A Study of the Godet Style PlM

[Brian S]

I admit I know see the multipart construction on these as indicated above. I was slow to that. I am really having a problem with these being original to the period before 1945. That flies in the face of manufacturing techniques I've come to believe. If this turns otherwise than so be it but I remain highly skeptical.

The dies for the 1918 types were around, it would have been so much more work to put together all these pieces effectively. Today, making fakes for the big payout with multiple pieces makes sense. It does not make sense for a period pre1945 PlM.

And that's all I've got. I wasn't there in the jeweler's shop in 1979 or 1925 so I can't say. You've done a great job analyzing the photos! You were the first to break the multi part construction of whatever these are.

[Les]

Let's remember there are two crosses that closely resemble each other, but there are specific material and construction details. We know one cross is bronze-gilt, and the other is silver-gilt. Let's not assume both are identical and made the same way.

#1

The "Colson" piece is hollow bronze-gilt, made by joining two separate sides (each formed as one separate unit), with the eagles applied afterwards. Some of the bronze gilt examples have chased letters, etc.

The Colson example, was -not- made by having the obverse and reverse sides of each arm soldered together, then all four arms soldered together at the center. To construct the cross this way would require two sides of each arm joined (eight pieces), then aligned and soldered into one piece. Next four eagles and the suspension loop would have to be added. On a hollow core piece, this would be complicated, and controlling the even flow of solder would be tedious, time consuming, and require care so soldering one part doesn't result in parts already soldered on, "desoldering" or coming loose.

#2

The piece Marshall posted, is described as silver-gilt and nothing is said about it being hollow. If you look at the eagles, it is clear they were soldered on after the cross itself was made. The silver gilt example in the photo Marshall posted does not have chased or engraved lettering, etc.

Soldering arms together that are solid is much easier than trying to solder a hollow piece (with 13 parts that have to be aligned "just so" and then soldered neatly).


Think about it, and what the differences are, and what they mean with regards to manufacturing methods, etc.

Business exist to make money, while minimizing cost and maximizing profits. Yes, there are often several ways to do something, but usually the most efficient and practical methods prevail. If you wanted to get a letter from Madrid to Vladivastock, would you have someone carry it by hand while walking the entire way, or would you want it there quickly and send it by airplane?

[Brian S]

Les,

If you had a PlM you could cast a section of and create pieces to put together it would prove a nice paycheck for a modern jeweler.

[Zepenthusiast]

Thanks, Brian and Les, for your kindness and forbearance with my theories. I know neither of you have been fans of the concept. And...I have to agree with both of you: the assembly of a hollow cross in this fashion would be preposterously complex for no apparent good reason, at least for those possessing original dies of any usefulness. Given this, you are right: the burden of proof is on these crosses (or their advocates) to reliably date them by provenance. Edkins only writes hollow crosses, matching this description, existed and were presumed postwar--which covers a pretty long stretch. While the Schickle catalog proves the existence of a type, we do not really know how the latter were made, hollow or solid. Until/if I (or anyone, of course) can come up with a plausible theory for why these apparently seamed-at-the-center crosses should exist pre WWII, I'm going to have to join you in the skeptical camp. Ironically, because of the seams, no less!

The HH cross Marshall posted can be seen to be hollow under the high magnification tool, I believe, with a distinct hole in one of the tips of the 3:00 arm. It is listed as weighing 22 g, if I recall correctly, consistent with hollow construction, if of silver. Perhaps weirder, there would appear to be a seam in the margin of the obverse face, at the edge of the tip... This may be a file mark or a vice mark, but it sure looks like the other seam-type lines. The finish of the sides seems rather primitive, by comparison to the face, as well.

[Biro]

Sadly this fascinating thread is almost too long and convoluted for it's own good... so many cross-references to pieces that are a good 10 or 20 pages back make it tough to follow for anyone not studying it intently!!

Let me just throw this extra observation out there...

Some excellent new pictures were just posted by Steve of the Fritz Wulf piece which allow some better details to be seen. On the images I'm posting below, the eagle tail detail on the left is from the attributed hollow gold Fritz Wulf piece that sold recently, presumably for quite a sum. The eagle on the right is from the hollow silver gilt Herman Historica piece, offered as "a postwar jewellers copy"... The reserve ?... a mere 1500 euro...

And yet with the exception of the obverse letter chasing and (presumably) gold content of Wulf's piece, these PLM's are indestinguishable from each other, right down to the small matching ''notches'' which can clearly be seen on the tails of both eagles below. Both these eagles are obviously from the same die.

With due respect to the owner of Wulfs piece, this is not a style of PLM I will ever be investing in...

[Biro]

Another eagle...

[Brian S]

With due respect to the owner of Wulfs piece, this is not a style of PLM I will ever be investing in...

I felt very alone on this one... I know you get into a situation where hand me down information says this and that and assumptions are made honestly for the best of intentions, but the outcome of those best intentions do not reflect well upon the persons who promote them.

There just was no reason this PlM made any sense, it makes none now. As Marshall said, it's a shame this thread is so mixed up. But now given his excellent research on the photos, this cross, a VERY postwar copy from all indications, deserves its place in the fakes section.

And, I dare say the eagles look badly cast in the silver edition on the right photo example. The gilt examples may have filled some hollow holes more fully.

I'm so thankful my grandfather didn't need to replace his PlM... Or his medalbar...

[Biro]

I'm not crying fake or even foul yet, I'm not sure the observations above actually PROOVE too much, except that the eagles are from the same die, or of course, cast. How can the family, dealers and owners concerned with these two pieces be so sure of their dating of these pieces that one commands many many thousands the other only hundreds?

The 938 markings? Seperately applied eagles? Chased letters? Someone tell me!!

It's just too tenuous when we know - for once, irrefutably - that they were still being sold in 1940.

And by the way, the 'notches' or markings on these tail feathers DO actually correspond roughly with where the tail feathers of a standard Godet (left) would have swirled round and overlapped... but that is perhaps for a whole new thread!!

[Zepenthusiast]

The close-ups show the "r" in "Pour" to have a nearly identical deviation on top, too--seemed to be enamel overflow on the silver cross, but may be the formation of the underlying metal/a die flaw. The cross bodies, and not just the eagles, appear to be from the same die source.

[Leroy]

Gentlemen,
What a great thread!

For the sake of those of us who are "mired" in the period 1939-45, would somebody please clarify that when you Imperial guys say "postwar" you are referring to "post- First World War"?

Best,
Leroy

[Zepenthusiast]

Hi Leroy,
I will take the extreme liberty of confirming that is how "postwar" is being used. The application is of special significance due to the PlM and other Imperial orders no longer being "issuable" following the Kaiser's abdication and the end of the Imperial (and Royal) courts authority to grant them. Thus, a "wartime" PlM commands greater collector interest and associated value. Pre-WWI versions are another matter yet!

[Brian S]

Gentlemen,
What a great thread!

For the sake of those of us who are "mired" in the period 1939-45, would somebody please clarify that when you Imperial guys say "postwar" you are referring to "post- First World War"?

Best,
Leroy

No, not me. When I say postwar Imperial it's completely post WWII.


Weimar period PlMs are entirely acceptable although not as desirable. Very few PlM winners were engaged in active duty in WWII and wearing PlMs but they were and they are "period".

"Postwar" for me is simply post 1945. I can see why you might have some confusion. As for the one under the scope, it is in my definition a postwar copy beyond 1945. The construction makes no sense exept for the purpose to deceive.

[Brian S]

Hi Leroy,
I will take the extreme liberty of confirming that is how "postwar" is being used. The application is of special significance due to the PlM and other Imperial orders no longer being "issuable" following the Kaiser's abdication and the end of the Imperial (and Royal) courts authority to grant them. Thus, a "wartime" PlM commands greater collector interest and associated value. Pre-WWI versions are another matter yet!

Although no longer conferred, they were worn. I have a photo of my grandfather in complete uniform in 1934, the last time he would wear it. Had he purchased a Godet PlM in 1939, I doubt anyone would question its value however post-WWI-war-pre-1946, if it could be provenanced to him at that date.

If my mother had purchased knockoffs however well intentioned post 1945 for his funeral they would command nothing more than trinket value. Luckily, all survived and the issue is non-existent, however, consider the difference.

I wish he had purchased a Godet for "wear" to "protect" his Wagner. But such was NOT the case with him. It survives to day with a minor flake off the front.

As stated earlier, I do not think he would have worn a Godet any more than I could convince my wife to wear a zirconium however much larger than her current zirconium The original, however imperfect, however cheap, was the original.

I've learned through personal misfortune not to assume too much. Perhaps the story that went with that PlM just assumed too much...

Finally, my sincere thanks to the current owner of the PlM who has determined to get the bottom line of the cross.

[Leroy]

Thank you, gentlemen!

[Leroy]

It has occurred to me, following this really great discussion () comparing the Wulf, Colson and HH crosses, that the Schickle cross is still not fully explained (although its existence as a type with different eagles and a wider center is apparent, whether Schickle actually made them or not). When Edkins' work was published in 1981, was anyone even aware of the Schickle catalog? I can't find my copy (although it is here somewhere!) of his book, but I don't recall him specifically mentioning Schickle in it - perhaps someone can check if this is correct.

I went to the HH site and, using the magnification tool, looked very closely at
the eagles on the piece they are selling as a jeweller's copy. To me, at least, while they are nice looking, they appear to be castings.