Previously Unknown Pour le Merite?

[Don D.]

Sandro, your contributions are duly noted.

Back to the piece at hand... Were JOs made of 18kt gold? Gold is heavy. Would this account for the excessive weight? Add it a few grams more for the letters. I don't know. Does anyone have an 18kt gold JO by this maker that we can use for comparison?

[ccj]

I have to say, reading this thread has lowered my opinion of some members. I think good debate is fun and can be educational. However, when someone is rude and somewhat condescending it doesn’t help anyone. I’m nobody here so no need to respond.

We know it’s not original but it’s something so having continued discussion seems perfectly fine. It’s a forum so what’s wrong with members having fun discussing possibilities? I had no interest in commenting but it’s distressing to read such hostile contribution so I felt compelled to chime in.

[VtwinVince]

What he said.Anyway, my impression is that if this was created as an outright fake, with the intention to deceive, it's an abject failure, as the literature and images of real PLM's make this piece a non-starter for the collector community. But with the gold content, I still find it unlikely that a jeweler would create this piece as a deliberate attempt to fool collectors, as it is so unlike other PLM's as to make this ridiculous.

[CRBeery]

My Johanniter. Marked FR by hand. Front and back of the 3 o’clock eagle (actually two different eagles). Awarded 20/2/1899 but I have no proof this is his original and one and only cross.

[Zepenthusiast]

Hi CR,
Thank you for adding these! Are you able to give us its weight?

Best,
Jim

[David Christian]

I would also like to thank you C.R. for posting these photos. As with those posted by Jim, the eagles appear to be the same as the thread starter. I would also like to point out that there is a depression around the suspension grommet that shows how it may have been pressed in place during construction. This is missing on the thread starter. If the grommet was displaced and fell out, or broke out around the edges of the depression, you have a hole with a slightly ragged appearance as does the thread starter.

I would like to point out that a conversion is a different animal than a cross built from scratch, although they share things in common, such as non-standard lettering.

If one was to build a PlM such as this one from a standard JO Ehrenritter, what would one have to do to achieve the lettering? First, one would not have a die that makes the letters crisp and the same on every cross, as well as making the lettering the exact height and part of the original cross metal as one would if a die were used. Without the die lettering, how would the letters and chop marks be cut and attached to the base cross in the exact location needed? Would the base metal be built up and then the letters cut out by hand? Would the letters be cut out and then individually attached before enamel application? The point that I was trying to make to Brian in the earlier posts is that this lettering and enameling is very small and would be incredibly difficult to achieve from scratch and have it look acceptable considering the positioning, height, letter edges, enamel application, and so on. It seems to me that this process may be beyond the abilities of the average jeweler. The letters are NOT painted on as in Brian's Red Eagle Order example, where an artist's precision is more easily achieved. Even if the motivation for the conversion was more $$$ for the cross (PlM vs JO value), how could even average lettering of this type be achieved when one thinks about the processes involved? Thoughts?

[Don D.]

It would be interesting to see the composition of the enamel via XRF.

[Zepenthusiast]

Here is the comparison I have been wanting to create:




Sometimes, people need to see something in the right setting to appreciate patterns and details and I hope it is now plainly evident to all that the eagles on Dave's PlM are one and the same as those on CR's beautiful JO. The point-to-point correspondence is undeniable (see the zoom analysis from the neck region of each) and the yellow-circled flaw in the tails. For anyone claiming Dave's cross features "clunky junk" eagles, they will have to rationalize that one of Imperial Germany's finer jewelers sculpted them (apparently Frie
dlander, if CR's JO markings attest to maker and not just finisher.)

The JO is at a slight angle to the camera, such that the underside of the eagle's lower jaw/beak comes across broader, but looking at the earlier images of both crosses one can see the correspondence readily, as soon as the mind is open enough to look for it. For an additional feather-to-feather analysis, look at the unique pattern in the narrow region of the body between attachment of the legs (I suppose now I will be accused of calling attention to eagles' nether regions in addition to being a "stalker" for saying "hi" because the proceeding post indicated the writer was online! Sigh.) Perfect match.

[David Christian]

Don: As far as your suggestion, I will work on finding someone with an XRF machine to determine enamel composition and possibly hollowness. I know that you have some period enamel composition tests from standard PlM's that we may be able to compare. It would be helpful if we had the following data (as per Jim above): the weight(s) of the JO's, the composition of the enamel of the thread starter, whether the JO's are hollow and 18 karat, and whether the thread starter is truly hollow.

Now that we have two period JO's with similar eagles for comparison, a couple of observations: The JO eagles have the feathers on their tails cut out on either side of center, while the thread starter does not. Take that difference times four eagles plus the crown and lettering, and we may be approaching the weight difference, as the gold is heavy. This also points to the finisher starting with raw parts and finishing the eagles differently than on the JO's. This would include the crown modification as well as the tail. This also may have included not having to remove white enamel before applying lettering to the gold cross to convert/finish it as a PlM.

[Don D.]

I guess my other question would be,"Legally, was there anything stopping a jeweler from making a PLM for a customer who was authorized to wear one?

[Zepenthusiast]

Note the feet are surrounded by a variable region because the eagles have been individually soldered to the frame. That leads to subtle changes at the points of attachment related to how they were individually filed to fit.

Les was critical of period manufacture owing to what he thought he saw as "silver solder", described in the thread on the GMIC forum, but I submit there is none in evidence anywhere in the images we are seeing. So in terms of experts discounting the piece elsewhere, I don't think they really gave it that close a look (at least with adequate photos) before making a pronouncement.

It is the latter tendency which does hurt the exploration of historical question marks like this cross. Dogmatic beliefs are rarely welcoming of alternative viewpoints and the "orthodox" understanding does not want to be challenged. Since none of us were around then, though, and all we can do is try to piece an understanding of what did or didn't happen a hundred years ago back together from bits and pieces of evidence, the cautious--but scientifically open-minded--approach may yield interesting discoveries yet.

I think Sandro was becoming overly focused upon the concept of "valuing" this PlM example, wherein to my thinking its value isn't monetary per se (that always being relative to collector interest, anyway), but rather to understanding or investigation of period work and the variety of it which may exist or have existed. That is anthropological science, not investment science. That is also why just calling this "a fake" because it isn't--clearly isn't--an orthodox known design is completely unjustifed. To say it might be or probably is a fake--that is meant to deceive--is one thing, but to state that it must be so is wrong in the face of the Loewenhardt PlM as evidence to the contrary that such a construct did exist historically. If there were one, why can't there be others? Recall that the cross is a badge, indicating the wearer to be a member of the Order represented by it. When a member wore that badge, it was a PlM, orthodox or not. In that case, not a fake by any means.

The burden of investigation is to prove or disprove that this piece was or might reasonably have been period made and by that evidence potentially "a legitimate PlM." As I wrote before, my guess is the ultimate photo-proof will be elusive and best we will do is a maybe. At any point, there may be evidence (enamel content in particular) to conclusively rule out period manufacture. I also wouldn't rule out someone more recently making an "oddball" gold PlM copy in the hope it would be taken for an 1800's version and generate sale value, too, so the argument that a forger would be unlikely to use an 1800s gold JO as a starting point is open to that challenge...

But we will have fun looking!

[Zepenthusiast]

I guess my other question would be,"Legally, was there anything stopping a jeweler from making a PLM for a customer who was authorized to wear one?

Exactly, Don. And easy to say by 1919 almost certainly not.

[Zepenthusiast]

Now that we have two period JO's with similar eagles for comparison, a couple of observations: The JO eagles have the feathers on their tails cut out on either side of center, while the thread starter does not. Take that difference times four eagles plus the crown and lettering, and we may be approaching the weight difference, as the gold is heavy. This also points to the finisher starting with raw parts and finishing the eagles differently than on the JO's. This would include the crown modification as well as the tail. This also may have included not having to remove white enamel before applying lettering to the gold cross to convert/finish it as a PlM.

Interesting point, Dave!

[David Christian]

Jim: You are amazing, buddy! Thank you for your thorough analysis as well as your skill in preparing the comparisons! Using that comparison, one can plainly see the difference in the finishing of the same style eagles' tails between the cut-out JO and the solid thread starter as I mentioned above. One can only conclude that these crosses came out of the same maker's shop. I have avoided calling the thread starter a PlM in order not to offend anyone, but now we know it is at least a JO Ehrenritter from a known top quality supplier/finisher of PlM's and JO's. Thank you again for yet another round of great detective work. I am still trying to point out that the rest of the conversion/finishing was not for the feint of heart (how do you get the lettering and enameling right with a blank cross and no die to form the letters and crown?) and may indeed have been done by the signer of this piece, JH Werner, with all due respect to enterprising jewelers of all eras everywhere. That may be too big a jump to make at this point, but that possibility has not been discussed, only dismissed, in light of the "somewhat crude" lettering.

[Zepenthusiast]

Dave, if there is a university anywhere near you, their engineering department will likely have a materials testing lab and in my experience, they find XRF testing questions interesting and are willing to help!