Previously Unknown Pour le Merite?

[morel5000]

Brass, Gold plated and big cast eagles, nice movie prop?

[Texasuberalles]

Brass, Gold plated and big cast eagles, nice movie prop?

Don't think someone would go to all this trouble for a 'prop'.

[David Christian]

Thanks for the comments, guys! I will admit that this piece looks like something from a Hollywood prop studio in that it is definitely eye catching compared to the "standard" pieces of the time, but I marvel at how it is made. It is definitely not brass or gold filled. It is kind of a throwback, as mentioned by Vince earlier. I disagree, Michel, but I appreciate your taking the time to comment. Texasuberalles recognizes the craftsmanship required. Look at those edges and those eagles and tell me again somebody did that for a movie shot. Cool user ID- my mom was a German from Texas.

[Don D.]

An interesting award for sure. If it is made of gold that lends weight to it possibly being a good period piece. Perhaps private purchase by some rich/royal. I looking forward to hearing from others in this thread.

[VtwinVince]

Where are the PLM fanatics? The mark looks period to the later 19th century.

[David Christian]

The mark is definitely J.H. Werner. There are threads which discuss the Wagner retail crosses where J.H. Werner thought to be a possible finisher and retailer for those crosses. I have already posted some of the history. The firm started in 1870 and became a house jeweler for the court of the Kaiser. It produced the previously mentioned awards and struggled like many after the war. In 1929 the firm merged with Godet and 3 other firms and it became Godet-Werner. In 1930 another firm joined to try and survive the Great Depression. Gradually the Werner part of the name was dropped. Below are a couple of J.H. Werner's hallmarks and a letterhead from the time of the merger.

[David Christian]

The above were taken from [I]German Medal Makers and Their Marks 1813-1957[I][
by Mark Woods, the 2016 edition. The possible J.H. Werner variation of the Wagner silver/gilt cross is discussed here http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=310823 and in other threads. The maker's mark is the same, in the same location on this cross.

[David Christian]

Check out this cross. It was sold once and is now for sale again on eMedals. https://www.emedals.com/europe/germa...-werner-c-1916 This cross has been discussed at length on WAF. The maker's mark on the Wagner cross is J.H.W.
It is deeper because silver-gilt crosses are not as delicate as hollow gold crosses.

[David Christian]

I borrowed this image from the eMedals site. J.H.W. inside the 6 o'clock arm of a Wagner silver-gilt cross, indicating that they were the finisher or retailer. What I am trying to establish is that they may have made a few of their own crosses, pre-1916 as replacements or commissioned pieces, definitely different than the Wagners and Godets.

[David Christian]

Thanks for the support Vince and Don. Please tell other members to check out our thread here. I am still wondering if someone has run across another specimen like this.

[GdC26]

I must say I'm rather skeptical. I'll delve into my library this weekend as time permits to see if I can find mention of a J.H. Werner produced golden PLM in my references, but note there that the PLM you referenced in the threads you referred to is identified in those threads as a standard Wagner PLM with enhanced feathering to the eagles and a J.H.W. Ritzmarke, not as a Werner produced cross. These comments are echoed by eMedals, where the same (silver gilt) cross is described as a "typical Wagner cross".

According to Sauerwald (in his very recent Königlich Preußische Ordensjuweliere, p 145), J.H. Werner supplied predominantly ROA's and PKO's, and during WWI, mostly EKI's and EK II's. Regular122, in post 8 of the link you posted, makes a similar observation.

Sauerwald further mentions that Werner used hand chiseled initials (as the lettering in the silver gilt cross you refer to seems to be), whilst the initials on the cross discussed here seem stamped (without apparently deforming what I gather is thought to be a hollow gold construction, which in itself seems remarkable). Moreover the oversidzed eagles seem rather clunky to me 9especially the tail feathers look odd), the "Pour le Me-rite" lettering rather crude, one of the pics seems to show enamel leaking out of a vent hole (?) the 6 o'clock position, and God knows what happened to the eye of the pie wedge.

As to the theory that this piece would have been commissioned by an Ottoman or Austrian PLM winner, why would they commission such a cross from a manufacturer who best we know, never produced PLM's, and not from Godet or (in the case of an Austrian, Rothe)? It all strikes me as a bit far fetched.

All in all I'd say that the balance of probability argues against this being an original pre 1918 (or as is argued in the thread, pre-1916) pour le merite produced on commission by J.H. Werner.

Kind regards,
Sandro

[David Christian]

Thanks for your comments. Good points about the construction. I never claimed that J.H. Werner may have been anything but a finisher or retailer for the standard Wagner silver-gilt crosses. I was showing that they were marked in a similar way in the same spot. If the cross that I am showing is indeed hollow gold, the chisel method of applying a mark would not work. It would have to be scratched or lightly stamped in. The cross is of lesser quality that a Wagner or Godet as far as lettering, but JHW was a jeweler that may not have been set up for PlM production when a prototype or commissioned piece was asked for. The eagles are awesome, but they are much too large -I agree. The enamel is great, but again, if you look closely there are places where it ended up where it didn't belong. There is a spot on one of the eagle's tails as well as around the weep hole. These spots are very tiny. I am presenting this item as I found it. I believe that it came from JHW in spite of the flaws. It may have been a prototype that was turned down as a standard design and was later sold, or an attempt to reproduce a very early cross (1813-1815) for someone's family. I am glad that you are skeptical. It leads to a great discussion. One of my points is that it is unique, so it is not an attempt to reproduce anything. A faker would most likely not choose gold and not use JHW initials when it would be more lucrative to mark it with a W or JGuS.

[David Christian]

I appreciate all of your points, Sandro. Thank-you for them. I am speculating quite a bit in trying to understand and explain this piece. It is easy to shoot down many of my theories. You mentioned the mangled pie-wedge. As I stated previously, it may at one time had a grommet that was pressed in to protect the thin edges as was commonly done on this suspension. It was gone a long time ago if it were there to begin with. This may have been one of the problems that lead Wagner to develop the baroque suspension. Several of the Rothes that I have seen, especially the type customized for Eichenlaube have had the pie wedge suspension removed and a baroque style added. I own one of those types. New suspension makes them easier to manipulate without damage.

While on the subject of Rothe and Neffe crosses- the ones that I have seen are all silver-gilt. It is still unclear when the firm began producing PlM's, but they follow the German 1916 rules. IMHO the cross in this thread was produced prior to 1916, which was most probably before Rothe began producing PlM's in Vienna. I agree it would make more sense to purchase a Godet or a Wagner, but again, this cross came of of an old collection in Tbilisi, Georgia. It could have gotten there from anywhere, but again I am speculating that it may have belonged to someone in that region during or after the Great War.

[Zepenthusiast]

Hi Gents,

It took a bit of hunting, but I think I just may have found a compelling solution to this particular PlM puzzle...

I think it may prove to be a converted JO. Here is an example of a similar piece--albeit still in its original white--circa 1890 by description (from an auction at Hermann Historica):

In Gold gefertigtes Halskreuz mit weiß emaillierten (ein Kreuzarm mit Chips) Armen, schwarz lackierten (kleinere Fehlstellen) gekrönten Adlern und Segmentöse mit Sprungring. Qualitätvolle unsignierte Arbeit vom Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts im roten Verleihungsetui mit Druckknopfverschluss. Breite 57,5 mm. Gewicht 20,6 g.



Note the wing and tail feathers. JO typically larger than PlM (fits). The crowns were cut off and the bases filed down, I believe, though to my eye traces remain atop each eagle's head, especially over the front brow (just above the beak).

It would explain the period quality and construction of the cross body, but with the enamel and lettering not looking entirely "right."

While it is conceivable this was a period alteration, I fear that wouldn't make much sense vs. a valid recipient obtaining a PlM copy directly. As a JO, J.H. Werner could have been the maker--would be interesting to search for any known JO by them.

Wish I could offer you some more encouraging interpretation, Dave, but I do suspect this may be the explanation.

Best regards,

Jim

[GdC26]

Hi Gents,

It took a bit of hunting, but I think I just may have found a compelling solution to this particular PlM puzzle...

I think it may prove to be a converted JO. Here is an example of a similar piece--albeit still in its original white--circa 1890 by description (from an auction at Hermann Historica):

In Gold gefertigtes Halskreuz mit weiß emaillierten (ein Kreuzarm mit Chips) Armen, schwarz lackierten (kleinere Fehlstellen) gekrönten Adlern und Segmentöse mit Sprungring. Qualitätvolle unsignierte Arbeit vom Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts im roten Verleihungssetui mit Druckknopfverschluss. Breite 57,5 mm. Gewicht 20,6 g.



Note the wing and tail feathers. JO typically larger than PlM (fits). The crowns were cut off and the bases filed down, I believe, though to my eye traces remain atop each eagle's head, especially over the front brow (just above the beak).

It would explain the period quality and construction of the cross body, but with the enamel and lettering not looking entirely "right."

While it is conceivable this was a period alteration, I fear that wouldn't make much sense vs. a valid recipient obtaining a PlM copy directly. As a JO, J.H. Werner could have been the maker--would be interesting to search for any known JO by them.

Wish I could offer you some more encouraging interpretation, Dave, but I do suspect this may be the explanation.

Best regards,

Jim

Well done Jim, for an interesting thesis that merits further consideration.
Kind rrgards,
Sandro