A Study of the Godet Style PlM

[Brian S]

It doesn't make sense to me that Godet had two dies working at the same time... I am disinclined to accept the anything but the dipped 'M' version as wartime. IMHO, postwar, and much postwar???

[Biro]

It doesn't make sense to me that Godet had two dies working at the same time... I am disinclined to accept the anything but the dipped 'M' version as wartime. IMHO, postwar, and much postwar???

Confusing to say the least.

One die for solid, with beautiful eagle detailing, one die for hollow with much cruder eagle details, and very shortly thereafter (1920-30), a third die with a broad central juncture (as offered in the Schickle catalogue...).

Surely can not be down to demand... and yet the Godets we see and study do not appear to show any marked deterioration or faults that would justify the need for new dies.

Some great info and pictures here.. especially Wulf who plainly wears a Godet.

Marshall

[Brian S]

And the photo was taken when? Before 1935. But when? I have photos of Opa in full uniform as late as 1936.

[regular122]

I do not know the date of the photo Brian. I will try to ascertain it.

I agree Marshall on the seeming wrench this has thrown. That is why I felt it necessary to post it and discuss.

Dropped M or no, we must remember this is a hollow cross. I am still intrigued by the J.G.u.S. 938 marks on both. Those are wartime marks. Post war crosses have not typically been marked this way. The wartime marks have consistently been 'J.G.u.S. 938' and '938 JGUS.'

Daniel Gerth's Godet acquired in the 1920s was marked only '925' and had no J.G.u.S. This is what Detlev's point was on 'consistent with wartime Godets' remark was about.

Arthur Laumann's cross has a 938 but is marked 'Moon, Crown, 938 JGUS.' Many believe the crown and moon marks make it post war even with the 938 because no other has been so marked to surface and the understanding that Laumann acquired this cross postwar. Even so, it is different than the standard wartime J.G.u.S. 938 marks on both of the Wulff crosses.

I think any discussion on obverse differences or eagles must also include the wartime marks. Thanks for the great discussion and input. Steve

[Brian S]

Any why couldn't postwar pieces be marked JGuS? I think they could be. Armistice day wouldn't be a magic date to end the marking. Am I missing something? It's just Godet und Sohn... Not long live the Kaiser.

[Brian S]

Are the loose medals in post 83 now the ones mounted on the bar? This is one confusing lot...

[Brian S]

This thread requires a rolling list of questions...

1. When was Wulff photo taken?

2. Why do we see 3 Godet type crosses?

3. Why did there at first appear to be a "there's a postwar cross" to "no that wasn't said"?

4. My mad cow is getting me...

[Brian S]

Isn't just a little too cooincidental that the photo of the PlM in the 1940 catalog matches to an 'M' the Godet? Remember OS SOLD the PlM, they didn't necessarily make them... eh?

[regular122]

The photo has to be prior to his death in 1934 at age 60. That makes any cross after that date ruled out completely.

I know the previous owner purchased the medals loose. The bar appears to be a temporary set up for display. The current owner informs me that these are the same medals original to the group and are in a non-permanent display made by the previous owner. The bar is a removable, non-damaging, temporary set up.

Good observation on the dropped M from the later catalog. Significant but more significant if it were a WWI vice WWII catalog. A later catalog could display a piece made at any time up to that time.

In answer to the markings being post war, we know that these marking existed during the war. Given the late date of his award and the info on dates of purchase, even if after the war they were likely wartime made. In support of this, other known post war crosses are marked differently. So, it is possible Godet could have continued to mark them that way, but then we see the crosses marked 925 and then migrate to solid, and bronze-gilt examples during the inter-war years. These, obviously, would not help us as they would not bear these marks.

In answer to the post war replacement cross that became a possible wartime cross, it was a misunderstanding of the relationship of the damaged piece from 1920 and new information from the family through Detlev and owners.

Can't help on the cow. Steve

[Brian S]

In answer to the markings being post war, we know that these marking existed during the war. In support of this, other known post war crosses are marked differently. So, it is possible Godet could have continued to mark them that way, but then we see the crosses marked 925 and then migrate to solid, and bronze-gilt examples during the inter-war years. These, obviously, would not help us as they would not bear these marks.

It doesn't seem reasonable they would have stopped the mark on armistice day. Not buying it.



The madcow thinks otherwise.

Questions here to go unanswered and I should stop before I ask too much.

[regular122]

Brian,

I think you misunderstand what I am saying. The marks are known wartime marks. They could have been in stock after the war. Not disputing that. I think it may even be worth discussing that they continued to mark crosses a certain way until new standards were introduced. Stephen P. says the 925 became a postwar mark.

What I am saying is that we can no more ignore a wartime mark as a possibility of wartime make than we could the other way around. Love the cow. Steve

[Zepenthusiast]

Would be great to get another edge view of the cross, especially the region of the weep holes, if the owner's graciousness (and patience!) is open to it.

Just for further food for thought, close review of the eagles in the one-sided cross attributed to Major Otto in Prussian Blue shows a feather pattern on the eagles also unreconcilable with the standard Godet. The crown and lettering are so close as to be consistent. Godet clearly shifted eagle types when they went from hollow gold to solid silver, but the one-sided cross would either have needed another set of dies or must also be regarded as "on the table" of discussion. What is at stake is when/how often/why did they make such changes. Die wear is the obvious answer, but as has been pointed out, there is little evidence of that being a concern in known 1918 classic Godets. One has to wonder about the motivation to produce a hollow silver piece at any point after 1917, too, especially as it would require an entirely new set of dies during a period of economic mayhem (at least until the 1930s.) Would a proud German officer, able to afford such a cross and eschewing English imposition of a 925 standard, perhaps, have preferred the traditional 938 silver at any point in his life when he commissioned the piece?

[Les]

I have several thoughts I'm keeping to myself. There are a couple of comments that are worth sharing, and those I'll toss in here.

The silver stempel is a -minimum- silver content mandated by law so the item can be sold as "silver". The actual amount in the item, and hence the marking can and may legally exceed the mandated minimum silver mark. Anything over 92% silver is considered sterling silver, and anything less is not. 80%, or 800 silver, is coin-grade silver.

There is a considerable difference between first hand information, and second hand details that are in the category of hearsay. The distinction between types of information or oral details should not be blurred.

The only preson who can transmit "facts" is Fritz Wulff himself, who died in Kassel, during November 1934 at the age of 64. His children if he had any, and they are still alive would be quite elderly. Whatever he told them, or was passed on to his grandchildren, would then fall into the category of second hand, then third hand information. Each time the information is relayed to someone else, or outside the family, the risk of unreliability creeps in.

If there are family members who directly spoke to the man himself, they should be asked to put the information in writing, and have it notarized. We're told Detlev acquired items from the family and an oral history, not many years ago. We're also told there was a previous owner who contacted the family and acquired additional items and details from them. Fine, then if the family has been willing to sell items and share information, why not ask the family to create a written statement that substantiates the claims that in the legal sense of the word, are hearsay and second-third-fourth hand sources?

A written statement from the family, not an oral "he said they said" story, carries some weight in answering questions about why everything was not sold all at one time, when the old man himself is said to have acquired or done things, etc.

A great deal is being presented as almost being factual, and talk of asking Detlev to clarify matters. Detlev's answers are and forever will be nothing more than what he was told, and is by definition, not a primary source, but second/third hand information.

Since the family has been contacted, and they have been willing to sell and share information, the way to cut closer to the heart of what will otherwise always remain nagging doubts, is to get them to provide a written statement that will remain with the group.

[regular122]

Well, both Jim and Les bring up some good points.

What we do know is that known wartime Godets carry the marks seen on both of the pieces. That is the part that intrigues me.

I don't think it beyond possibility of having different dies during the war but must admit it is hard for me to swallow initially. Still, Greg pointed out to me that Godet used two dies to make the EK2 silver frames during the war for no apparent reason perhaps than to meet demand.

While obviously not a factor with the PlM as much, it may be possible that they had separate dies to meet not volume, but variety and quality of pieces. That Wulff's PlMs are good and best Godet quality with 1916-18 style wartime marks makes it worth exploring. Perhaps we may find out more through the owner and Detlev with regard to the family as Les laid out. Until then, we really only have the consistency of known pieces.

I knew when I posted the new info it would create a bit of a stir and for good reason. We all loathe the 'new variation' of a type and the barn door it opens to people being susceptible to fakes. What sets this discussion apart is that it is about variations between Godets with provenance in the teens and twenties.

Appreciate everyone's input. Steve

[gregM]

Just to clarify,

The 1914 Godet Ek1 silver frame was made from a different die than
the 1914 Ek2.