Motive clear?
-
-
-
Brian, can you post the same shot to the same resolution of your grandfather's PLM? Things tend to look ugly when magnified many times.pseudo-expertComment
-
So ugly...Comment
-
Really? I thought we dealt in fact here (and in the past at least, took efforts to avoid legitimizing fakes and fabrications, which some saw as an important objective of these forums).Originally posted by Don D. View Post
Don, please list the facts that support your apparent belief that this cross is a pre-november 1918 manufactured, specially commissioned piece. “It is possible” and “poorly made pieces existed” don’t qualify as such.
Oh, and I don’t know whether this cross being commissioned by an Ottoman or Austrian World War One recipient still forms part of the thesis of the believers, but if it does, there were a dozen at most so it must be possible to produce a pic of this cross in wear. The list of recipients can be found on Wikipedia.
Kind regards,
SandroLast edited by GdC26; 03-01-2020, 02:31 AM.Comment
-
Thanks Brian. All indicators say the cross is bad (in addition to the many points identified in this thread, Les in the GMIC thread explains why it is grossly overweight for a supposedly hollow gold plm) and none that I’ve seen that it might be good, so I’ve asked Don, who apparently believes it to be good, to list the latter. As I have little doubt this cross will hit the market, that should permit any prospective buyer to weigh the evidence for and against.Originally posted by Brian S View Post
Kind regards,
SandroComment
-
Sandro, I never said I believe it is good. I also didn't say it was bad. I said that we should discuss it. We get in the habit of dismissing things out of hand that are not regulation or exactly as known pieces. If discussing it bothers you then feel free to bow out. Why else have a forum if we are just going to compare things to officially issued items. No discussion is required.
Brian, even your PLM shows blemishes when magnified. Just like when the lights come on in the bar at last call things aren't always as pretty as they seemed.
As for this cross, I am intrigued as to why would they use a gold JO (if it is indeed a gold one) which are rarer and more expensive than the regular ones you see, to create a fake? Would not the eagles on the smaller silver JOs be a better match? I have not studied JOs and have only owned one. I cannot find the pics anymore so I have to research them. As for the lettering and enamel, it is what I would expect to see if someone had asked a company that doesn't make the PLM to produce one using a JO die. Hell, this could have been done for a window display. Who knows? But if it is a bad thing to discuss it then we should all quit right now. There is nothing more to discuss as everything about Imperial awards is known.pseudo-expertComment
-
Don,Originally posted by Don D. View Post
Best I know (but who am I, indeed), discussion is a rational process, generally with a purpose or objective.
Since by now the debate here apparently neither has a purpose (which I thought was establishing whether the cross is indeed a pre November 1918 J.H. Werner manufactured Pour le Merite, manufactured on commission of an Ottoman or Austrian knight of that order) nor involves the rational weighing of arguments (the many points that argue against it being pre November 1918 J.H. Werner manufactured Pour le Merite, let alone one manufactured on commission of an Ottoman or Austrian knight of that order, have not been met with even a single argument supporting that thesis) I will indeed bow out now, and will consider whether the level this forum is stooping to is worth the annual contribution.
To suggest that my contribution and that of others stoops to the level of an out of hand dismissal of the cross at hand is frankly preposterous. You say you have never handled a gold Johanitter: I have, as I have handled several PLM's, both in silver gilt and in gold. For reasons explained ad nauseam by me and others who have had such items in hand, this cross does not even come close.
Enjoy the discussion,
SandroLast edited by GdC26; 03-01-2020, 09:33 AM.Comment
-
How does the weight of the gold JO you handled compare to this one?
ps- I've owned 3 Wagner PLMs and handled 2 others. But that is an apple to oranges comparison and irrelevant to this discussion.pseudo-expertComment
-
If this is goöd sell it for its gold value.
Remember a JO can break. Them all u have isca frame w uneven pieces. So make yourself a fugly PlM.
Don yes, discussion is good but its over.
Over for me and Ssndro.
This is not a pre 1945 cross. Period.
I sm a bit horrified you would compare the Wagner I show to his as evidence they all look messy under magnification.
RAO BMO in enamel all beautiful.
It is not a window display unless done by Gomer Pyle.Comment
-
Some additional pix....hollow gilt version.
Gary BANA LM #1201868, OMSA LM #60, OVMS LM #8348Comment
-
As someone who has advanced my own share of controversial interpretations/PlM theory, it will probably surprise no one that I feel a need to throw in "two bits" in defense of serious discussion of this piece--and give Don a lot of credit for keeping an open mind as moderator, even while granting Sandro and Brian acknowledgement they are carrying the weight of existing evidence on their side. That said--"here's a ghost for the never-believer":Originally posted by GdC26 View Post
He not only was photographed wearing the cross, he died wearing it.
Images captured from Lance Bronnenkant's excellent "The Imperial German Eagles in WWI," used for educational purposes and hopefully OK by the author.
It's fashioned from the Kreuz der Rechtsritter in this case, but I think the lettering shows clearly enough to appreciate it is qualitatively similar to that in this thread--that is, many small imperfections reflecting the challenges of adding raised gold letters at small scale to a delicate surface and then re-enameling that surface. Need to add, too, that the enamel in the weep hole is not evidence of poor technique or an anomaly really. The only way to successfully enamel one side, the outer surface in this case, of relatively thin metal sheet, being subject to expansion under heat, is to have enamel on the opposite--that is inner--surface as well. Some of that molten glass can find its way to the weep hole under heat and gas outflow. My exploration of period enameling technique supported that would be commonplace practice to have enamel within, the only question in this case is why would it be blue vs. white.
Loewenhardt notably received his PlM very late in the war and may have sought the gold one via conversion either because he wanted a gold cross, just liked the style, or perhaps was going to have to wait to obtain his awarded cross. Could these all be reasons why a Knight might actually pursue just this kind of innovation?
I guess we cannot now say it never happened...
JimLast edited by Zepenthusiast; 03-01-2020, 05:24 PM.Comment
-
I named this photo SoNotTheSame. Can you guess how I feel about the comparison?Comment
-
They did a better job with the crown...
But outside of that, the other letters are of similar quality. They are not the quality of a die-struck issue piece for sure, but the point is a nearly identical approach was used to create Loewenstein's cross, Brian. Did any period jewelers make novel PlMs from JO's?
Yes.
Comment
-
What you don't seem to appreciate it that the PlM was not a free for all manufacturers and jewelers to concoct whatever decorations suited their fancy. It was very closely controlled.
"Did any period jewelers make novel PlMs from JO's?
Yes."
No. Your statement is grossly naive.Comment
Comment