Previously Unknown Pour le Merite?

[Don D.]

As Erich Lowenhardt shows, for whatever reason he wore a non-official PLM. That PLM only has value to me because it can be attributed to him, and there is evidence of him wearing the piece. The fact that someone chose to wear a piece like the thread starter does not make the piece a good PLM. It only has value because there is proof of being worn by the original recipient. In other words, a standalone piece like that of E Lowenhardt’s,

This is where I currently stand. If someone did wear the thread starter then there must be a picture somewhere.

And this is a beautiful cross. Probably put away after being awarded and a wearer's copy worn in its place.

[Brian S]

In this case you can't respond with any contradictory explanation without denial of historical reality. And if that historical reality isn't as monolithic as you apparently want it to be, then next approach is ad hominem attack on the messenger.

No fantasy argument on this one Brian. Gottcha. : )

Yeah you so smart.



Crickets.

[VtwinVince]

As an aside, my grandparents got married in 1924, and according to my Opi it was very difficult at that time to get a real gold wedding ring. I am wearing it right now, and it is just a 585 piece, without much gold content. Extrapolating from that, the orders jewelers still in business then must have had some trouble getting precious metals.

[David Christian]

I am sorry that I have been absent from the discussion for several days due to travel. It has taken some very interesting turns. Responding to Vince's last observation from his family, gold was restricted by the Kaiser first in 1916, the treaty of Versailles demanded reparations from the German government in gold, so shortages continued. In 1923 with the restructuring of the economy after hyperinflation, there was a ban on some private ownership. Gold was extremely hard to come by for years. The Depression did not help matters after 1929, and many firms went out of business or merged trying to survive. That is why you see so many brass-gilt crosses post-war.

In responding to Jim in post 94, and to the forum on the other site which has been include on this cross, it was my conclusion that where the thread-starter was stored post-1945 could indeed be influenced by its history. The other forum states that it was stored in Georgia from WWII.

I have heard several stories about PlM recipients hearing of their award knowing that it may be several weeks or even months before their issued one will be awarded and the normal channels had nothing available. The most famous of these may be Ernst Udet. He ended up with his standard Wagner but tried to borrow one in the mean time. There is a possibility that he may have approached a jeweler to find him an extra.

Since I do have this dog in the fight, I need to answer Brian's point on how the thread-starter "does not conform to anything made pre-1945." I agree with that point about PlM's, but the width and the eagles are an exact match for the circa 1890 Ehrenritter JO, dating the base. Also, as has been pointed out by Jim, it is entirely gold, including the lettering. It is engraved with a maker's mark. He made another one of my points when he said that the cross lettering looks pretty good when it is not under high magnification. Do you know how small those letters are and how hard it would be to come up with those from scratch if there were no die? I wish that it looked like gmu's cross, but it is what it is. I believe it has a beauty all its own, although a bit inferior to period Wagners and Godets. Yes, the fact that it is so non- standard gives you great pause from the very beginning. I agree with Don and Jim in that we should go wherever the discussion leads. If we stopped with standard pieces we wouldn't go very far. I respect everyone's opinions and expertise.

It took some time for me to put this on WAF after taking a chance on buying it because I believed that there would be people that would dismiss it out of hand. I knew that it would probably create a stir, and I was not disappointed. I have been very excited about this discussion and would like to thank everyone who is participating. I am still looking for pictures and hope that everyone will come back with an open mind if more information is posted. As I said before, it is unbelievable the research, photos, stories and facts that I am exposed to on this forum. You guys are the best, whether I agree with you or not. Thanks to those who have kept an open mind. -Dave

[Don D.]

Dave, have you had it tested for gold content? There are non destructive ways of doing this now. That would be a good starting point imo.

[GdC26]

Dave, have you had it tested for gold content? There are non destructive ways of doing this now. That would be a good starting point imo.

And whether the cross is indeed of hollow gold construction - as Les noted on GMiC, at 32.4 grammes, the cross seems to be grossly overweight for a hollow gold piece See https://gmic.co.uk/topic/50170-pour-le-merite-blue-max/ for that part of the discussion (which was not just about the poor quality of the piece).

If it is of hollow gold construction, the weight begs explanation, but it may at least have a chance of being a contemporary JO (for reasons noted earlier, I remain unconvinced that it is a contemporary conversion into a PLM, but that is a separate discussion).

If it is not hollow the weephole begs explanation .....

[Don D.]

Sandro, my thoughts as well. If it is not a contemporary JO then the discuss is at an end.

[Brian S]

Sandro, my thoughts as well. If it is not a contemporary JO then the discuss is at an end.

A modern re-purposing of a contemporary JO if it is a JO frame? Doesn't make it a PlM of a hereto now unknown maker. Again, and I know you hate to hear me talk Don as you have stated, it is most likely a modern PlM knockoff to try to get maximum dollars. My posts are actually short in comparison to the members who like this piece.



Proof of fake:


Weight
Sloppiness of lettering
Poorly executed enamel




Proof of contemporary PlM:

None

[David Christian]

In response to the last two comments: Don, I asked for a certificate from the previous owner from a test on the gold content. He could not provide one, but assured me that gold had been removed from the piece and there had been two separate tests at different times. The result was 585 parts or 14K. The pictures in post #7 verify the gold removal, as you can see the grind marks under magnification, which would have gone through any light plating. The grind spot is on the bottom of the top ray of the 9 o'clock horizontal arm. It shows up as slightly different color in the first two (top) pictures, but is rather severe under magnification. I wish that they had used a more non-destructive means or taken the gold from elsewhere. I could always have it re-tested.

Sandro, in response to the weight question: If you look at post number 3, where I compare the gold piece with a standard Wagner, my weight on the cross was 25.7g without the loop. The loop weighs 1.8g. The weight that was over 30g came from the post on the other forum and I do not know how they weighed it. I weighed it side by side with the Wagner on a small drug type scale. Check out post 3 for the other dimensions. The width vs. the Ehrenritter JO posted by Jim is within a few hundredths according to my instruments, and except for the crowns, the eagles are a match.

I have been trying to determine if the cross is indeed hollow, or may be solid. With the enamel where the weep hole should be, the question arises as to whether the enamel came from the inside or was a flake on the outside that did not get removed during finishing because of its location. I have lightly probed the enamel and the area immediately around it to try and determine if the enamel is an entirely external remnant, but have had no luck in that determination. I realize that this could result in damage and alter the piece, so I stopped before I went too far. The enamel certainly feels like it goes down into the metal.

I believe that the 25.7g weight may be in line with a hollow piece if we remember the size of the eagles (which are two-piece construction), the added gold lettering vs. smooth enamel on a JO, and the differences in the densities of the metals, remembering that this piece is gold. Each of the various components seem to be made of the same material.

[David Christian]

Thanks for your comments, Brian. The other forum stated that the cross had been stored since WWII in Gerogia. The seller that I purchased it from said that it had been in collections "for a very long time" when I asked him for more information. I understand that this means nothing without verification, but it has me thinking that it is at least plausible that it was created pre-1945 and is not a latter-day knock off.

[Brian S]

Stories. Is there a photo of the original owner in 1945 showing his prize in Georgia?



I keep hearing, man if it's gold there you go! No. Means nothing other than it's a gold frame from a JO made into a PlM.


Now with comments people have an invested ego interest to keep hyping this thing. Great.



Try to sell this thing as a PlM in the Imperial section. Start it reasonable, say $19,000 for a "one of kind original PlM. RARE"


I would honestly be surprised to see this thing fetch $300.



I feel bad for you. You own it. But a little homework would have avoided a bad purchase. Not trying to be nasty, just honest.



Read up in Previtera's PlM book. Those are the ones you want.


Ooops too many words, but I do enjoy hearing myself talk. More words. Just makes me happier.

[Don D.]

A modern re-purposing of a contemporary JO if it is a JO frame? Doesn't make it a PlM of a hereto now unknown maker. Again, and I know you hate to hear me talk Don as you have stated, it is most likely a modern PlM knockoff to try to get maximum dollars. My posts are actually short in comparison to the members who like this piece.



Proof of fake:


Weight
Sloppiness of lettering
Poorly executed enamel




Proof of contemporary PlM:

None

The first thing in my mind is to determine if any part of this item is original to the period. If not then we are done.

If the JO is original then we can look at the modifications. Are there any post 45 materials used in the modifications? An xrf gun would be useful here.

If no modern components are found then we can look at method of construction. Does construction conform to period methods? Is a newer method used that was not available at the time? Are the methods consistent with those used by German makers or can we assign them to some other country?

If everything is period then I would say if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a duck. If it was made and worn pre-45 then there must be a picture of it somewhere. These guys were considered rock stars in their day.

Or could it have been made post 45 for someone stuck behind the iron curtain who needed one for wear? Would that even have been allowed?

What I do know is that it is not an issue piece made by any of the known manufacturers.

Brian, do you consider Ernst Junger's S&L PLM to be an original, a wearer's copy. or a fake made for collectors?

[Brian S]

The first thing in my mind is to determine if any part of this item is original to the period. If not then we are done.

If the JO is original then we can look at the modifications. Are there any post 45 materials used in the modifications? An xrf gun would be useful here.

If no modern components are found then we can look at method of construction. Does construction conform to period methods? Is a newer method used that was not available at the time? Are the methods consistent with those used by German makers or can we assign them to some other country?

If everything is period then I would say if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a duck. If it was made and worn pre-45 then there must be a picture of it somewhere. These guys were considered rock stars in their day.

Or could it have been made post 45 for someone stuck behind the iron curtain who needed one for wear? Would that even have been allowed?

What I do know is that it is not an issue piece made by any of the known manufacturers.

Brian, do you consider Ernst Junger's S&L PLM to be an original, a wearer's copy. or a fake made for collectors?

All those comments are right on.


Ernst Junger... I am intrigued by PlM's worn by WWII vets. But I want to see those in WWII period photos not old man pictures.


If my grandfather had been alive and I knew him and his awards had been robbed by GI's, I would have purchased him an S&L and take photos of him. Why? I think it would have made an old man who lost his awards feel good.


S&L made a nice piece, but not as nice as the pre-1918 pieces. Now Goring's WWII piece sure looks great in photos! Seems better quality than modern S&L's.

[GdC26]

In response to the last two comments: Don, I asked for a certificate from the previous owner from a test on the gold content. He could not provide one, but assured me that gold had been removed from the piece and there had been two separate tests at different times. The result was 585 parts or 14K. The pictures in post #7 verify the gold removal, as you can see the grind marks under magnification, which would have gone through any light plating. The grind spot is on the bottom of the top ray of the 9 o'clock horizontal arm. It shows up as slightly different color in the first two (top) pictures, but is rather severe under magnification. I wish that they had used a more non-destructive means or taken the gold from elsewhere. I could always have it re-tested.

Sandro, in response to the weight question: If you look at post number 3, where I compare the gold piece with a standard Wagner, my weight on the cross was 25.7g without the loop. The loop weighs 1.8g. The weight that was over 30g came from the post on the other forum and I do not know how they weighed it. I weighed it side by side with the Wagner on a small drug type scale. Check out post 3 for the other dimensions. The width vs. the Ehrenritter JO posted by Jim is within a few hundredths according to my instruments, and except for the crowns, the eagles are a match.

I have been trying to determine if the cross is indeed hollow, or may be solid. With the enamel where the weep hole should be, the question arises as to whether the enamel came from the inside or was a flake on the outside that did not get removed during finishing because of its location. I have lightly probed the enamel and the area immediately around it to try and determine if the enamel is an entirely external remnant, but have had no luck in that determination. I realize that this could result in damage and alter the piece, so I stopped before I went too far. The enamel certainly feels like it goes down into the metal.

I believe that the 25.7g weight may be in line with a hollow piece if we remember the size of the eagles (which are two-piece construction), the added gold lettering vs. smooth enamel on a JO, and the differences in the densities of the metals, remembering that this piece is gold. Each of the various components seem to be made of the same material.

Dave, I have to agree with Brian that that is a lot of conjecture.

Why not take it to the jeweler, get it tested, get him to assess whether hollow or solid, and then we take it from there?

I would need to look into this, but 585/1000 (14 kt.), even if true. strikes me as an odd content for Imperial made pieces. Most pieces I know are 750/1000 (18kt).

Btw, even at 25.7g, your cross seems to be grossly overweight for a JO hollow gold cross for Rechtsritter - check out https://www.kuenker.de/en/archiv/stueck/100707 which gives a weight of 18,9 g, from the looks of it with crown and ring. The sales price attained at that auction also explains why it may be worth the cost and effort to turn a frog into a prince ....

I understand you want it to be real, I really do - but as Brian and I have explained, in this thread, and by reference to the GMiC thread, there are very many red flags (uncertainty around the material the cross is made of, weight (which contradicts hollow gold), poor woorkmanship on the crown and lettering, clunky, oversized eagles, the odd damage to the ring, the enamel in what purports to be a weephole but may not be one if the cross is not in fact hollow, the white soldering of the eagles as noted by Les in the GMiC thread, etc.) and there is little to nothing to suggest it is a contemporary JO, let alone a contemporary conversion of a JO into a PLM.

Don was giving you a starting point to prove the first part by asking you to show us its gold, and I gave you another: show us its hollow. Neither is conclusive, but it s a start.

Until we see prove of that we're merely discussing beliefs, not facts, against a backdrop of overwhelming evidence that the piece is bad (in which case I, for one, will go back to doing other things).

Kind regards,
Sandro

[GdC26]

Dave, I have to agree with Brian that that is a lot of conjecture.

Why not take it to the jeweler, get it tested, get him to assess whether hollow or solid, and then we take it from there?

I would need to look into this, but 585/1000 (14 kt.), even if true. strikes me as an odd content for Imperial made pieces. Most pieces I know are 750/1000 (18kt).

Btw, even at 25.7g, your cross seems to be grossly overweight for a JO hollow gold cross for Rechtsritter - check out https://www.kuenker.de/en/archiv/stueck/100707 which gives a weight of 18,9 g, from the looks of it with crown and ring. The sales price attained at that auction also explains why it may be worth the cost and effort to turn a frog into a prince ....

I understand you want it to be real, I really do - but as Brian and I have explained, in this thread, and by reference to the GMiC thread, there are very many red flags (uncertainty around the material the cross is made of, weight (which contradicts hollow gold), poor woorkmanship on the crown and lettering, clunky, oversized eagles, the odd damage to the ring, the enamel in what purports to be a weephole but may not be one if the cross is not in fact hollow, the white soldering of the eagles as noted by Les in the GMiC thread, etc.) and there is little to nothing to suggest it is a contemporary JO, let alone a contemporary conversion of a JO into a PLM.

Don was giving you a starting point to prove the first part by asking you to show us its gold, and I gave you another: show us its hollow. Neither is conclusive, but it s a start.

Until we see prove of that we're merely discussing beliefs, not facts, against a backdrop of overwhelming evidence that the piece is bad (in which case I, for one, will go back to doing other things).

Kind regards,
Sandro

BTW, you will note that the (actually fairly elegant) eagles on the JO Rechtsritter shown in my previous post have nothing in common with those of the PLM that started this thread. Check out the tails, for example. And there is much more where this pic came from - just check out Google pics.