Previously Unknown Pour le Merite?

[David Christian]

I would add to Don's question and Jim's reply in post 192 that Loewenhardt's cross (among others) shows that freelancing on PlM manufacture did happen pre-1918, and evidently did not invite the death penalty from the Awards Chancellery. The marketing of Rothe pieces by German retailers as well as the Godet-like pieces from Meybauer and others that were available also attests to this.

[Zepenthusiast]

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.

I appreciate the compliment and of course share your excitement for what might yet be learned Dave! But...a word of caution: as mentioned (and misconstrued by Sandro), I suspect the eagles were always cast and not die-formed in multi-part crosses (PlMs and JOs) having individual birds attached. They would be attached to a die-pressed cross body, which was generally two-parts (obverse and reverse), but sometimes more, with side-pieces, etc. That would mean it is "OK" for the eagles to be cast, but makes it harder to rule them in or out as period according to mode of manufacture.

Your burden then is to demonstrate that the cross body was die-made and not cast in this case...otherwise it must be considered possible that the entire thing was cast from a mold made from the original JO, which could also explain the filled-in tail feathers... Being hollow per se won't settle that either, since it could have been cast in two layers or even electroformed via a mold taken off an original. Density of the metal might help there, but that is near-impossible to determine non-destructively for an enameled work. XRF may be able to rule out electro-forming via assessment of thickness and uniformity, as it is difficulty to electro-form an alloy uniformly to greater depths (but not impossible) per an expert in the field I consulted some time back. Microscope analysis of the surface can usually provide good clues as to whether the piece was die-made or cast, but it takes careful search, knowledge of what to look for, and high magnification ability.

[David Christian]

Jim: The partial answer to one of these questions may be the width. The size of the JO on the sale that you posted was the standard for this type (also found in literature) at 57.5 mm. The measurement of the converted PlM JO taken by me was 5.65 mm, which may be in the normal range of variation for this type of cross. Had the cross been cast from an original, one would expect it to be slightly smaller than the original, not larger as in this case. This is one of the rules used in spotting re-cast medals and other decorations of all types as well as using casting joints and other marks.

[David Christian]

Correction on that last post: The width of the thread starter is 57.65 mm -Dave

[David Christian]

I am currently arranging to have the thread starter sent to a lab or a nearby university engineering department to test the chemical composition of the enamel, whether the cross is solid or multi-piece hollow, and the composition of the solder. In the meantime I would like to take a quick second look at the enamel and lettering in better light. I should have used a translucent filter on the light sources in my photography to eliminate some of the shadows that enhance the imperfections in the low-angle light. These two pictures are from the thread on the GMIC forum and show the enamel, the maker's mark and the weep hole much better than my shots do. The point that Jim and I tried to make earlier is that although this lettering and enamel is inferior to period pieces made with a die, it might be pretty good in the light of having to have made the letters from scratch and perhaps having to layer some of the enamel. I am not trying to put lipstick on a pig, I am just saying that this may be what one would expect when starting from a blank cross. The imperfections are all enhanced by the lighting, wear, and magnification, and are not visible in most conditions.

[David Christian]

Here is my second try to upload those pictures.

[David Christian]

One thing that catches my eye in the above pictures is how the letter P is actually angled and cut so that it matches the pillowing of the enamel. This was obviously done intentionally, but shows up as a shadow and an imperfection if viewed in the wrong light. Please take a second look. This is not horrible enamel and lettering.

In my quest to find pictures of PlM's in wear, I have run across another example of a possible conversion piece that is similar but not quite the same as a couple that we have already discussed. Although the same design, the eagles are slightly different, and this looks to be yet another Rechtsritter JO conversion to a PlM. The pictures are unattributed and were pulled from a set that was displayed on Pintrest under examples of PlM's. These photos seem to add more credence to the fact that these non-standard conversion types existed, and there may be more out there that will someday show up. I wish that there were pictures of the bottom edge of this cross. An outrageous theory just entered my head. What if JH Werner was a maker that did the Rechtsritter conversions from Friedlander crosses and one day tried an Ehrenritter JO conversion? Please don't shoot me for such heresy.

[David Christian]

Here is my second attempt to upload those pictures.