Previously Unknown Pour le Merite?

[David Christian]

Thanks for the spirited discussion again guys! I will try to find the gold content of the thread starter this week if you would like to give everything else a rest for a while. I will check into the instrumentation here as to determining if the piece is hollow. I may have to send it some where for that. I will check with Don to see if he knows someone.

As to the eagle tongue issue, Jim has gone the extra mile to show that they are from the same dies but the pictures are affected by resolution, lighting, coloring, etc., as well as the tails not being cut out. Thanks for all of the work on that, Jim! I would suggest also that there are different eagles on the same piece (from the same dies) that show the tongues in a better light, so to speak. The tongues are more visible on some of the heads. One can see the same type of variation on Wagner eagles. Emperor Franz Joseph's cross in [I]Prussian Blue[I] has the entire top of one head missing, possibly due to only a die variation.

As seen in other WAF threads on the PlM, Wagner and Friedlander crosses are known to have come from the same Wagner dies, with Friedlander finishing their crosses and marking them in their own way. The relationship between Wagner and JH Werner is unclear. With only the one JHW marked Wagner cross in existence that has been discovered so far, it may have been a retailing relationship. Since both Friedlander and JHW were contemporaries, jewelers of the Court of the Kaiser, and finished Wagner crosses, they may have been associated in other ways. We may never know, I realize, but JHW may have been a retailer for the goods of all three firms, as they were allowed a shop in one of the new hotels that was constructed in 1912 at the behest of the Kaiser. This was done to try to address the shortage of rooms for travelers at that time who had business near or in the government district. It is conjecture to be sure, but since the three firms cooperated on Wagner crosses, they may have had other relationships such as finishing/reworking other pieces.

[Don D.]

I think we all agreed long ago that this is not an issue piece nor even a wear's copy by one of the authorized makers. No one has said it was. So if that is your issue with it then all well and good. Your point is made. No need for further response.

I for one would like to know just what it is. As shown above, it is not the first oddity known when it comes to the PLM. The piece will stand or fall on its own merits. If it is an original JO and if it was converted for wear by a PLM recipient then it would be a legitimate piece of history. Why would we stop looking/discussing it? If it is a fake then we will determine that as well and provide the facts for that. But until we reach a determination I see no reason to stop discussing and analyzing it. We will see where this goes when David has had the gold content evaluated.

[Brian S]

As to the eagle tongue issue, Jim has gone the extra mile to show that they are from the same dies but the pictures are affected by resolution, lighting, coloring, etc., as well as the tails not being cut out.

No they are not the same die. You can't say a little filing here and there and they are equal. No. Not the same.


Look at the wing feathers. Look at the breast and down the body of the eagle. They are not the same die.


This is a gobbed up fake David.

[GdC26]

No they are not the same die. You can't say a little filing here and there and they are equal. No. Not the same.


Look at the wing feathers. Look at the breast and down the body of the eagle. They are not the same die.

Agreed, and the many points that speak against this piece to me are strong indications that it is not a contemporary piece.

Why stop debating now? Because people are chasing different rabbits (Jim is hell bent on proving this is a converted JO, but acknowledges it may not be a contemporary conversion: Christian wants to believe his piece is the real deal; alleged production time frames are shifting (remember, this started out as a supposedly pre 1916 made cross commissioned by an Austrian or Ottoman recipient ....), etc., etc.), we've going around in circles on all fronts since at least post 132 (some 40 posts ago), and no new hard facts have been put forward for the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread, just a lot of conjecture and wishful thinking accompanied by lots of lines, arrows and circles.

It has been fun up to a point, but mostly exhausting thereafter, so I am signing out of this debate until new hard data is presented.
Sandro

[Zepenthusiast]

Hi Sandro,
I see you are online at present
I’m hellbent on proving the JO origin because that is what it is/was!

And...here is your hard evidence: go back to posts 4 and 12—yes, waaaayyy back there now——and see the clear photos of the thread starter eagles, in particular their heads. Tongues are obviously visible and undeniable, freed of the grainy image we have been for some reason dwelling upon. You can see all the better where the crowns were cut away, too. But that isn’t my better evidence....

Note that there is what would be called a “die flaw” on the right side tail feather just above where it should have been cut out. It’s a kind of lumpy irregularity there, and along with the rest of the clearer-seen ”micro-finish” suggests the Eagle was cast and not die struck (making it a mold flaw and not a die flaw). It’s presence is also evident on the lower left bird, yet also proves to be on all four when you look at the cross reverse. So in fact, all 4 eagles are made from a single mold. I have long been suspicious that was commonplace for period multi-piece badges (that the eagles were cast and really just four copies from the same mold, with just the cross body being die-pressed).

Why helpful?

Exact same flaws visible in exact same places/pattern on CRBeery’s FR JO.

That, you should have to admit, would be one heck of a coincidence. Eagles either came from the same mold or copied directly from an original made from it.

I’m stuck on the iPad at present but will provide fresh images with—you guessed it—circles and arrows tomorrow, so Brian won’t complain about my laziness (even though he is supposedly not reading this).

[Brian S]

Agreed, and the many points that speak against this piece to me are strong indications that it is not a contemporary piece.

Why stop debating now? Because people are chasing different rabbits (Jim is hell bent on proving this is a converted JO, but acknowledges it may not be a contemporary conversion: Christian wants to believe his piece is the real deal; alleged production time frames are shifting (remember, this started out as a supposedly pre 1916 made cross commissioned by an Austrian or Ottoman recipient ....), etc., etc.), we've going around in circles on all fronts since at least post 132 (some 40 posts ago), and no new hard facts have been put forward for the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread, just a lot of conjecture and wishful thinking accompanied by lots of lines, arrows and circles.

It has been fun up to a point, but mostly exhausting thereafter, so I am signing out of this debate until new hard data is presented.
Sandro

Best to just keep quoting Sandro. He said it all.


Jim, you have proven nothing. The whole tongue thing was a waste of good virtual real estate.

[David Christian]

Thanks again for that research, Jim! One other point that I wanted to make while we were zoomed in on the 1:30 position eagle, was that you can get a better look at the enamel boundaries and the edges of the letters under these higher magnification images. Agreed, they are inferior to the standard Wagner and Godet pieces of the time, but they are not poorly done.

Going back to Jim's point on the eagles possibly being cast, if you go way back and look at the edges of the eagle's wings in the suspension and other edge shots you can see a darker seam or evidence of casting on a couple of them. It almost looks as if they may have been cast or struck in 2 pieces with flat backs, then soldered together, although there is no evidence of that on the heads.

[GdC26]

Hi Sandro,
I see you are online at present .

Jim,
So your stalking me on WAF now? This is moving from the somewhat weird to the slightly obsessive. Should I be concerned .....?

As to the rest, two words: "eye" and "beholder" ......
Apparently, we're now moving away from original eagles to cast copies in yet another attempt to prove the (at the core, not overly relevant) point that the thread starter may have something to do with a JO?
It boggles the mind.....
As Naxos noted, it may or may not be a converted JO, but that does not make it a PLM.

Christian,
Instead of reinterpreting the pictures to see if you can talk the cross into something it is not, why not have the cross examined and provide us with some cold hard facts that allow us to return to the question I think we were by now actually discussing, namely, is this a pre November 1918, or even a pre-May 1945, produced PLM?
Overwhelming evidence says it is not, not even if it turned out to be a converted (or, as Jim now seems to suggest, copied or cobbled together) JO.

Contradicting evidence will have to be queally strong, if not stronger. As said, I'll bow out until such evidence is provided.

Sandro

[David Christian]

Ok guys- I'm not trying to reinterpret the evidence, just saying look again from a different angle. Here is the deal on the gold content. I took the thread starter to a franchise jeweler who referred me to the family business jeweler who has the non-destructive gold content testing equipment for jewelry. He knows nothing of PlM's or JO's, and should be totally objective. His testing equipment is based on electrical conductivity of gold alloys based on their gold content. I informed him that the piece had been tested previously by being ground for particles, which is what the franchise jeweler would need to do. His electrical process is non-destructive and accurate unless the item is plated. He quickly determined that the item is not plated. Connection on the ribbon loop showed 18 K. Connection through the cross body and the suspension loop showed the lower end of the 18 K range. Connection across the eagles showed the lower end of the 18 K range.

What the previous owner of the cross had told me was evidently incorrect, as this test shows 18 K while he told me that their testing had shown 14 K. I had the jeweler hand write me a certificate on his letterhead with the test results and type of machine used.

As to the problem of the weep hole/hollow issue, the jeweler said (as Don did) that I will have to contact someone with X-ray or other technology to confirm that, and would probably have to send it out to them. I need to look back on the German description of the original Friedlander JO cross to see if it mentions a weep hole or that cross being hollow, as I was only looking at the dimensions before.

[Brian S]

Is a 1914 EK1 or 2 ground down, repurposed, to be a 1814 EK a 1814 EK?
No


Would the argument that the above repurposed EK's 'might' have been period vets just replacing their lost/destroyed crosses cause anyone in the EK collector's group to think, "Wow, gotta gave it"?
No. It's a fake and they all know it and have never argued like this thread otherwise.


Is any award repurposed to be something it isn't anything other than an outright fake?
No


Is the thing that started this thread a PlM?
No


Is the thing that started this thread gold, 14 or 18k?
Who cares? It is still a fake.


Does it run favorably to be a JO repurposed?
Who cares? It is still a fake.

[Don D.]

Is a 1914 EK1 or 2 ground down, repurposed, to be a 1814 EK a 1814 EK?
No

Apples to oranges as the 100 year time gap would say no vets needed one.

Would the argument that the above repurposed EK's 'might' have been period vets just replacing their lost/destroyed crosses cause anyone in the EK collector's group to think, "Wow, gotta gave it"?
No. It's a fake and they all know it and have never argued like this thread otherwise.

Same as above.

Is any award repurposed to be something it isn't anything other than an outright fake?
No

And you know this for sure? How do you explain the one shown being worn?

Is the thing that started this thread a PlM?
No

Not an issue type anyways.

Is the thing that started this thread gold, 14 or 18k?
Who cares? It is still a fake.




Does it run favorably to be a JO repurposed?
Who cares? It is still a fake.

Obviously you are done discussing this item.

[Don D.]

Discussing a nonstandard item can and will be contentious. The higher/more prestigious the more contentious. Now we are a discussion forum and we discuss items they may or may not be historically important. If one wants to dismiss the item as a fake/not made by an official supplier then so be it. If one continues to interject the same statement over and over, belittling members in the process then one will earn a break from the discussion. This discussion will find its way to its natural conclusion without being summarily dismissed. If you have had your say and you don't have anything new to add then as an old Commander once told me," Take the opportunity to STFU and listen and you may learn something." We are not trying to make a "fake" real. We are trying to determine what it is, when it was made and for whom. For the life of me I don't see what is so wrong with that.

[GdC26]

Christian,
Congrats on this first step, and on the finding that the cross is apparently made of 18kt. gold.

Obviously you are done discussing this item.

I gather Brian has been blocked from further posting in this thread, which strikes me as a bit of a strong reaction to what essentially are valid observations.

The point I think Brian is making (and which I agree with, and so do others, like gmu (post 119), Naxos (post 158) and most if not all of the participants in the GMiC thread I first posted in post 53, and for ease of reference post here again: https://gmic.co.uk/topic/50170-pour-le-merite-blue-max/ ) is that whatever the cross that started this thread is, it is not a US$ 25.000 plus golden PLM.

At best, it is a conversion of a US$ 1.000 Johanitter (a thought that was in fact first floated on by Sascha Wöchsler on GMiC, and now vigorously defended here by Jim. as an aside I note that Sascha, a respected member here and a knowledgeable dealer, at the time added that he believed it was a conversion made "in more modern days").

Whether or not it is a contemporary conversion of a Johanniter into a PLM by a PLM awardee will be hard to say (says me, Naxos, gmu and a bunch of contributors on GMiC), unless, perhaps (1) someone finds a picture that undisputably shows the thread starter or (2) a scientific analysis of the enamel and its application done by an independent, suitably qualified third party shows that the blue enamel was applied before November 1918 (or May 1945).

But even if it is such a contemporary conversion, it is not a US$ 25.000 plus PLM. As gmu put it

"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, would be a no go for me, just like the thread starter PLM."

We now apparently have evidence that the thread starter is 18kt gold. That is the first of several pieces of evidence needed to eventually confirm that it may have started life as a Johanniter. Several more pieces are needed to confirm that it did in fact start out as a Johanniter (one would be who manufactured it, as Jim believes this is a Friedlander piece, that somehow ended up marked "J.H.W."), and further evidence would be needed to show it was converted to a PLM pre-november 1918, or even pre May 1945.

And even if it crosses all these hurdles, it will never attract the value of a real PLM (gold or silver-gilt), just like a field converted Knights Cross of the Iron Cross is highly unlikely to attain (anything close to) the value of real Knights Cross.

I believe this is what Brian was trying to say, and I believe these are valid points that deserve to be made.

I also think that there should be room for different objectives in a discussion like this.
- Brian's stated objective (post 90) is to "protect collectors from throwing their money away on rubbish".
- I have the same objective (post 91).
- Christian, at this stage, is trying to prove that the cross is a contemporary conversion of a Johanniter, Jim that the cross is a conversion of a Johanniter period.
- Don is focussed on the wider issue of what this cross is and when was it made.

All of these equally objectives are valid, and to a large extent, determine the type of argument a person will put forward.
So what Don views as dismissive, is in fact a focussed analysis if you bear Brian's objective in mind.


Kind regards,
Sandro

[Don D.]

Sandro, If we summarily dismiss this item as a fake then the discussion stops. No one has said it is a $20000 PLM. We don't actually know what it is and neither did the GMIC thread make a determination. If you don't feel that it is worth discussing then why keep coming back?

[GdC26]

Sandro, If we summarily dismiss this item as a fake then the discussion stops. No one has said it is a $20000 PLM. We don't actually know what it is and neither did the GMIC thread make a determination. If you don't feel that it is worth discussing then why keep coming back?

If you actually bothered to read what I wrote in my last post, you would see that I'm in fact saying a lot more than it is not a US$ 20 k PLM: I am, for example, pointing to the different objectives people are pursuing in this discussion, noting that these objectives drive their arguments.

Moreover, had you read the posts I refer to, or even just the GMiC thread, with any attention, then you would have seen that quite a few people did in fact make "a determination", namely that they don't believe this cross is good, or that it even is a contemporary conversion.

I keep coming back because whitewash is a concern in this hobby (and because I believe I can and have made a contribution).

But I'll oblige and butt out of this forum altogether now.

Sandro