Announcement

**oak-leaf** · 01-06-2008, 03:04 PM

Unusual Godet PLM

I recently viewed a very high quality PLM which had J G & S stamped on a seperate plate which was soldered onto the very top of the pie shape element of the cross. The cross was of two piece construction with seperately attached eagles. The entire medal was of the highest quality. It appeared to have one or two vent holes however the vent holes were on the cross arms underneath the wings of the eagles. There were no other marks on the cross except the attached plate. The cross had all the aspects of a Godet made PLM however the soldered plate and unusual location of the vent holes puzzled me. The cross had an excellent gold appearance however I do not believe it was gold or silver, perhaps another medal. Can anyone shed any light on this unusual item?

**regular122** · 01-07-2008, 02:20 AM

Was the cross bronze-gilt? I have not heard of an attached soldered plate before. Steve

**Biro** · 01-07-2008, 04:44 AM

plate - post war

Attached Files

TCPLM.jpg (33.3 KB, 675 views)

**oak-leaf** · 01-07-2008, 09:18 AM

Unusual PLM

The photo posted by Biro is the exact style cross I saw to include the oakleaves. As as estimate how long after the war do you believe this item was made? I believe the cross was made of copper however, that is only a guess.

**bunyip** · 01-07-2008, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Tiger 1 View Post

Those marks don't look to be casting pock marks to me. They look to be made by whatever was on the flat die when the obverse was struck. In the coin world similar types of marks ocassionaly appear when dirt, lint or a thread from a rag used to wipe down the die remains behind and a new planchect is struck over this debris. If I remember right the term sometimes used is an 'inclusion'. These marks look more pushed in rather than being caused by casting porosity.

JMO for what it's worth.

Tony

Tony

The expression between a rock and a hard place comes to mind.

The pits are more than a millimetre deep and not superficial. Metal is harder than dirt, lint, or threads. When metal hits something softer and pliable, the softer material is apt to get squeezed out the sides or spread very thin.

Mints turning out coinage require lots of machine tolerances not likely to be observed in a small business where tolerances aren't all that important.

Gas blow outs aren't always round. Gas or pressure venting from within works along stress lines, and causes material to seperate where it's weakest. Tyres don't blow out with round holes, pipes burst in all kinds of ways, and so on.

bunyip

**bunyip** · 01-07-2008, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by regular122 View Post

Thanks Tony for the analysis as well. Always nice to get your input. Thanks Marshall and Bunyip for the posting of the pics.

It is an intersting backing of that particular Meybauer piece as well. The obverse is textbook while the reverse is more in line with the single-sided smooth surface Godets. It varies from the other examples seen which are rough surface textured.

Would love to hear more from others about the inclusion possibility on Bunnyip's photo. Would also love to hear from Stephen P.

My understanding on the Meybauers is that they were struck along the same lines as the single-sided Godet variation. Maybe even the same die. I still believe that to be true but would love to hear from others. Since Meybauers are so rarely seen or discussed, not much is out there on them--even in Prussian Blue, where they do not even make an appearance but are discussed with the single-sides. Steve

The single sided Godet with the inscribed reverse may have been reworked froma two sided piece and not struck as a single sided piece. The reverse side shows the wedge and eagles are not flat and looks like the "usual" Godet shown in this thread. Instead of being made on one side only a standard cross may have been used, and the cross part, not the eagles of wedge, being filed flat so it could be inscribed.

bunyip

**Tiger 1** · 01-07-2008, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by bunyip View Post

Tony

The expression between a rock and a hard place comes to mind.

1.The pits are more than a millimetre deep and not superficial. Metal is harder than dirt, lint, or threads. When metal hits something softer and pliable, the softer material is apt to get squeezed out the sides or spread very thin.

2. Mints turning out coinage require lots of machine tolerances not likely to be observed in a small business where tolerances aren't all that important.

3. Gas blow outs aren't always round. Gas or pressure venting from within works along stress lines, and causes material to seperate where it's weakest. Tires don't blow out with round holes, pipes burst in all kinds of ways, and so on.

bunyip

Bunyip,

I beg to differ with you on some of your comments. I took the liberty of numbering your comments for referal.

#1. This is not true. I have several mint US coins that clearly show impressions of a thread pressed into the surface. The thread is obviously softer than the silver alloy used to mint these coins yet it's impression is full and undistorted to show that it was indeed a thread.

Secondly, if there is presence of grease or oil on/in the dies this also can also cause marks as liquids by their very nature are not compressable. The metal will move or displace first. Your statement in #3 about pipes bursting just reafirms this point.

#2. You state 'Mints turning out coinage require lots of machine tolerances not likely to be observed in a small business where tolerances aren't that important." I believe you meant to say that the tolerances were much closer instead of lots in this case.

Here again, the Germans, being very adept at working metal, cutting dies as well as their penchant for precision negates your comment. One just needs to look at the crisp detail on medals and badges of all sorts that have been produced by these very same 'small' businesses to see that this is indeed not the case you present. Were they perfect in each and every attempt at manufacture? Of course not. But it is not good science to base a theory on the exception rather than the norm.

#3. Granted gas blowouts aren't always round. BUT there seems to be no pits or voids showing any further depth. All these dimples look to be the same depth with a smooth bottom and nowhere do I see any dark centers indicating further porosity as opposted to just surface flaws.

Just some thoughts.

Tony

**Tiger 1** · 01-07-2008, 03:00 PM

Oops. Double post.

**regular122** · 01-07-2008, 09:41 PM

Thanks Tony and Bunyip. I am still of the opinion that the Meybauer I posted in this thread is struck, not cast. Would love to hear from others.

Marshall, fantastic Godet variation. Is it a post-war bronze-gilt? Can you post the entire cross and give us your knowledge on it? What would account for the stamped plate vice a stamp on the wedge? Thanks, Steve

**Biro** · 01-08-2008, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by regular122 View Post

...Marshall, fantastic Godet variation. Is it a post-war bronze-gilt? Can you post the entire cross and give us your knowledge on it? What would account for the stamped plate vice a stamp on the wedge? Thanks, Steve...

Steve...

It is the ex Tony Colson piece 1st seen here... Questionable PLM

I'm pretty sure it will be the same one seen by oak-leaf.

Marshall

**bunyip** · 01-08-2008, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Tiger 1 View Post

Bunyip,

Here again, the Germans, being very adept at working metal, cutting dies as well as their penchant for precision negates your comment. One just needs to look at the crisp detail on medals and badges of all sorts that have been produced by these very same 'small' businesses to see that this is indeed not the case you present. Were they perfect in each and every attempt at manufacture? Of course not. But it is not good science to base a theory on the exception rather than the norm.

#3. Granted gas blowouts aren't always round. BUT there seems to be no pits or voids showing any further depth. All these dimples look to be the same depth with a smooth bottom and nowhere do I see any dark centers indicating further porosity as opposted to just surface flaws.

Tony

Tony,

Yes the Germans were and still are capable of turning out precision results using both casting and machine methods. At times they've also turned out garbage. All of that is beside the point.

Die struck items can have impressions resulting from flaws in the process. Moulding can also have foreign materials imedded in the cast metal. If the mould is plaster or clay a small lump of that material might break off and turn up in the casting. The heat of casting wouldn't burn off clay or plaster at all. Any remaining pieces could be removed when the moulded metal is cleaned and finished.

Regardless of other how othe medals and items were made the discussion is about how Meybauer copies being discussed in this thread were made.

The reverse side of the medal in shown in gray scale has been heavily scratched over most of the surface and gilding remains in a few places in addition to the pits. .

Steve claims the piece shows hand work. I've asked Biro to post another two ppictures of the upper right hand eagle showing front and reverse sides. When the images are posted compare both sides carefully. I did not take photos of the SIDES of the arms of the cross or any other PROFILES. Now I see I should have.

The beaks on the front side are not well defined and not opened by hand tooling. The same beaks on the back side lack any clear shape and in outline do not look like beaks at all. The same thing can be said about the feathers at the back of the head.

Look at the back side. Edges where surface and sides meet are soft and rounded. The top edge along the arms of the cross isn't straight. It's wavy and rounded in several places. Where the eagle comes closes to the sides of the cross instead of seeing notches from tool cuts the edges are rounded and look like the remains of casting flanges.

I can provide the similar pictures for all of the other eagles. The story is the same. The eagles look soft and fuzzy. They lack detail. The beaks, heads and feet don't have the same front/back outline. Between the eagle and sides of the cross the edge should be straight. It's not. It's wavy. I saw no signs of hand tool marks. Perhaps Steve can show us some photos of actual tool marks from filing, hand chasing or chisel work on his?

bunyip

**regular122** · 01-09-2008, 12:14 AM

Bunyip,
Post # 18 & 26 show filing pretty clear all along the edges of every part of the eagle surfaces.
Post # 24 shows obvious hand chased letters.

Marshall, thanks for the redirect. What was Stephen's conclusion on that piece? Steve

**bunyip** · 01-09-2008, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by regular122 View Post

Bunyip,
Post # 18 & 26 show filing pretty clear all along the edges of every part of the eagle surfaces.
Post # 24 shows obvious hand chased letters.

Marshall, thanks for the redirect. What was Stephen's conclusion on that piece? Steve

Steve,

Your assertions are clear. Those photos aren't clear and detailed enough to show actual tool marks left by files along edges or actual chisel marks on the lettering. Your photos aren't good enough to show the actual surface condition of the metal and edges. Can you provide photos with that degree of detail or not?

The gray scale photos I had posted thanks to Biro, havve enough detail to show the surface of the example I'm talking about.

bunyip

**regular122** · 01-09-2008, 06:22 PM

Come on. The chased letter photos a blind man could see the etchings. But I will try nevertheless. The B&W photos, while showing the inclusions, do not lend themselves to the best dimension without color. Even so, I welcome your discussion and comments. I will attempt to provide even closer pics if possible. If not, then well, I tried. Thanks, Steve

**Tiger 1** · 01-09-2008, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by bunyip View Post

Tony,

1. Yes the Germans were and still are capable of turning out precision results using both casting and machine methods. At times they've also turned out garbage. All of that is beside the point.

****************

2. Regardless of other how othe medals and items were made the discussion is about how Meybauer copies being discussed in this thread were made.

****************

3. Steve claims the piece shows hand work. I've asked Biro to post another two ppictures of the upper right hand eagle showing front and reverse sides. When the images are posted compare both sides carefully. I did not take photos of the SIDES of the arms of the cross or any other PROFILES. Now I see I should have.

***************

4. Look at the back side. Edges where surface and sides meet are soft and rounded..... Where the eagle comes closes to the sides of the cross instead of seeing notches from tool cuts the edges are rounded and look like the remains of casting flanges.

I can provide the similar pictures for all of the other eagles. The story is the same. The eagles look soft and fuzzy. They lack detail. The beaks, heads and feet don't have the same front/back outline. Between the eagle and sides of the cross the edge should be straight. It's not. It's wavy. I saw no signs of hand tool marks. Perhaps Steve can show us some photos of actual tool marks from filing, hand chasing or chisel work on his?

bunyip

Bunyip,

We generally try to be civil in this forum. Having said that I will say that I detect a bit of 'talking down' to some of us here. We enjoy a spirited discussion here, just be careful you don't bump your nose while looking down it.

'Nuff said.................

Now on to that spirited discussion. I have again numbered your comments for ease of reference.

1. Agreed to a point in general but Meybauer is not known as a manufacturer of shoddy goods.

2. How other medals are made is certainly germain to the discssion at hand. Are you suggesting then that companies change the level of quality on some of their products on purpose? I realise that we are discussing Meybauer copies(?).

3. I see some hand burnishing used to break the edges on the reverse. especially closer to the center of the cross. The reflection suggests metal removed versus a softness due to the ropunding sometimes found on a cast piece.

4. See my remarks above in 3. Also the hand chasing of the lettering is pretty evident on the pictures Steve posted.

All the best,

Tony

Announcement

A Study of the Godet Style PlM

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread