A Study of the Godet Style PlM

[Zepenthusiast]

It would appear you were online, Les, when I logged on but left before I finished typing my long-winded post. Missed opportunity for some real-time to and fro on this. Too bad--perhaps some other time. At any rate, having read many of your posts in other threads, it is not my purpose to question your points about quality of worksmanship, as one can see you study these things closely and I don't disagree with the opinion. Pointing out that the enamel would cover the joints is meant to explain why their presence would not deter achieving a quality finish. (If they were trying to cover mistakes or shoddy work, ivy would be first choice, with apology to Frank Lloyd Wright.)

[Biro]

Ok - starting to feel like I need a PhD to understand this thread now... but can I make one observation that either hasn't been covered, or I haven't properly understood...

This image.. WULF PLM vs SCHICKLE PLM shows the Wulf PLM with the straight tail feathers and narrow central waist, next to the much more common 'Schickle' type PLM, also with straight tail feathers but with the wide waist. Excuse the quality, best I can do with the resolution...

To confuse matters, both appear to show the mitred "seams" which Jim is referring to... but why these 'seams' on the narrow waisted Wulf piece which - to use Jims recent hypothesis - is in theory the 'pre' cut down version??

Are they merely a finishing anomalie?

It appears obvious the argument about any cut down die can not proceed much further without dimensions of some kind.. Les picked up on the point that cutting a section out of the die would result in a smaller PLM... but do we know that the 'Schickles' are not in fact slightly smaller than there presumably older cousins, the Wulf PLM??

Les - you may have dimensions of Colsons cross on hand from when you observed it, but to date, the Wulf PLM is the only one I have seen with 'Schickle' type eagles and a narrow waist, so if the new owner - WHO HAS BEEN VERY GRACIOUS SO FAR - is not forthcoming with dimensions, we're a little stuffed really.

Love the theories and the discussion... why I come here.

Marshall

[Leroy]

I won't intrude into this thread as I am incompetent to discuss PLM's. If it's useful, here is some data about mine, which I posted about a year ago and which was identified as a Schickle:

Weight: 20.44 g
Width: 54.01 mm
Height from bottom arm edge to top of "pie": 55.28 mm
Arm width: 22.63 mm
"Weep" hole on each arm hidden beneath eagle's wing

Hollow construction.

[regular122]

The dimensions of Wulff's pieces are and have been available. They are posted in post #84. Here is the hollow piece again.

Wulff Hollow PlM

Specifications
Width - 53.47mm
Height - 54.64mm
Marks - 'JGuS' and '938' on the pie wedge rim
Weight - 22.24 g Silver-Gilt Hollow
Remarks - Eagle tail feathers are more streamline and long, similar to type known later as Schickle.

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....Les

I've been traveling and been out of the loop a bit. No question on the silver gilt Colson piece Les but I am not sure the piece discussed in the old Colson thread is the same as the cross sold by Detlev to forum member Alan that came from his estate.

Tony claimed the cross in the old thread was gold. In appearance it differs remarkably from the one Alan now has that was featured on Detlev's auction. There is also no top mark plate on Alan's silver gilt PlM. Below is a picture of the cross Tony discussed as gold and hollow and the one Alan obtained from the Colson collection via Detlev. Whether Tony let it go or not, I have no idea. It might be ashame, especially if the two three stripers were once part of a group together.

Please study the pic below. These two crosses appear to be very different.

If the first Colson cross was not the same, and is gold as claimed, then it compares to the Wulff example as a hollow version of gold vice silver gilt with only a tiny bit less weight. Beyond the difference in metals of manufacture, dimensionally and in appearance, they compare nicely.

The technology and transition of 1916 Godets is historically possible between gold and silver-gilt pieces on the same die. Whether these surviving crosses were is the subject of much discussion already.

I believe the Wulff hollow cross is authentic. Nothing presented makes me believe that it is not. No evidence on Kleitmann, etc. can show it was not at least pre-1938. I believe it to be earlier than that. The manufacturing and markings are consistent with Godet and wartime. Some interesting and insightful discussion has been made on the eagles, but does not sway one way or the other on age of the cross--only possible technique.

I believe the Wulff cross is a fine example of a provenance piece and as such, we need to be careful not to ignore all the information relating to it, whether it fits what we think we may or may not know. As a historical investment, it is quite valuable and should be a welcome and rare cross in any private or public collection, one of the few of its kind.

Appreciate all of the fine and friendly analysis to date on this piece. Steve

[Zepenthusiast]

First, a Hi to Leroy.
Your cross's measurements could be a big help in figuring this out--thanks for chiming in. Can you measure 1) the distance from the top notch at the base of the pie straight down to the opposite notch/"v" below the "rite"? That distance is likely more reliable for the desired comparison than the tip to tip and the latter is more susceptible to wear. The same dimension in the horizontal would be helpful, as would the tip to tip vertically (in contrast to the tip to top of pie.) Is it a "wide waist Schickle" type? If you could give me the thread name or date, would appreciate it so I can take a look more easily.

Welcome back, Steve, hope your trip successful. We have kept the soup boiling in your absence. I don't doubt the Wulff cross is an authentic pre-1945 PlM, but where you are still perhaps pushing the envelope is in belief it is pre-1920, as it would stand as the lone example of its type, should that be true. All others--and this issue of whether the waist size was due to a cut-and-solder approach would make them literally all of the same origin--seem to be dated 1920's or later. Provenance then becomes the critical issue, and as has been previously set forth, that is still a bit up in the air in terms of the interpretation/sources (1st, 2nd, 3rd hand, etc.) Detlev himself is not on the record, for instance, that the hollow cross is wartime, only that is was obtained from the family from a wartime recipient. The rest we only know via the current owner and what he and you have heard from as yet undisclosed family. Given the gravity of the claim regards what is otherwise known and believed, caution remains reasonable/respectful.

Marshall--we need measurements on a wide-waist version! Les says he is certain the Colson cross was not fused centrally, but if there is any variation is dimension between it and the other narrow waist version, the cut is still a potential explanation for the how (though not the why.)

[regular122]

Jim,

I found your comment about multi-piece arm rays fascinating. Like Marshall, I have never heard an explanation like that but it seems worth considering. Les' comments on the possibilities of construction were also useful to that discussion.

While Detlev has not posted here, he has claimed the PlM consistent with wartime. When the cross first sold from the Wulff family, he actually even dated it as 'Model 1916.' He has stated that it is 'very rare.' I agree with him (not that he needs it or even cares).

I've looked at numerous explanations before I posted this new info on that Wulff's hollow piece could be wartime and 1918 as the family claimed. That is when I began to seriously consider the transitional gold to silver hollow pieces in 1916. It seems to be the only explanation possible given what we know so far. Steve

[Zepenthusiast]

One other thing--the gold early war Godet was hollow and three piece construction from the look of it. I don't see how the solid silver Godet could have been made from the same dies, and the feather pattern of the eagles supports they were not.

[Leroy]

Jim,
Here is a link to the old thread: http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...pour+le+merite


I will try to get the other measurements you want. May not be tonight as I have a meeting I have to go to.

Regards,
Leroy

[Zepenthusiast]

I took the "Model 1916" to be a reference to the general design (like a 1911 Colt) rather than necessarily the date of presumed manufacture, but it's fair to say your interpretation may be what Detlev intended. If so, then I stand corrected as to his position on it.

Devil's advocate: (What discussion is good without one?) The eagles on the Wulff cross have never been previously identified belonging to a cross from pre-1920...why the change if this were a transitional cross from a hollow gold earlier version? They had to solder those on the gold crosses and could presumably have used the exact same molds to make silver eagles for the transitional cross. Why does the type not again surface until the 1920's--or more precisely, why would it then re-surface in the 1920's after a long hiatus and only a brief utilization in a rare interim variant?

[Zepenthusiast]

Thanks, Leroy--very interesting. What looks like the "cut and join marks" would almost suggest the horizontal part of the cross may be a single construct (and front and back joined together) and the top and bottom arms added to it--mitred (is that mitered?) in above and below. The possibility of two such components--think of two popsicle sticks being glued at right angles to one another to make a cross, then extend the thought to notching the front of one and the back of the other to get a fused and stronger whole--is also possible. I can't see the back well enough to be sure. It still looks like the top and bottom arms were added to the horizontal. Along these lines, I printed out a copy of the Colson cross and one of the wide waist versions Andreas had previously posted, scaled them the same on the copier, and successfully replicated the wide-waist Andreas cross by cutting a small amount out of the Colson cross: but only vertically. The horizontal (width) was unchanged. Truncating the vertical arms still results in them intersecting the horizontal arms at a slightly greater width and as a result produces the wider waist. The "F" is closer to the "Rite", but not the "Pour" to the "le." Again, this would just explain why the wide waist version are they way they are, not why the standard version such as yours and Colson's (and Wulff's) would be the way they are: featuring "cut/solder" or not.

[Leroy]

Okay.

Measuring (vertically) from the "top notch at the base of of the pie straight down to the opposite notch/'v' below the 'rite' " : 36.74 mm

Same type measurement, but across horizontally from the notch/"v" on the right hand arm to the notch/"v" on the left hand arm: 36.74 mm

Both of these measurements may be off by .01 mm, but I have measured five times now and I keep getting right at 36.73 - 36.74 mm. It is a bit difficult to make sure that the calipers are resting directly at the "notch" because the caliper "blades" are slightly thicker than the space available at the very apex of the "notch".

Is it surprising or unusual that these measurements should be the same (or within .01 of each other)?

Measuring vertically from the right "tip" of the upper vertical arm to the bottom right "tip" of the lower vertical arm of the cross: 53.48 mm

I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion, although I will admit that I get lost from time to time. My field is RK's, not PLM's! I hope someone will translate for me when you guys reach some conclusion!

[Zepenthusiast]

I think the people who made these--these are "the real thing" for sure, even if of inter-war vintage , were perfectly capable of attention to detail like the "perfection" of the spaces between the notches. See Les' comments below about the sanded stringers in the aircraft. What is particularly intriguing is that the vertical dimension of the cross as a whole is shorter by a skitch, even if the notches are not. That could be coincidental, but it may also reflect that getting the cross looking right was more important than all the measures being exactly the same. Same way the Parthenon is actually trapezoidal (slightly wider at the base than at the top) so as to make it look correctly rectangular to the eye. The difference could easily be due to wear or finishing effects on the tips and thus the notch to notch is more meaningful, I think. Your cross is of the narrower waist version, and thus need not (probably should not) show foreshortening of the vertical arms relative to the horizontal. What we need now is more Schickle-type measures to compare. Perhaps we can ask Andreas if he has measurements on the wide-waist versions he had. For an RK guy you sure have a nice PlM there! Kind of an unusual dandelion popping up in the lawn?

[Leroy]

For an RK guy you sure have a nice PlM there! Kind of an unusual dandelion popping up in the lawn?

Not a dandelion at all! Much more like a rose which I am very glad to have in the garden.........

[Biro]

... Your cross is of the narrower waist version, and thus need not (probably should not) show foreshortening of the vertical arms relative to the horizontal....

To my eye, the pieces owned by Tony Colson (and Leroy) are not nearly as narrow at the waist as the Wulff piece, which is what caught my attention about Wulff's in the first place. It's the only thing about Wulffs' that elevates it above the mere.. "Schickle type" .. status that the other straight tail feather PLM's have.. which had, untill Wulffs showed up, been deemed as 20s/30's pieces.

Might be easier to refresh your memory on both pieces by clicking these two links...

TONY COLSON PLM


FRITZ WULFF PLM

Notice in the second link above that Wulffs hollow piece, when shown pictured next to his classic, solid, irrefutably wartime Godet, shows practically no descernable difference in width at the centre. Then compare them to Colsons...

It's already pretty confusing around here with all the names and variations flying about... so it would help to clarify that Wulffs hollow PLM, with it's very narrow waist, is not comparable to any 'Schickle' type piece because the central juncture is practically the same width as the standard classic Godet.

Everything else I've seen shown with straight tail feathers, has a wide... or at least wider.. waist.

Marshall

[Leroy]

Let me please ask one more question as a novice (and then I'll shut up!). There has been discussion here about "straight tail feathers".

When I first posted my PLM, I noted that, when you look closely at the feathers, they seemed to have started off as regular feathers, but then been changed somewhat to seem to have straight feathers. I could never figure out what, if anything, that meant. Here's that old photo. I hope someone can tell me if this is significant or not.

Many thanks!