PlM Godet or Not

[GdC26]

Well Brian, if that is indeed the desired standard of proof, that explains a lot, especially what you mean by this forum being about "what is and what is provenanced and true" ........
Sandro

[Brian S]

Well Brian, if that is indeed the desired standard of proof, that explains a lot, especially what you mean by this forum being about "what is and what is provenanced and true" ........
Sandro

Sandro, you truly don't seem to grasp what is necessary here. It is not up to me to determine whose garage this PlM was made in. It is up to the collector to convince collectors that this PlM is genuine. Those are not my rules but has been the method employed here for years!

If you so fervently believe this is a Godet PlM. Please explain the differences to me here.




The lettering is poorly done on the Andreas example.

The hole for the loop is not neatly stamped it's cut out.

The eagles are entirely different from a PlM coming from the same inbetween wars timeframe.

The MIDDLE IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. The Andreas example has a large area where the arms come together. That ALONE PROVES it does NOT come from the original Godet dies.

If you wish to believe it came from an entirely different set of Godet dies than that is your ability to believe, not mine. Someone will have to show me a Godet example from an entirely different set of dies from between the wars provenanced to a recipient.

Until then, this PlM Could be ANYTHING EXCEPT A GODET PlM from the ORIGINAL DIES!

[gregM]

Here is what I see. ON BOTH PICTURES
#1
The 10 o'clock eagle has 2 very heavy, long lines evenly spaced apart
in the tail feathers.
#2
The 7 o'clock eagle has 1 very heavy short line on the bottom of the tail feathers.
#3
The 5 o'clock eagle has 1 very heavy long line on the far left of the tail feathers.
#4
The "rite" lettering is off centered to the right of the 6 o'clock arm in
both plms.
#5
The center of both crosses(where the arms come together) is out
of square on both plms

The differences-
#1
The gaps around the eagles legs,wings ect are slightly different but
I believe this can be explained by all of the hand finishing done to
each plm.
#2
The centers (where the the arms come together) is larger on the
left cross then the right cross.

For the record--I am not saying that this piece is or is not what it claims to be.
I am only pointing out what I see.

[Brian S]

Good comparison Greg. Wouldn't you expect similarties on a fake? But how does anyone explain the difference to the center of the cross? It can only be a different die.

Greg, look also at the loop hole. Appears part of the die process on the original and a cutout on the other.

Look at how different the 'e' is in the rite. None of the letters do an exact copy but the 'e' most pronounced differently.

[medalnet]

PlM pictures

For those who like better pictures of the PlM in bronze. I have also pictures of the "twin" brother in Silver gilt. Both have no markings:

[medalnet]

Refurbished die

And here a direct comparison between the 800 marked PlM posted here a bit earlier with mine in bronze gilt. Works with the Silver gilt on, too. To bad the angle of the Godet 900 is not plan:

Maybe somebody can furbish a better comparison then mine? In any case looks pretty close to me. Refurbishing dies is certainly a process. Details get lost, and it normally goes only wider, like the PlM center.

[Brian S]

And the "brother in silver gilt" is provenanced and real why? Pictures by the way of the silver gilt example are pretty lousy. Is this another example of a cross where you've taken pictures from elsewhere on the net? Is this in your possession?

Why is this one real so IF it matches, which at comparison it does not, makes it any more real? Again the loop hole is horrible on yours and better on the silver gilt example.

So you're going with refurbishing of the dies to explain the differences... As Dietrich has proven in the S&L RK examples, there are STILL details of the original before refurbishing which make it 100% possible to trace back to original die. This needs to be done before anyone should claim this cross OK.

[regular122]

Brian,

I put forward a pretty detailed comparison to include in Post #4 a piece that matches Andreas' piece exactly. Yet this was not commented on at all.

By your logic on provenance, my Meybauer would be a fake and not made on Godet dies. I beg to differ. The only thing I have yet to determine is if it was possibly made during the war and have been unbale to find evidence about the Meybauer firm making them during the war. I suspect they did since they made everything else but cannot prove it.

As to Andreas' cross, you will have to prove the following to me to show conclusively that it is a fake:

* That Godet and Godet style (Meybauer, Hemmerle, Schickle) did not produce bronze-gilt pieces as a part of their official sales
* That Andreas' example has eagles found in no other legitimate Godet and Godet-style examples
* That the lettering and hand tracing on Andreas' piece is not consistent with legitimate Godet and Godet-style examples
* That silver-gilt and bronze-gilt Godet and Godet-style official sales examples were not purchased by actual recipients for wear both during the war and after the war

Until you disprove any or all of the above, the evidence is far more in favor of this particular piece than against it in my view.

Thanks for continuing the thread as it should serve to educate all of us on Godet examples. Steve

[Brian S]

Steve, I will NOT prove a negative to you and you did not demonstrate that the PlM that Andreas says is a Godet PlM is a Godet PlM. It shares characteristics but not ALL characteristics. It MUST share ALL characteristics of a Godet PlM to have come from the same die.

Be absolutely sure I am not the one who has to prove anything here.

Andreas should prove to us that this PlM is indeed a Godet PlM. It should be proven it comes from the original or reworked dies. All we have are similar brothers. Well Steve, most fakes have brothers and sisters too.

[GdC26]

Just to refresh our memory on how to interpret Schickle catalogue pics, I draw your attention to the comments made by Bob Hirtz in hte thread below, and the acknowledgement that follows it:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...136912&page=12


Regards,
Sandro

[Brian S]

Very nice. Now do you or don't you have proof that this cross is indeed a Godet PlM.

I admit I cannot identify the garage from whence it originally came.

The entire comparison to a Shickle catalog photo is irrelevant here anyway? It doesn't match. So the next question is simply does it match a provenanced PlM and none have been shown to do so.

Bob Hritz says it is difficult to make a conclusive badge ID to a Schickle catalog photo. That does NOT help make Adreas' fake real.

This is just going around in circles. Andreas pulled the auction. Let him put the auction back up and let's see the price it brings. But unfortunately that doesn't always say anything as we've all seen fake PlMs go for big bucks.

I don't care what Andreas does with this cross or who he sells it to or what the buyer's happy feelings are. I only care that this cross is either shown to be real or a huge question mark. That's it. The more Andreas makes on his buys and sells are entirely irrelevant to me.

He put up the auction. Several people questioned it. He pulled it. He attacked my family rather than prove his case. Now you two believe it to be real. Great. Prove it.

I'm done Andreas has done nothing to prove this PlM to be real. Your opinions are your opinions not proof.

For me, thread over. Unless proof, real proof emerges. Enough

[regular122]

Steve, I will NOT prove a negative to you and you did not demonstrate that the PlM that Andreas says is a Godet PlM is a Godet PlM. It shares characteristics but not ALL characteristics. It MUST share ALL characteristics of a Godet PlM to have come from the same die.

Brian,

Perhaps we are talking past one another here. I am not claiming this came from the same die. Maybe others are. I am saying that it came from a Godet style die along the lines of Meybauer, Hemmerle and Schickle, known producers of Godet style PlMs. The same debate exists on 'same die strike' on the Meybauer, but as Les over in the GMIC has shown, it probably comes from a separate die. But it is still considered a 'Godet' style and no one taken seriously doubts the Meybauer's authenticity.

The characteristics of the Andreas piece pass the basic tests for authenticity from pictures. Weights, measurements and handling in person would add to the evidence or take away. But the circumstantial evidence speaks volumes on this piece. One can have a smoking gun, a dead body and a high speed chase and still walk free without a witness--OK I accept that, but the evidence stacks pretty favorably in my view.

I would love to hear from Ralph, Les, Biro or others that own and have handled PlMs a great deal, or others, because I assumed this thread was about educating all of us on Godet pieces and not something else. Steve

[GdC26]

Brian,

"Bob Hritz says it is difficult to make a conclusive badge ID to a Schickle catalog photo. That does NOT help make Adreas' fake real."

No, it doesn´t do anything of the sort, and I didn´t say it did. But it does mean the Schickle pic you started the thread with should be interpreted carefully, as carefully as you expected others to interpret a similar pic when you were trying to prove that an LC Tankbadge you believed to be genuine, was indeed genuine.

As I said in my initial post (and as you made sure to underline in one of yours) I know nothing about PLM´s. I'm here to learn. I believe that, in your own peculiar way, you made some points worth considering. But so did GregM., Steve and Andreas. Which goes to prove the point that ""could be" is as good as it gets in most cases. None of us were around when a particular item under discussion was made, so the best we can do is arrive at conclusions on the basis of comparison with known originals and contemporary photographs etc.. "What is" is therefore not nearly as absolute as you make it sound."

So here I am, undecided. And as I said in my initial post in this thread: "I don´t profess to know the first thing about PLM´s, but the manner in which the topic is being debated here, makes me sad."

Sandro

[Brian S]

Look guys, I've been on both sides of this fence defending my pieces and trying to get to the proof of other people's pieces. The bottom line is this...

Weights, looks, characteristics of originals are OF COURSE copied by FAKES. That is the nature of a good fake versus a bad fake. There's a new Juncker Pilot badge fake that's been recently produced that is apparently amazing in details to the original. That's the nature of 1,000 pilot badges to be copied to the point where someone buys one at a show and a refund is impossible. But fakes they are, weights, measure, characteristics, etc., but minute die flaws from the original, never. And cast pieces which show die flaws do not match because they are detected as die casts and not as die pressed originals.

A genuine piece is characterized by its absolute match to a known piece or photo of a piece by die flaws and uncopiable minute details.

Not overall characteristics. Until you match a piece to an original, not a brother from another mother, you do not have a genuine unquestioned piece.

[regular122]

Andreas should prove to us that this PlM is indeed a Godet PlM. It should be proven it comes from the original or reworked dies. All we have are similar brothers. Well Steve, most fakes have brothers and sisters too.

Brian,

How you can dismiss the 4 pieces in the comparison photo as not authentic and just 'fake brothers' is beyond me. None of those compared in that photo are the Andreas piece yet, the unknown possible Schickle is identical.

Again, by your logic, none of the three Meybauers examined and known to be out in the collector forum world would be real--because none of them can be traced to a recipient. Yet, every one that has examined them declares them authentic. Why? Because of the characteristics.

And I am not so sure that the burden of proof does not lie a bit on your shoulders here as well. You are making the claim it is fake. Pray tell us why, blow by blow. That is what these forums are for. See it all the time. Something gets posted on eStand and someone says 'Not so fast' then follows up with why. You've made only one claim that cannot be found on legitimate pieces--the loophole. OK, Got it. It is a Bronze Gilt piece so the flaws could be gold wear off. That's what it looks like to me rather than flange or flaw from the pics. A number of us have made our case.

I respect you and none of my posts are ever personal or uncivilized and this one will not be either. Life is too short for that and after having seen what I have seen in my lifetime, I really don't desire to get cross with folks much any more about much of anything. Disagreements are fine. We all have them. This is a good thread and I am glad you started it. It should serve to educate us all on the Godets, and I think, in many ways, it has served that purpose. Thanks, and with respect, Steve