Previously Unknown Pour le Merite?

[David Christian]

Check out what is available at this time on eMedals: https://www.emedals.com/europe/germa...der-of-st-john
There are not any crosses that have eagles that match the JO or the cross that we have been discussing, even the Godet or the older crosses offered. On older crosses might it be safe to say that the eagles may have been distinct to the maker?

[GdC26]

Thanks David, there is no misunderstanding, just a lot of conjecture, now also on the many different styles of JO's that exist (yes, I was aware of that).

Often, the simpler explanation is in fact the correct one. In this case, there are several indications that is that the cross at hand is bad, and there is nothing to suggest that it is good - no proof of similar courses in wear or in existence, a communis opinio that the cross is probably a converted Johaniter knights cross, poor lettering, poor overall finish (enamel leaking from a weep hole) etc..

So perhaps we should heed the red flags and the absence of green ones: if it neither looks, walks or talks like one it probably isn't one.

You'll forgive me for bowing out of this conversation until some green flags emerge.
Kind regards,
Sandro

[Don D.]

True, high nobility occasionally did buy or commission pieces that were not exactly "Probemäßig", but those cases are not that common, and mostly involved high quality substitutes for pieces which were not generally available. The piece at hand with oversized eagles, poor lettering and enamel leaking from a weep hole, is not (such) (a) high quality piece. Moreover, as already noted by several contributors to the thread, anyone who wanted a golden PLM would have been more likely to turn to a known maker like Godet or for Austrians, Rothe.

Sandro, where would someone get a hollow gold PLM in 1916-18? Not from official suppliers. Having an existing JO converted could have been an option. Who knows? If we are just going to stick to official awarded pieces then all discussion is done. If this thing were created for an awardee then some where there should be a period photo of him wearing it. This one would/should be easy to spot.

[Don D.]

Thanks David, there is no misunderstanding, just a lot of conjecture, now also on the many different styles of JO's that exist (yes, I was aware of that).

Often, the simpler explanation is in fact the correct one. In this case, there are several indications that is that the cross at hand is bad, and there is nothing to suggest that it is good - no proof of similar courses in wear or in existence, a communis opinio that the cross is probably a converted Johaniter knights cross, poor lettering, poor overall finish (enamel leaking from a weep hole) etc..

So perhaps we should heed the red flags and the absence of green ones: if it neither looks, walks or talks like one it probably isn't one.

You'll forgive me for bowing out of this conversation until some green flags emerge.
Kind regards,
Sandro

A hypotheses is conjecture until proven or disproven. In the end the piece has to speak for itself.

[GdC26]

Sandro, where would someone get a hollow gold PLM in 1916-18? Not from official suppliers. Having an existing JO converted could have been an option. Who knows? If we are just going to stick to official awarded pieces then all discussion is done. If this thing were created for an awardee then some where there should be a period photo of him wearing it. This one would/should be easy to spot.

Don, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, of course, but if I had commissioned a golden PLM (hollow or not) and would be handed this I would refuse it and takee my money elsewhere. For all of the reasons mentioned, the quality simply not up to the standard of something a court jeweler would produce in the period between 1881 (the date J.H.Werner started producing orders) and 1916, when golden orders were phased out. Based on what has been presented, as far as I'm concerned, the red flags far outweigh the "who knows, it might have happened" line : but as said, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.
Kind regards,
Sandro

[GdC26]

A hypotheses is conjecture until proven or disproven. In the end the piece has to speak for itself.

And for reasons given, I say it does so, loudly .....

[CRBeery]

Hollow gold awarded around 1900. I’ll pull it out and see which maker is on it but I’m 99% sure it is FR. I always wondered why someone would make the JO and not the PLM.

[GdC26]

And for reasons given, I say it does so, loudly .....

Searching for a Werner PlM I just stumbled upon this: https://gmic.co.uk/topic/50170-pour-le-merite-blue-max/ A discussion of the same cross on a fellow forum where the cross was discussed and debunked in 2011 already by knowledgeable collectors such as Andreas Schulze Ising and Les, and where Les and Sasha Woechsler in fact raised the Johanniter hypothesis now relaunched by Jim, with Sasha acknowledging that the cross may well be a modern rework of (presumably) an old Johanniter.

I’ll keep my conclusions to myself ...
Kind regards,
Sandro

[Brian S]

Stated these are exactly the same. No they are not.

[Brian S]

Poorly executed. We finish Wagner perfectly but ours are sloppy. ???

Letters not precise.

[Don D.]

So, one expert says it is bad and made by Rothe. The other expert says it is bad but not made by Rothe. The first expert then says if it is not like the ones on his site it must be bad. The discussion leaves off with it appears to be a reworked JO which is where we are now.

Of course we know that the germans were technically perfect in everything they did so case closed. Is that correct?

[Texasuberalles]

Often, the simpler explanation is in fact the correct one.

Postulated centuries ago as Occam's Razor

[Brian S]

Bogus for me. One voice...

[Brian S]

Very interesting updates gentlemen. I would be very surprised to find that a modern faker went to these lengths to furnish a spurious PLM. Judging from the wear, this thing was worn quite a bit. The mystery deepens.

Really? Make your own cheap. Try to sell $8,000, thats why the effort.

[Brian S]

Enamel or plastic fill so visibly badly done.

As Tim wud say FUGLY