Previously Unknown Pour le Merite?

[Brian S]

Quality, and this one cracked, on its way for a makeover

[Brian S]

Comment was made that the sloppy lettering was to be expected because it's so small. No. Absolutely not true. Again, naive to believe anything close to that was possible. This is a hand painted RAO. Very small. Very price. That's why I get so passionate about comments that are so far from reality.


For me the moment I saw that lettering, it was all over.

[David Christian]

Thanks, Don, Brian, and Sandro for the thoughtful comments and pictures. I saw immediately that the eagles on your JO examples were different. What I am saying is, as well as gold content and (is hollowness a word?) the quality of being hollow or not, the design of the eagles is specific to maker and period or even faker and period. Eagle design may be helpful in pointing us to the proper period for the frame (speaking hypothectically again). Let's call it logical conjecture. Again, I know that I need to establish gold content and construction first. The S&L eagles in your pictures are a good example. The last I knew, there was still conjecture on exactly when the S&L pieces began to be manufactured, but we know the general timeframe was perhaps 1944-1960's, with vets and collectors in mind. (I like Brian's hypothetical idea of photographing old vets and/or his grandfather.) My point is that eagle design is a very good tool, cast fakes and knockoffs aside.

[Brian S]

Sandro and I are trying to get you to see and understand quality. You aren't accepting that. I get it. You own it, you want it to be real, there must be some avenue that some people will think it 'could' be real. It isn't. Take a day, then pick that thing up again and really look at it like it belongs to someone else. And that someone is trying to sell it to your best friend. Take an objective look and look again at real quality and ask yourself, "is this quality?" The answer to that question to those of us that know enamel quality in the Imperial period and all the way to the end of Reich, is, this is not quality. Some faker put a lot of work into it for sure but didn't come close.


Be objective, right now you are not. You are searching for any reason to get anyone to agree it stands a chance. I don't care if the frame is gold, partly gold, or whatever gold. It is NOT a PlM. Never was. Maybe it was something else, but what it is today makes it just a fake.

[Zepenthusiast]

Just so you are all on the same page, again the thread starter is based upon the Ehrenritter JO and not the Rechtsritter JO. If you are going to compare weights, you have to compare the correct badge. While lower grade, Ehrenritterkreuz typically heavier. Here’s a Godet example’s description:

In Gold gefertigtes, stärker getragenes Halskreuz mit schwarz lackierten (Fehlstellen) Adlern und der Herstellersignatur "J.G.S." in der Segmentöse. Ein stärkerer Chip in der weißen Emaille des oberen rückseitigen Kreuzarmes. An späterem PlM-Band. Breite 57,5 mm. Gewicht 23,6 g. [Hermann Historica]

Enamel can be remarkably heavy, too, so comparison of actual volume of the total piece vs a postulated JO ancestor of the same body design would need to be considered, in addition to the mass of the added lettering already mentioned. Volume can be easily determined by displacement if desired, assuming you had the JO to compare.

[GdC26]

Just so you are all on the same page, again the thread starter is based upon the Ehrenritter JO and not the Rechtsritter JO. If you are going to compare weights, you have to compare the correct badge. While lower grade, Ehrenritterkreuz typically heavier. Here’s a Godet example’s description:

In Gold gefertigtes, stärker getragenes Halskreuz mit schwarz lackierten (Fehlstellen) Adlern und der Herstellersignatur "J.G.S." in der Segmentöse. Ein stärkerer Chip in der weißen Emaille des oberen rückseitigen Kreuzarmes. An späterem PlM-Band. Breite 57,5 mm. Gewicht 23,6 g. [Hermann Historica]

Enamel can be remarkably heavy, too, so comparison of actual volume of the total piece vs a postulated JO ancestor of the same body design would need to be considered, in addition to the mass of the added lettering already mentioned. Volume can be easily determined by displacement if desired, assuming you had the JO to compare.

Fair enough, but it changes little to the many red flags, and as noted, even if it turns out that the thread starter was made from a genuine JO, the question remains when it was converted into what it is (or purports to be) today and by whom.

In the interest of open minded discussion, here is a Rechtsritter Kreuz auctioned at Künker: https://www.kuenker.de/de/archiv/stueck/57199

Description:

"Schätzpreis: 500,00 € Zuschlag: 1.100,00 €

Balley Brandenburg des Ritterlichen Ordens St. Johannis vom Spital zu Jerusalem (Johanniterorden). Ausführung seit 1852, Kreuz der Ehrenritter, Gold emailliert, 28,4 g, min. Fleckchen auf der Rückseite des rechten Kreuzarms, Schwärzung der Adler teilweise vergangen, ohne Hersteller-Kennzeichnung, am neuen Bandabschnitt. OEK19 1802; ZK2 4505.


1, I-II
Unter "SCHWEDEN" bieten wir ab Kat.-Nr. 1384 auch einige Insignien der schwedischen Genossenschaft des Johanniterordens an, die zwischen 1920 und 1946 mit den Insignien der Ballei Brandenburg identisch waren."

The weight seems to support your thesis, and the klunky tail feathers may do so, too.

On the other hand, note the comment about identical Swedish produced JO's in the description, which complicates the debate further.

Anyway, as noted, we're a far, far away from concluding that the thread-starter is genuine. Let's first see whether that piece is in fact made of gold (and if so, how many karats), and whether it is in fact hollow made (if not, it has an unexplained weep hole).

If it passes these hurdles, we can take the further steps outlined by Don to determine authenticity.

Kind regards,
Sandro

[Brian S]

Just so you are all on the same page, again the thread starter is based upon the Ehrenritter JO and not the Rechtsritter JO. If you are going to compare weights, you have to compare the correct badge.

Thank you Jim. I was just about to make the argument it came from an RAO which I posted above...


I must be in the future very explicit that I am posting quality versus 'The Thing' that started this thread.


Why can't we just jump to the next step and assume it is a genuine Ehrenritter JO frame? It's still badly executed junk on a good JO frame. Take it from there forward.

[David Christian]

Thanks for the comparison clarification, Jim, and thanks to Brian and Sandro for your comments. Note that in the description that Jim posted, that the conclusion or concession that the base cross may be an authentic JO is again reinforced by the width, with the weight also being much closer, maybe within the realm of possibility. I realize that the base cross here is not Godet, so there might be more variation, especially on the weight. I agree that there will always be many red flags, but most of them have to do with the conversion and fewer with the base JO cross. I appreciate the comments above on my conjecture, and I apologize if I have gone too far in trying to connect the dots in many instances. It has contributed to a lively discussion, but I will try to gather as many facts as possible moving forward. I did not put this item, non-standard or not, on the discussion forum because I plan on selling it right away, and did not purchase it to try and make a buck. It will stay in my collection for the foreseeable future. I look forward to continuing to learn from everyone. I plan on working on Don's suggestions on gold content and whether or not the frame is hollow, and look forward to more discussion if more facts can be brought to bear.

[GdC26]

Although I agree that the quality isn't there, either, I would not mind seeing the first assumption (this being a genuine JO in the first place) proven as well. First step is "gold", second "hollow, with reworked eagles", neither very hard. Then we can move to the enamel, the eagles, the lettering, the construction etc.

Many things to prove, but not necessarily prohibitively expensive and, if this a US$ 20 plus k piece as suggested, well worth the owner's efforts, I presume.
Kind regards,
Sandro

[GdC26]

Thanks for the comparison clarification, Jim, and thanks to Brian and Sandro for your comments. Note that in the description that Jim posted, that the conclusion or concession that the base cross may be an authentic JO is again reinforced by the width, with the weight also being much closer, maybe within the realm of possibility. I realize that the base cross here is not Godet, so there might be more variation, especially on the weight. I agree that there will always be many red flags, but most of them have to do with the conversion and fewer with the base JO cross. I appreciate the comments above on my conjecture, and I apologize if I have gone too far in trying to connect the dots in many instances. It has contributed to a lively discussion, but I will try to gather as many facts as possible moving forward. I did not put this item, non-standard or not, on the discussion forum because I plan on selling it right away, and did not purchase it to try and make a buck. It will stay in my collection for the foreseeable future. I look forward to continuing to learn from everyone. I plan on working on Don's suggestions on gold content and whether or not the frame is hollow, and look forward to more discussion if more facts can be brought to bear.

I see no "concessions", Christian. All I did was acknowledge Jim's clarification and supply some facts, and all Brian did is assume for arguments' sake that this is a genuine, pre November 1918 produced golden JO, and then discmiss it for lack of quality (which has been discussed in extenso, and in and that of Brian and many other who contributed, here and on GMiCn, is a problem in itself).

I think we're now all waiting for proof that your cross is in fact made of gold, the gold content, and whether it is of hollow or solid construction, plus if you want to do all in one fell swoop, the other data requested by Don.

Not much sense debating further (or trying to steal points of what people say or you believe they say) without such hard data.

Sandro

[Brian S]

To be clear: IMHO FAKE

[David Christian]

Thanks, guys. I stand corrected.

[Zepenthusiast]

After matching feather for feather to the extent possible, the eagles in the thread-starter
are identical to those in CRBeery’s Ehrenritterkreuz, post #54. That piece is apparently marked for Friedlander, so we can have a sense where the eagle design derived. Maybe CR might supply the weight of his hollow gold cross for comparison? (Spectacular JO!). If the JO is a multi piece assembly including cast eagles, that would help support originality for Dave’s PlM’s “bones.” Just one of the questions, of course.

If the JO has single strike, one-piece obverse and reverse faces, the it is more likely Dave’s cross was fashioned from a casting of such a JO, rather than contain an original itself.

[GdC26]

After matching feather for feather to the extent possible, the eagles in the thread-starter
are identical to those in CRBeery’s Ehrenritterkreuz, post #54. That piece is apparently marked for Friedlander, so we can have a sense where the eagle design derived. Maybe CR might supply the weight of his hollow gold cross for comparison? (Spectacular JO!). If the JO is a multi piece assembly including cast eagles, that would help support originality for Dave’s PlM’s “bones.” Just one of the questions, of course, If the JO has single strike, one-piece obverse and reverse faces, the it is more likely Dave’s cross was fashioned from a casting of such a JO, rather than contain an original itself.

That's a nice theory, Jim, but it strikes me there are some marked differences between the eagles (tail feathers, eagles heads and beaks, no evidence I can see that the thread starter had crowns removed, etc.).

Rather than focus on your theory, Jim, I still think we should follow Don's path, and work from the cross that started this thread. Is it gold? Is it hollow? is the enamel in fact that, and is it old owr new in terms of composition? etc., etc. Because even if your theory is correct (on which the jury is still out,), that is not conclusive proof of when this cross was converted into what it is/purports to be today ....

[GdC26]

That's a nice theory, Jim, but it strikes me there are some marked differences between the eagles (tail feathers, eagles heads and beaks, no evidence I can see that the thread starter had crowns removed, etc.).

Rather than focus on your theory, Jim, I still think we should follow Don's path, and work from the cross that started this thread. Is it gold? Is it hollow? is the enamel in fact that, and is it old owr new in terms of composition? etc., etc. Because even if your theory is correct (on which the jury is still out,), that is not conclusive proof of when this cross was converted into what it is/purports to be today ....

And of course there is another problem with this theory, and that is that it suggests a link between J.H. Werner and Friedlander.

The silver gilt eMedals cross posted earlier in this thread (if the J.H. Werner mark on that is authentic) suggest a link between J.H. Werner and Wagner, with J.H. Werner slightly enhancing (a) Wagner PLM('s?) and than rebranding it (them?). Your theory would require us to establish that J.H. Werner did something similar with Friedlander crosses as well. Without proof, that strikes me as yet another stretch, far into the land of beliefs.

Kind regards,
Sandro