A Study of the Godet Style PlM

[Brian S]

Godet or Wager?

[Zepenthusiast]

I should talk about typos--it is Teschner, not Taeschner as I had it (you have the right guy, Brian, but still rendered without the "n" following the "h"--probably another typo!)

[Brian S]

Yeah and then I typed it wrong... Teschner.

But is that a Godet or Wagner in the photo?

[Zepenthusiast]

Such as one can analyze such an image, it is very likely it is a Wagner, based on the measurable ratio of the arm width to the spaces between arms. Even though the cross is seen obliquely, you can get a pretty good measure of width of the most "proximal" arm--the right one, facing the direction of the camera. It requires a little extrapolation, as it is very slightly concealed beneath his collar, but one can print it out and trace the relevant lines. The space between that arm and the one pointing straight down (the "6:00") can also be pretty reliably measured, as it is facing the camera pretty "square on." Even fudging a little in favor of the arm width, the space between the arms is greater by about 6 % or so--enough to say it is very unlikely they could have been equal and photograph like this.

Godets, on the other hand, seem to universally measure equal arm width to spacing. If error, it is usually on the side of the arm being wider than the space between arms to a small degree. This accounts in no small way for the look of each type, and is perhaps why some find one more innately pleasing to the eye than the other. Even without being able to see the suspension, I'd say we are looking at a Wagner.

[Brian S]

That's kind of where I was going with this... I'm not making any disparaging comments on dealers, honestly, this is not a vendetta, it's just odd to me that these large provenance sets are coming up and they don't contain the 'award issue' piece.

That photo was supposedly taken in 1933. And as you say, it looks not like a Godet to me...

[Don D.]

One thing to think about is how many PLMs a guy might go thru in a life time. The statute required the awardee to wear it whenever in uniform. They are a fragile award, especially if another neck award is worn at the same time.
Just a thought.

[Brian S]

But even if you got a little chip in it, you wouldn't toss it in the trash. You'd keep your "Awarded PlM". You just would.

[Les]

True enamel is a glass compound, and there are several ways to repair glass chips, or cracks. It's not difficult. There are several period texts that describe how enamel repair: spot repairs and total enamel replacements are all options.

Do people decide to buy a new car when a stone hits the windscreen and chips/cracks or breaks the glass and not think about getting it repaired first?

[Don D.]

But even if you got a little chip in it, you wouldn't toss it in the trash. You'd keep your "Awarded PlM". You just would.

Without a doubt. In fact, you might save your awarded piece and buy a 2d or 3d for day to day wear.

[Brian S]

Yes, if I had won the Medal of Honor in Vietnam, I'd be wearing a knockoff so I wouldn't tarnish, nick, or damage my original.

If I'd won a Wagner, I'd replace with a Wagner. It's their AWARDED PlM. I think that was a very big deal. It was to George Peppard

[VtwinVince]

Okay, I've had a good look at the Crown Orders, and they appear to be from the same dies, although the finishing on the pre-war example is much better than the silver gilt piece. Obviously the standards at Wagner were slipping by the late war period.

[Brian S]

Not sure what you're saying? You'd have tossed your Wagner PlM in the trash if you could have purchased a Godet?

[VtwinVince]

Brian, it was as per Jim's request that I compare the two pieces. I certainly wouldn't turn any good PLM away from my door

[Zepenthusiast]

If it was knocking and saying "landshark" it might be a good idea

Very interesting, Vince. It gets my wheels spinning a bit (just what you all need.) Presumably the faces of a two-part hollow cross were stamped from a set of interlocking dies which allowed for a void to exist between the two, that is a "female" external face and "male" interior face. The latter would require little finish or features beyond being smaller in area than the former, to allow for the thickness of the finished product. The latter would come out much like the Prussian flight badges, with a hollow on the backside/innerside, right? This makes it possible in theory to mate the two "female" dies (hope this is suitable talk for a tradition-oriented forum!) and get a solid one-piece product. Wagner chose not to do this with the commonly recognized solid silver-gilt, making new dies instead. That it could be done would seem to be supported by your observations on the Crown orders. Begs the question, then...did they try it with a PlM and give up, for some reason? If they didn't try it, why?

Godet's hollow gold cross was three-part until advent of the silver-gilt requirement. A different issue, therefore. They could not easily strike a solid cross of any thickness from the two face pieces, so logically had to make new dies. Returning to a hollow cross, but two parts now instead of three, explains the post-war change to what we call a "Schickle" and its variants--again, new dies needed. (But again, why a hollow cross again, especially with the late war solid Godets still looking good???)

[regular122]

Sorry for the delay in posting the Wulff hollow PlM pics. Been out of the loop for a bit.

Here are some of rim and some nice detail pics. Enjoy, Steve