A Study of the Godet Style PlM

[Zepenthusiast]

Is that Schickle's famous "x" on the loop?

[Brian S]

Fabulous work, the mad cow is dancing on that discovery. You have found the exact same cross in my opinion, that cross has the Schickle loop 'x' but it doesn't include any provenance? That's a shame...because it's the same cross.

Edkins gives Klietmann kudos in his bibliography, Dr. K.G., not the Frau. In the acknowledgements he credits Klietmann with "photos of the grand cross". Hopefully his contributions ran only to this award.

Neal O'Connor supplied other photos along with Jeffrey Jacob.

[Les]

On page 32, Edkins states :

"The author has inspected a hollow silver badge with the semi-circle suspension. The edge of the semi-circle was stamped with the word "Silber." It was of the style and variety next described.

Some badges have been seen with heavier and cruder quality eagles between the cross arms. The eagle's head and neck are larger. The breasts of the eagles resemble an arrowhead or triangle and the hips are squared rather than rounded. The feet and hips blend together, instead of being joined by the straight, slender leg. The tailfeathers are less full and straighter as they extend into the corners of the cross arms. These badges are generally encountered in silver gilt and bronze gilt. They all have the filled semi-circle suspension. Most are of solid construction and are generally poorly finished on the edges. Most are usually unmarked and their manufacturer cannot be determined. The crown is usually chased on this variety of the Pour le Merite. The author has not seen this type made from gold and believes this to be a post war manufacture. A silver gilt example of this type badge measures 53 mm from tip to tip and is 2-3mm thick. It weighs 21.2 grams and is not hallmarked.

Jeweler marks and silver content were sometimes stamped into the edge or rim of the semi-circle segment. One example examined was marked "900" and "S1185" in this area. Another was markd AK on the back rim of the segment."

[David Edkins The Prussian Orden Pour le Merite p.32]

Pages 33 and 34 were photos, and this image was on page 34, labeled "Pour le Merite, Eagle Variation":

[/IMG]



I believe the latter is a "typical Schickle" and the former would seem identical to the hollow variant under discussion, in terms of appearance--narrower waist and the unusual-looking M. The syntax of Edkins' book suggests that where possible, he displayed photos of particular crosses he was describing, but it is of course uncertain in this instance whether the image is that of the hollow cross or another from his library of examples. He notably does not include any photos of what we would consider the classic wartime Godet in his book and it is not clear he was necessarily familiar with such a distinction. That this type was apparently one he had run into, perhaps in multiple iterations/materials, and regarded as probable postwar can be left to the interpretation of the reader whether it should be applied to the pictured cross or what we would consider a Godet type in general. The hollow version he does describe in particular as bearing only "Silber" as a marking, and not the 938 JGUS under discussion.

I'm going to post this then run down the thread to cross-check (? pun intended) the weight...

........

Jim's excerpting Edkin's remarks, and the comments about Schickle caught my attention. I've owned a Schickle, and handled a few of them. What doesn't show up in any of the photographs is they are hollow, not solid. I've heard, but not seen of a silver gilt version, and will have to root through my records for measurements, weights, etc, and especially photos to digitally overlap over each other.

If Edkins is correct and the PlM in the above photo is hollow silver, marked "SILBER", and as he said there are others but with different markings, there are problems whether pieces have markings removed and new marks added, etc.

Markings alone are not proof that something is what the marks indicate. Anyone who works with metal knows markings can be obliterated, and remarked. It's doubtful someone would remove JGUS on a marked piece, but on something marked otherwise, it's not entirely outside the realm of collector experience that a piece with other markings might turn up with JGUS or some such.

I know more than a few gunsmiths and engravers who can copy stampings and markings from an item that are correct, and transfer the markings to something else. It's commonly done by more than a few people who want to sell, or have what appear to be "all matching serial numbers" and so on. It's not hard to do, but don't ask me to tell. I don't do it myself, and don't encourage it.

[Les]

Can you say Shickle?

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ighlight=Godet

Someone with a better graphics package than my MAC has, and can do the honors. Please, paste Tony's PlM next to the one straight tail featherd piece side by side with his. The piece owned by late Tony Colson and the unchipped piece attributed to Wulf are both hollow, and except for the materials (bronze gilt versus silver) and spurious marking on the Colson piece, almost exactly identical.

Tony's PlM was identified by Biro as a Schickel based on the firms 1940 dated catalog.

[regular122]

Here's an attempt at a match comparison Les I think you may have in mind. Should make for interesting discussion.

On the initial comparison:

While the Edkins, Colson and Wulff crosses compare on many points, the Schickle does not. VERY close. But note the F below the crown and also the crown itself on the catalog example. Does not seem to match the other three. A careful look at the letters throughout reveals other differences as well.

Colson claimed in the referenced thread that this cross was gold. It does not appear to be the same cross that now belongs to forum member Alan, a silver-gilt purchased through Detlev / eMedals. The Colson gold cross in the comparison pic is said to be hollow, which is not surprising. Wulff's cross is also hollow and appears to be the same. This would make sense given that silver gilt hollow crosses were made on the gold dies using the same process. That said, this does not mean to declare that the two were made at such and such time, etc. I am merely stating that Colson's example and Wulff's cross being different materials from the same die and both hollow is consistent with manufacturing processes existing in the 1916-18 period.

The Colson 'label' rim mark is interesting and correlates with some of what Les suggests above. Who knows what is underneath? Doesn't mean it is not possible, just means it is something we've not really seen before. I tend to agree with Les that if a cross had a legitimate mark on the rim, no need to change it. Wulff's has such a mark. What does that mean? I don't know. But I do know that gold Godet rim marks were set with vendor name only, e.g., JGS. The Colson cross has a variation of that.

The Edkins loop mark, if an x-shaped stamping, could be an Otto Schickle logo. We have speculated on that in other threads. That complicates things a bit on the catalog picture example but might suggest a vendor of the type not shown in the catalog.

The Wulff piece differs in weight from the Colson example. But they are different metals. The Wulff piece weighs in at 22.24 g and measures slightly larger at 54.64 mm in width.

It should be noted that the Wulff hollow example was the cross sold with the group of medals & documents, etc. and came from the family. It was never 'inserted' by any owner at any time. The other single chipped piece joined the group separately through the family. Both groups came directly from the family by the first owner thru Detlev and were sold separately back to Detlev and kept together by the second owner. This is important because if we tread into the area about post war or post 45 for the Wulff crosses, this would be in direct contravention to family documentation and also Detlev's guarantees, etc. This information on the first owner was related to me last year by the first owner and the current exchange was related to me by the current owner.

There's the info I have and a comparison pic requested by Les to open the next round. I have some thoughts but we shall continue on.

Steve

[Brian S]

Steve, Edkin's picture is irrelevant to any discussion. No provenance, no source of anything except a black and white on a page. It's the 'same' and that tells us nothing.

As with everything else that's been discussed here, let's see some provenance to another exact cross to pre-1945.

[Zepenthusiast]

Brian, I must disagree that Edkins' pictured cross tells us "nothing." It does in fact establish the existence of a type, entirely consistent with the Wulff cross, which may very well be a Schickle-associated product with all that implies about dating. Being pre-1945 is probably a given, but what about pre-1934? The Colson cross and its relationship to both is thus even more important.

The need for changing the eagles' tails makes sense in light of changing back to a hollow cross design from the solid Godet. A big question: how many pieces are these hollow Wulff/Colson crosses made from? Two or three? The early war hollow Godet in gold is clearly in three pieces, judging from photos in Prussian Blue.

Also re the latter work, all the late-war Godets are marked JGUS with a very distinctive shape and spacing to the letters, including the immediate post-war attributed version with the moon and crown. The J.G.u.S. is seen on a cross on Andreas' site, which he dates to the "last two years of the war." Any others for evidence?

[Brian S]

1) All the Edkins book tell us is that example existed in 1981.

2) Schickle cross it probably is not, it's marked JGUS. And it doesn't match in all respects.

3) Andreas is a nice reference but he "dates" it how? That's not evidence.

[Les]

Here's an attempt at a match comparison Les I think you may have in mind. Should make for interesting discussion.

On the initial comparison:

While the Edkins, Colson and Wulff crosses compare on many points, the Schickle does not. VERY close. But note the F below the crown and also the crown itself on the catalog example. Does not seem to match the other three. A careful look at the letters throughout reveals other differences as well.

Colson claimed in the referenced thread that this cross was gold. It does not appear to be the same cross that now belongs to forum member Alan, a silver-gilt purchased through Detlev / eMedals. The Colson gold cross in the comparison pic is said to be hollow, which is not surprising. Wulff's cross is also hollow and appears to be the same. This would make sense given that silver gilt hollow crosses were made on the gold dies using the same process. That said, this does not mean to declare that the two were made at such and such time, etc. I am merely stating that Colson's example and Wulff's cross being different materials from the same die and both hollow is consistent with manufacturing processes existing in the 1916-18 period.

The Colson 'label' rim mark is interesting and correlates with some of what Les suggests above. Who knows what is underneath? Doesn't mean it is not possible, just means it is something we've not really seen before. I tend to agree with Les that if a cross had a legitimate mark on the rim, no need to change it. Wulff's has such a mark. What does that mean? I don't know. But I do know that gold Godet rim marks were set with vendor name only, e.g., JGS. The Colson cross has a variation of that.

<snip>

Steve

I don't have much time to address this, because there's a considerable amount of things I have to get done today.

The former Tony Colson piece is not gold. It's bronze-gilt. I know. After it was sold from his estate, I examined it closely on several occasions and have detailed photos, measurements, etc, of the piece.

In the thread, Tony posted the piece for discussion. Marshall, as always, with his keen "eye" compared Tony's piece to the 1940 catalogue. The term Schickle was applied to this piece, and note the post by another forum member who congratulated Marshall on his labelling the "Colson" piece a Schickel.

I've paid very close attention to the plate soldered onto the rim. The rim underneath is thinner than elsewhere, and I suspect someone at one time attempted to stamp something there, and in some way, botched the job, and didn't want to risk filing or grinding the edge for fear of completely and irreparably damaging the rim of the wedge. Someone attempted to cover up the mistake by soldering the plate on. The JGuS markings are spurious and do not make the piece a Godet. That's one of the reasons I've said earlier in this thread that markings aren't always what they seem, and numbers can be made to come or go.

Please note that at various times, Detlev, Barry Turk, Andreas (medalnet) have had and offered for sale, Schickels identical to this one, all with unmarked rims.

Jim has asked for photos of the markings on the "Wulf hollow silver" piece. I too would like to see them, in addition to something showing the sides of the cross's arms. It may be difficult to see and photograph the vent holes, but if not, could the owner describe where they are located, and their shape?

[Brian S]

...and I've asked to see the markings. It's now about evidence. Conjecture has been exhausted.

[Les]

2) Schickle cross it probably is not, it's marked JGUS. And it doesn't match in all respects.

Brian, we're on the same side of this matter, although there are some minor matters that we might disagree on.

Let's not get hung up on markings. I don't trust them because they can be altered, removed, or added. It's been done to originals and fakes.

Not every piece coming from the same exact die, will look absolutely identical. Die wear over time, the accumulation of heat during the stamping process will affect dies resulting in wear, expansion, and so on. For example, open Prussian Blue and look at the Walter Caspari Wagner with it's cross-hatched eagles. Your Opa's and the Caspari piece were both made roughly during the same time of the war, but are not absolutely identical because of die-wear and "freshening" of the eagle breast feathers. There are other tiny differences, but you should get the point.

Another thing that happens during the stamping process is how the dies heat up, and what that does during the individual stamping process. Dies will expand and contract.

Jim has asked about the construction of the Wulf piece. That's an excellent question. If eagles are molded, not stamped, the rate of metal cooling will affect the shape and appearance of cast eagles. Casting can result in cast pieces looking similar or not. There are variables that affect the outcome.

Tony's piece was bronze-gilt, specifically fire-gilded bronze. Bronze is usually cast, not stamped, and I'm not entirely certain the piece was not cast. I know the eagles were, and had been applied separately to the two pieces making up the cross itself. Bear in mind, dies are normally used for stamping metal, but that doesn't rule out using them for casting bronze pieces.

I've heard there is a silver-gilt Schickle, but have not seen or handled it. In light of the current thread, I'd like to examine it, or one like it. A stamped silver piece is very likely going to have some small differences to a cast bronze piece made from the same dies.

There is also the matter of looking at a two-dimensional object (a photo) which doesn't show how the enamel was applied, where doming takes place, or in fact, very much about three-dimensional aspects.

Enamel can be applied thickly in one or two layers, or thinly in several. Think of how you're painted windows that need repainting. Has every previous coat of paint been applied without someone leaving paint on the wood and glass window panes? The way enamel is applied can subtly alter the appearance of letters, the crowns, etc.

Some of the "differences" that are being argued as meaning pieces are either the same, or different, should be looked at from the perspective of how much variation is there within a type and/or production run (or batch), and what is going on with the production methods, etc.

Tony Colson's former piece is the first piece ever to be specifically termed a "Schickel" and the JGuS marking was something even he considered suspect, otherwise he'd never have asked for other people's opinions here or elsewhere.

I have things that must be done today. Outta here....

[Brian S]

I don't disagree with anything you've said. I've noticed the application of enamel can very much alter the appearance of the lettering to some degree. But it does not make the M dip...

Also, understand and accept the variation of the piece to some extent from hand finishing and cooling, etc.

But, let's see the JGUS. That's a stamp. It's either exactly the same or it is not. That at least puts the item in the Godet workshop, when, don't know...

But it would put it in the Godet workshop.

[Zepenthusiast]

You're right, Brian, that the Schickle catalog cross would seem to differ somewhat from other three (Colson's, Edkins' picture and the Wulff cross,) but there can be little doubt the other three have some kind of common ancestry; all do share a variant of the M "dip" in distinction to any other heretofore defined Godets, even though the exact nature of the dip is the most prominent difference between the four. Colson's cross was declared/identified as a Schickle in the earlier thread--is it?--and what really is a Schickle from the standpoint of actual manufacture we do not yet precisely know. Did Godet manufacture all "Schickles" the same way it would appear Wagner made all "Friedlanders"?

[Biro]

...Colson's cross was declared/identified as a Schickle in the earlier thread--is it?--and what really is a Schickle from the standpoint of actual manufacture we do not yet precisely know...

Hi Jim

To be specific - Colsons cross was identified as being merely closer in appearance to the PLM featured in Schickles catalogue than what we consider 'classic' Godets because of the tail feathers and the size of the central juncture.

I think people have picked up the 'Schickle' tag and applied it to this type simply by way of an identification and destinction from what we currently view as the definitive wartime Godet. Schickle are almost certainly NOT the manufacturer of the PLM featured in their catalogue... and while it is a reasonable assumption that Godet were.... from what time frame we simply have no idea.

Readers should remember that the Schickle catalogue PLM does not appear to be a photograph, therefore it's exact proportions as a comparison to the other pieces featured here are not relevant.

As I said earlier, the hollow Wulff PLM is more of a Godet/Schickle hybrid than anything else.

Marshall

[Brian S]

I disagree, they are indeed photographs. Can't remember what Rick Research called the process but they are definitely photos.