and badges in Pforzheim. The firm's TR era LDO mark was L/15. The RZM metal insignia code was M1/75. Its Prasidialkanzlei Number was 133. It was known to produce items in the '57 period. They published an extensive catalogue in 1938 that I do not think listed a PlM. Their 1940 catalogue however did list the award. This PlM differed slightly from the Godet but was 'Godet style.'

Much discussion has ensued over whether this variant was indeed produced by Schickle, whether the one in the 1940 Schickle catalogue matched the one now generally attributed to their firm, or whether Schickle produced the medal at all. We do know that Schickle got into some kind of hot water during the war and had its license revoked. According to fellow member Gordon Williamson, “Otto Schickle gained their license in March 1941 and lost it soon afterwards. There is an entry in the July 1941 Schwert und Spaten indicating that Schickle had been given permission to sell off existing stock. It may well have just been a temporary revocation of their license though for some misdemeanor.”

The style of PlM now generally referred to as the ‘Schickle PlM’ is identified by two distinguishing marks among others. It has a center that is much broader than the delicate Godet / Meybauer cross. And it has eagles that have straight tail feathers with a somewhat different carved body. Josef Jacobs was given one with the 50 year crown that was this style, making post-war manufacture possible, given that Schickle did produce '57 Kight's Crosses. Or it cold have been one that they still had in stock from pre-45. We may never know. But Detlev believes that these existed prior to 1945.

I open this Schickle discussion up to all those much more knowledgeable about it than I am. I am posting some variants sent by fellow member Steiner63 and some that have appeared at auction.

Marshall, Tony, Andreas, (too bad Les is not here anymore) I know you guys have handled these types of crosses and studied them. Would love to have your thoughts on the whole Schickle business. And anyone able to provide more Schickle firm info would be appreciated. Steve

First up, is a comparison of a wartime Godet with the PlM shown in the 1940 catalogue. I believe this catalogue pic came from maybe Greg M or Gordon.

[regular122]

Here is Steiner63's example. Note it is much broader at the center than the 1940 catalogue pic. It also has a straight vice canted foot on the 'l' in 'le.' And the other examples thought to be this type also have uncanted 'l's. To date, no perfect match has appeared for this catalogue photo as I am sure that Andreas and Brian remember in that discussion!

Here is Steiner63's cross. It came from Barry Turk and with Detlev's certificate.

[regular122]

Some detail when this same piece was up for auction does show a slight cant to the 'l's foot that I did not catch before. Chasing is very much like the Godet. It also has the short 'M' center. Except for the slightly broader center, this is the closest thing that has appeared to the catalogue. I think it to be from the same die. Detlev believes it to be the Schickle style variant.

[regular122]

Here's the same cross with the whole set up as offered before Steiner63 acquired it. It is a very beautiful cross. Congrats. Steve

[regular122]

Here is a chased and an unchased variant offered for auction. The unchased appearance is more like the Wagner lettering but the cross appears near identical to the chased ones posted. One can also dtect a slight gap in the right side of the crown of the unchased version making it more along the lines of Godet. Steve

[regular122]

Here is a better shot of the unchased one. Steve

[regular122]

I believe this was the one that belonged to Tony Colson with Oak Leaves. That is all the examples I have seen. Let the commentary begin. Steve

[Steiner63]

Ahh it looks like my cross had a set of oakleaves attached at one time which it lost before it got to me,I was wondering why its ribbon has the extra stripe which I think represents the oakleaves grade.Although not an original issue its certainly close enough for me

[Biro]

...Marshall, Tony, Andreas, (too bad Les is not here anymore) I know you guys have handled these types of crosses and studied them. Would love to have your thoughts on the whole Schickle business.....

Steve

As you've discovered, we have debated the Godet v Schickle connection over the years and to recap, there are a couple of key points that everyone must consider.


1) Noone is entirely and definitively sure whether the picture in the 1941 Schickel catalogue that Gordon posted is actually a photo, a drawing, or a combination of the two (rotograveur I think it's called) so any microscopic comparisons to it in the sort of minutae we are doing is futile. All that can be truly said about 'Schickel-type' pieces like the one Steiner63 now owns is that they resemble the pieces printed in the Schickel catalogue a lot more than they do an original wartime Godet, but accurately, they are STILL neither!

2) Before anyone starts on the 're-worked wartime Godet dies' theme, think about the physics involved in altering a die to incorporate a bigger central junction. The whole angle of the cross arms themselves would also alter. You can take metal away (as they could well have done for the tail feather modification) but you can't add it on and that is the only way to increase the angle of the cross arms and get a wider central junction. I don't beleive this is physically possible nor likely to have happened. In my opinion (and I admit, it is a revised opinion...) these are from an entirely new die. Was it one commisioned by Schickel?

Maybe.

3) Detlev may well now be issuing COA's stating he beleives them to be Schickel made, but this is a very new development. If you read his sales description you will notice that less than a year ago he sold this postwar 'Schickel type' one.... Godet .. as 'a 1920's - 30's PLM probably by Godet'. Now they are 'probably by Schickel'. I beleive our lengthy discussions here about the Schickel catalogue similarities may well have have been an influencing factor for him... . In short (and don't get me wrong, I love the man) he dosen't know either.

I hope you get further than we did!

Marshall

[Steiner63]

I would have guessed rarity would be a factor,how often are these "Schickle" type PLMs seen? If they are not encountered that often that might well indicate an earlier (up to 1945) striking? Having this cross in hand its obvious that its quality is good,surely a post WW2 maker who was able to produce PLMs as nice as these ones would have made a lot of them or at the very least we would now see a few of them on ebay etc,for myself I've only ever seen one or two like these offered on Detlevs site...just my inexperienced opinion of course.
Regards
Steiner63

[regular122]

That's a pretty accurate summation Marshall. My hope on this thread was to at least find the few examples of these that have surfaced and display them here for comparison, archiving and discussion--whatever they truly are or are called.

I am with you on the whole die thing. I suppose it may be possible but the variation in the letters, the placement of them, and especially the center of the cross makes me think that these were a completely different die. The design is 'Godet-like.' The eagles are close. Meybauers had closed beaks and even some other variations of legit crosses as well.

Still, these are very handsome crosses and the evidence seems to suggest that they were made in some form or fashion prior to 1945. But, as the picture shows below which I am sure you will recall from the earlier thread where it was posted, they were also issued after 1957. Whether from stocks or produced later may never be known. Given that so very few of these have appeared, I tend to think they could have been from stock.

Here is the Josef Jacobs piece from 1968 with 50-year crown. With that, it is possibly every one of this type that has surfaced. The only other close one is the von Bonja example on Page 260 of Prussian Blue. But it had Wagner style eagles and crown. The letters had the high center 'M' and wide center though. Steve

[Steiner63]

Hi again,since my PLM arrived a lot of my friends have admired it and asked if its an original issue,of course I can't say it is but the still fairly high price I paid,the nice quality of it and the Detlev COA makes me reluctant to say its "just" a copy also,I think a new word needs be made up to describe these "gray area" PLMs
Regards
Steiner63

[bunyip]

Bunyip,
Several of us here may differ with you on inclusion marks vice cast bubbles from the pic you posted, but I should like to see evidence of chasing that was cast and cast seams on a legitimate Meybauer cross. Thanks, Steve

How much do you know about casting? Pieces can be cast without cast seams. A single piece mold can produce exactly that result.

I have a cheap copy of a commerative tank badge that was cast. There is and never was a seam from a two piece mould. It was cast in an open faced single piece mould. The centre of the cast piece collapsed inward like a souffle baking in an oven. The centre has an oval depression that's almost as large as the wreath on the other side. The outer edges and collapsed centre has the same pocking and pitting the Meybauer has. The piece was die struck, and the marks were obvious not made by being die struck or mill rolled. If you want, I'll provide pictures.

The Meybauer was probably made using a single sided open faced mould.

You've suggested yours is die struck, probably from original dies. If that's the case why did Meybauer use only one die when an original Godet was made be being struck on two sides, presumably at the same time? One die could also be used to cast a piece directly from it instead of striking pieces. Casting can be easier and cheaper than stamping.

Before you bring up the possiblity of having one sided examples for engraving, do you know of any Meybauer marked pieces that are or were engraved?

bunyip