Previously Unknown Pour le Merite?

[Brian S]

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.

Unsubstantiated comments like "feather for feather" without showing us your incontrovertible proof is not helpful Jim. So I went to the effort to do this for you. If you had taken the time you might have come to another conclusion. I sure do. NOT THE SAME. Again, your consclusions do not line up to reality.


So many differences I don't know where to start.


Hope this post was 'nice' enough...

[Zepenthusiast]

Unsubstantiated comments like "feather for feather" without showing us your incontrovertible proof is not helpful Jim. So I went to the effort to do this for you. If you had taken the time you might have come to another conclusion. I sure do. NOT THE SAME. Again, your consclusions do not line up to reality.


So many differences I don't know where to start.


Hope this post was 'nice' enough...

Please forgive my most dismal and pathetic failure. Armed as I am with an iPad in a hotel room, photo manipulation is not my immediate opportunity.

Since you are quite the image wizard though Brian (kudos for the pretty clear and balanced zooms), how about you digitally mask out the crown on Dave’s mystery—trim careful at the brow!—“cut out” the tail feathers, throw on a little black using the “spray can” tool, and see who agrees with you? Just for fun.
If you don’t want to, I’ll do it when I get back on Tuesday. As said, I do count feathers.

[Zepenthusiast]

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

Agreed it doesn’t change anything in the burden of proof column, Sandro. You are correct on all counts as to what is needed to even float a hypothesis of period vs recent improvisation here. To some of us, it would be of historical interest if it was period, because it would give insight into the time/place/people. That’s likely the only thing we might be able to conclude, because this is clearly not a new-found “type” but a “one of,” primary question from when (as you say).

With some years experience searching period photos, it will be quite a task/lot of luck to find anything clear enough to ever call a match, too. As Loewenhardt’s photo shows, not impossible, but daunting because the approach to portraits and plane of focus on the person’s face, plus the reflective surface of gold and enamel, usually wipe out so many details and make a JO in general hard to distinguish. But that’s a search either fun or a chore, depending on one’s point of view.

Re JHW, if they finished a “Wagner” PlM (also still only conjecture, of course), since Friedlander did so commonly, it wouldn’t be that odd for them to have some similar loose relationship. That said, if this cross were a period “improv” for some reason, and hypothetically JHW did the work, they presumably worked from an older (pre-1917) JO, in which case the manufacturer of that piece wouldn’t require any connection.

[Zepenthusiast]

PS to eagles: even their tongues are identical

[Brian S]

PS to eagles: even their tongues are identical

Their tongues, as in plural, both of them tongues?



Really? That's what you see? Does anyone else, just for confirmation see what Jim is seeing.



Good news for you Jim, I am not responding to any more of your posts. It's exhausting.

[GdC26]

Their tongues, as in plural, both of them tongues?



Really? That's what you see? Does anyone else, just for confirmation see what Jim is seeing.



Good news for you Jim, I am not responding to any more of your posts. It's exhausting.

Its probably me, but I see no identical tongues, and see a crop on top of the eagle head of the thread starter that seems incompatible with the head of the eagle of th JO with crown removed

[Zepenthusiast]

OK guys, if you cannot see this, then I cannot help you.

Good news for you Jim, I am not responding to any more of your posts. It's exhausting.

Bon voyage!

[naxos]

Gentlemen, I have been following this thread with much interest.

One has to be very pragmatic in the assessment of items were the incentive for deception is in the thousands of dollars.

Hence, without solid provenance this cross cannot be recognized as a PLM (since it is not an original PLM).

At best (if verified) it is a converted JO.

A JO turned into a PLM is without solid provenance as spurious as an Iron Cross 2nd class with a neck-ring.

I'm with Sandro and Brian on this one.

.

[GdC26]

OK guys, if you cannot see this, then I cannot help you.



Bon voyage!

It must indeed be me, but I now see circles around and arrows pointing to, two different beaks, one with an overhanging top part of the eagles beak, the other with an extended lower beak, one with tongue, one without, etc.

Jim's helpful attempt at blotting out the crown also illustrates (and I would say, confirms) my point about the crop on the right hand side of the eagle on the thread starter - if you cut off the crown, that crop can't be there unless you rebuild it.

Thanks for your good wishes, Jim, I wish you the same.

[GdC26]

Gentlemen, I have been following this thread with much interest.

One has to be very pragmatic in the assessment of items were the incentive for deception is in the thousands of dollars.

Hence, without solid provenance this cross cannot be recognized as a PLM (since it is not an original PLM).

At best (if verified) it is a converted JO.

A JO turned into a PLM is without solid provenance as spurious as an Iron Cross 2nd class with a neck-ring.

I'm with Sandro and Brian on this one.

.

Many thanks Naxos, I (obviously) share your analysis.

[Brian S]

Not even close.

Agree with others who cannot see the same.

[Zepenthusiast]

I really am surprised at both of you, Brian and Sandro, that given your attention to officially bestowed and/or authorized PlMs you have so much difficulty recognizing characteristics of die-struck pieces and minor variations in finish. Look at any number of gold Wagner beaks and you will see a wide range of outcomes, but all obviously having a common shape of origin. Anything die-pressed will start out with a "flash" around the intended form. How that is then cut out (or not, as in the case of the tail feathers on Dave's "bird") and filed/finished/worn down, etc. can give you quite a bit of variety.

When photographing metal that is polished in places, blackened in others (as in this case), perhaps dulled or oxidized, and depending on ambient illumination, use of flash, camera position and many other variables, you will get some additional obstacles to confront for making comparisons, sure. But consideration of those things makes it pretty straightforward to see these eagles came from the same original die-pattern. I'm unable to do it justice yet with my limited technology, but consider this attempt Sandro (I know Brian won't, because you reject out of hand anything I submit):



The image is not optimally clear at any zoom, but even for that you can see above the dashed red line the remnant of the crown base across the entire top of the eagle's head--all the way up to above the eye there is an otherwise un-explained "layer" with an abrupt finish just short of the eagle's actual brow. The "crop" that so attracts your attention can be seen to have a faint line at its base, demonstrating it is also shaped from the crown base and not originally part of the eagle's brow feather per se. That I outlined in blue. Achieving the result seen would be trivial work with a file.

Even though it is fainter, at the green arrow you can see the line that cuts through the brow feather on the JO. This is a prominent point of correspondence, once you see it. The tongue is in fact same size and location--outlined in yellow above and below for you. Yeah, it doesn't show as well because of the surface quality and light reflection quality, but it's readily seen to be there. The beaks are not cut free of flash and are filed a little differently, but one could easily trim/file the flash down from the modified JO and get the exact same result as the more finished one. If you have ever done any metalwork yourself, would suspect you can appreciate that.

If you can see these things now, great. If you still can't, I enjoy this kind of analysis and will be happy to do a better job once I have access to the proper digital tools. You don't have to "add" anything to get the proper JO version from Dave's cross' eagle, other than the rest of the crown, of course, and some blackened finish. All you need is to "file" the edges a little in a way that real files do.

[Zepenthusiast]

Agreed with Naxos it is at best a converted JO, and if settling that is the only issue, it is settled. No one is arguing this cross should be considered as anything else in the PlM world at this point, to my take, but I'll still say from a purely historical interest standpoint there remains some chance it was "legitimately converted" along the lines of Loewenhardt's PlM, because of some reason now known only to its original owner and the jeweler who made it, as opposed to being solely a conjured up fake meant to deceive the unwary collector. It well may of course be the latter.That would make it of interest as curiosity, but never more than that without the ellusive period wear photo. If anyone wants to pay thousands of dollars for a PlM of any stripe, they are well advised to study their subject before laying down their money.

[GdC26]

[QUOTE=Zepenthusiast;8663681If anyone wants to pay thousands of dollars for a PlM of any stripe, they are well advised to study their subject before laying down their money.[/QUOTE]

Amen to that, Jim. The rest, not so much, I’m afraid.
But I think we have by now exhausted the topic (and the patience of the poor souls who have to wade though this thread), so why don’t we give it a rest, hey?

As someone as poor in French as I might say: “trop de bruit pour quelque chose qui n'est pas un spécimen de l’ordre ”Pour le Merite””.
Kind regards,
Sandro

[Brian S]

But I think we have by now exhausted the topic (and the patience of the poor souls who have to wade though this thread), so why don’t we give it a rest, hey?

Kind regards,
Sandro

Agreed