A Study of the Godet Style PlM

[Leroy]

This is VERY hard to photograph.

P.S. I don't know if this cross is silver-gilt or medium carat gold.

[regular122]

Has anyone encountered this mark on other Schickle medals? Wild Card? Gordon? Others? Steve

[Wild Card]

Hello,

I can not recall seeing this mark, first hand,; but am aware of it through various discussions. If I can find anything definitive, I will post it.

Best wishes,

Wild Card

[regular122]

New info on Fritz Wulff's PlM

This is an update to post #83 concerning Frtiz Wulff's PlM. The good news is that the group is still together. The owner provided some additional info I felt should be added here.

As to the hollow piece and the other Wulff piece, both are believed by the current owner to be wartime made Godets.

"The owner believes without doubt that both the hollow and the solid silver gilt PLM's from Wulff are fine original period pieces which were purchased by Wulff in 1918. In addition, the family never said that the hollow PLM was purchased in the 1920's after his solid silver gilt PLM was damaged in a police action in the 1920's. The family only said that family tradition believes that the solid silver gilt PLM was damaged when he served as Police President from Dusseldorf in the 1920's."

So, given this new information, it raises some other possibilities. Was a Godet awarded to him and another one purchased? Or did Wulff acquire both pieces privately and possibly now, together? Given that there were only a few weeks left in the war, we may never know. There is still no new information as to what was, if any actual award, presented when Wulff was announced as a PlM recipient in October 1918.

Even so, it is important to note that these pieces could easily be wartime examples only and not one of them post war as previously speculated. Given the proximity of the war's end even to the 1920 Duesseldorf episode, they more than likely were wartime made anyway.

What is also still worthy of note is that recipients did acquire privately, wear and own more than one award.

Many thanks to the owner for the additional info. Steve

[Zepenthusiast]

Interesting update, Steve, but raises a couple of questions:

What features or information have led the owner to believe the cross with the Schickle-style feathers is wartime? Wouldn't this be a contradiction to previously accepted evidence this particular feather style was introduced post-war and that there are no wartime crosses similarly fashioned?

Second, I was under the impression there has never been any evidence a Godet was awarded officially, only acquired as officially sanctioned private purchase. Though it would not be inconceivable such could happen at the late stage of the war, there is nonetheless evidence of multiple known Wagner crosses issued during that time to other recipients, so why an exception for Wulff?

Lastly, Detlev's site allows for quite reasonable zoom on the images, and the photo of Wulff accompanying the group strongly suggests he is wearing a typical Wagner PlM. It is most noticeable in the ratio of the cross arm-width to the spacing between arms, but the suspension sure looks baroque rather than pie slice, too (to the extent visible.) The owner could verify one way or the other, of course.

With all due respect, I don't see how the information provided establishes that either of these could "easily be wartime examples only." The owner is entitled to their own sense of certainty, of course, but going against the current of established belief would seem to require more than just personally believing something "without doubt."

Thoughts?

[regular122]

I don't disagree Jim with the premise, but in this case, the family certainly carries a lot of weight on when the awards were acquired. For example, Brian's family has information impossible to know about von Etzel without it being carried forward by them. While family info can be wrong, it often proves to be more accurate than many want to admit. In this case, we have to explore the possibility of the claim on war time acquisition and look at that thoroughly.

As to the eagles, well, Godet is known to make things out of the norm on private purchased pieces. This would range from one-sided, to rim engraved, etc. that we know of.

While perhaps out of the norm, the recipient's family attests that these actual awards were owned by him and that they were acquired at the same time. The family claimed Wulff purchased them in 1918. When exactly is not known from the information provided to me. However, the family, Detlev and the owner all have claimed wartime. That said, it is conceivable that they could have been given the late awarded date of the PlM to Wulff.

I hope to get a better pic of Wulff with the medals. Happy New Year to all, Steve

[Zepenthusiast]

I could probably claim title to "King" of the arcane variant advocates ("Fool" might be the more appropriate royal court designation), Steve, so forgive me for being resident nit-picker on this subject. To clarify, though:

Is the family definitively on record as stating both of these awards were obtained during the war--or in 1918 at any rate--or just that "the family never said the hollow silver piece was purchased in the 1920's" etc., as you initially put it? There is an important distinction. Are we getting that information from the Wulff family in some fashion, or only from the new owner of the collection? Reviewing Detlev's description of the lots, available in the thread about the three groupings being offered (and on his site,) he never specifically states either of the Wulff awards are wartime, to be exact. The documentation and other awards of Wulff's are specifically stated as such, but the medals are not. This is only being reasonable and circumspect on Detlev's part, as he can only go off what he sees and has heard as well. The damaged solid piece is consistent with what would be expected from 1918, while the hollow one is not typical.

While one cannot doubt the family may be the best remaining historical source for such information, via family tradition, we are also talking about information passed through at least two generations and getting close to 100 years old, and where one might add there is at least a vested interest in one form of belief over another. Before this history takes on a life of its own--and it does represent a revision of much currently held belief in what and when Godet made--it would seem prudent to get as close to the primary source as possible (such as a notarized statement from one of the senior Wulffs, etc.) In this forum, which has some authoritative value, the report is now either third or fourth hand, if you follow me.

[regular122]

The family info was obtained by Detlev. The previous owner, to my knowledge in our correspondence, had not contacted the family directly. The current owner seems to confirm that as well.

As I look at it, it is possible the second award could have been a replacement in 1920 as supposed. But given the family statements to Detlev, we have to go with the plausibility of them being possible in 1918. I think there is as much to support that as the other.

Wulff was a wealthy man, so acquiring two pieces of fine workmanship would not have been an issue. Why two? Well, the same reason a second one was purchased by any recipient -- to wear and not damage the higher quality one issued. As we do not know if a Wagner or any other make was actually issued, the hollow award seems consistent with wartime make and Godet is known to have made several variations of solid pieces (such as the one-sided versions). The current owner leads me to believe that these were the only awards the family was aware of in Wulff's possession.

I am not aware of a letter, but Detlev stated that the family said the Godets were obtained at the same time and in 1918. That is what we have.

Nitpicking is fine. Folks do it all the time. There really is no other way to get to the details. But I do always appreciate your civility Jim.

Steve

[Zepenthusiast]

Appreciate the compliment, Steve. There is so much to be learned, for those with a passion for history in its large and small forms, that it makes sense to grant different points of view will exist on a subject of debate and explore them to the depth possible. No doubt, when "digging deep enough" surgically one is bound to hit a nerve (or two!) but with care and delicacy much can be accomplished. I think same goes for exploring some of these topics.

Detlev is away until the the 10th, so no way just yet to get his help with this, but looking over his site and the two threads here on WAF addressing Wulff's group, (which I have seen, at any rate) there is a sequence of events which would seem to be worth understanding in their own right. Here I am speaking not just in regard to the academic understanding of PlM types--typical wartime Godet vs. Schickle type--but also the meteoric rise in value of a PlM with provenance. The euro value for the two Wulff groups was very impressive, especially if the hollow cross were held to be postwar. You would seem to be describing a single current owner of both Wulff PlMs, suggesting the two groups were purchased from Detlev and re-united into a single group. This is very desirable from a historical standpoint --that the "uber"-group not be spiit up--as well as probably a boon to the collector (who would seem to have access to more capital than most of us!)

On Detlev's site, however, he only lists the hollow cross with accompanying documents in the archive of originals now. The solid and the associated ribbon bar do not appear. The description of both reads they were purchased from the family about 4 years earlier: why were the two separated? Especially given that the documentation of the award was more likely to temporally link to the classic wartime Godet type than the hollow form of Schickle association? I still would believe, based on the photo of Wulff until proven otherwise, he was most likely awarded a Wagner like everyone else and purchased additional from Godet. Hence the documents would apply "equally" to either of these crosses coming from the family. The documentation thus carried additional weight to the purchase of the hollow cross, effectively, even though in isolation (or if the two PlMs were switched in which group they were put up for sale) the hollow may have gone for less than the solid--despite its exquisite worksmanship--due to being considered "postwar." What i'm getting at is a price is now associated with the hollow cross's sale history which is as much attributable to the documentation's value as to that of the cross, and a conjecture is taking weight here, that the Schickle form may have co-existed with the typical wartime Godet; further, that a Godet may have been actually awarded in primary place of a Wagner. These are pretty substantial leaps and would seem to require some kind of significant verification, as it has powerful implications for the monetary valuation of these pieces and others like them.

[Brian S]

Tony, Marshall, Paul,

I've put together some eagle comparisons of Paul's eagle with Marshall's fine example, my Meybauer and Tony's unknown Godet style eagle.

Here is Marshall's eagle with Paul's bronze gilt one. Clearly from the same mold / die. But note the fine imprint of the eagle on the left and then a few odd out of place bubble's on the bronze-gilt on the right. Maybe just a variation vice a cast. Clearly the same eagle though.

I hate to quote this so long after the fact but I do not believe these to be the same eagles. The one clearly, for the most obvious reason, has a longer neck???

[Brian S]

Interesting update, Steve, but raises a couple of questions:

What features or information have led the owner to believe the cross with the Schickle-style feathers is wartime? Wouldn't this be a contradiction to previously accepted evidence this particular feather style was introduced post-war and that there are no wartime crosses similarly fashioned?

Second, I was under the impression there has never been any evidence a Godet was awarded officially, only acquired as officially sanctioned private purchase. Though it would not be inconceivable such could happen at the late stage of the war, there is nonetheless evidence of multiple known Wagner crosses issued during that time to other recipients, so why an exception for Wulff?

Lastly, Detlev's site allows for quite reasonable zoom on the images, and the photo of Wulff accompanying the group strongly suggests he is wearing a typical Wagner PlM. It is most noticeable in the ratio of the cross arm-width to the spacing between arms, but the suspension sure looks baroque rather than pie slice, too (to the extent visible.) The owner could verify one way or the other, of course.

With all due respect, I don't see how the information provided establishes that either of these could "easily be wartime examples only." The owner is entitled to their own sense of certainty, of course, but going against the current of established belief would seem to require more than just personally believing something "without doubt."

Thoughts?

I agree with you that the Schickle piece, and it certainly looks like the one in the catalog, and yes those are photographs.

The Wulff photo looks like a Wagner to me... Suggesting to me postwar Godet acquisition.

Finally, is the 'family word' that of a member of the family who lived and knew the man personally? When referring to my family's 'word', it comes directly from my mother, his daughter, who knew him and talked to him often about his wartime experiences. Of course having the Wagner really cuts down on the controversy.

[regular122]

I agree with you that the Schickle piece, and it certainly looks like the one in the catalog, and yes those are photographs.

The Wulff photo looks like a Wagner to me... Suggesting to me postwar Godet acquisition.

Finally, is the 'family word' that of a member of the family who lived and knew the man personally? When referring to my family's 'word', it comes directly from my mother, his daughter, who knew him and talked to him often about his wartime experiences. Of course having the Wagner really cuts down on the controversy.

First to Jim.

The group was never broken up with the first owner. From my understanding, he was the one that sort of 'united it' in segments from the family. It potentially would have been with the recent sale. Fortunately, the new owner bought all of it to keep it together.

I too have had to look back rather than postwar with the new info assertions. It seemed fitting for a replacement piece to occur after a damaged one. However, I am now becoming more convinced that the Godets were from 1918 given the info at hand. If I may, the owner made the following statement:

"The photo clearly shows a pie slice eye and not a baroque eye......I will leave you with my unsophisticated thoughts on the grouping. Both Wulff crosses compares nicely to known Godet wartime examples. The lettering is chased,the maker marks correspond to known wartime examples and the weight, color and size are consistent with Godet wartime crosses. This is Detlev and other's view as well. We will never know when Wulff actually purchased his crosses. However, I believe that sometime between Oct 1, 1918 and sometime immediately after the war, he purchased both his Godet crosses. I doubt a proud and wealthy man would have waited until the 1920's to buy his crosses. As to his issued piece, I believe that he never received it. His grouping indicates that he was careful and saved almost all items of his war record. It would not seem plausible to me that he would not take care of his issue piece even if he preferred his Godet pieces. Immediately after the war and well into 1919, the three major makers of PLM's would still have their wartime stock and would have sold these pieces to official recipients."

Until I receive the scan of the original photo, which I hope to obtain shortly, I will reserve comment on what he is wearing.

The conjecture of a Godet awarded piece was merely a thinking out loud remark by me in trying to fit a 1918 scenario. A possibility? Well, maybe. Likely? Probably not.

The owner makes an excellent point on the meticulous nature of Wulff and his grouping. He kept everything. There is more paper in this group than one could possibly hope for. If a Wagner were awarded, he likely would have managed to keep it. The photo may disprove this, but until a better pic is in hand, it may just reinforce Godet. The owner's attention to it claims Godet. I will wait and see the scan from the original photo since that is a possibility open to me.

Brian,

Had to dig there to find that post! You are correct on the necks but as I look it over, it could also be explained with the amount of material removed by filing and finish. The height and placement of the heads seems consistent even if one of the necks seem more filed? I will have to study it more. But those necks in that photo were on two variations of a Godet type, not the odd piece of Tony's. That is clearly something else. Great point on the von Etzel Wagner. Makes it better for sure!



Good discussion. One thing is worth mentioning. I, for one, am grateful that the owner, and the previous owner, kept this Wulff group together. That was no easy task. Few are those able to do it. The collecting community should be grateful indeed that we can even have these discussions.

This is no slight to the vendors. They must eat. Without them, many pieces like this in the past would never even be offered in a manner making group acquisition obtainable. And how many of us have 'gone to school' on the expertise of trusted vendors handling such significant groups and handling enough of them to point out things we might never know?

Still, it is sad to see when groups get broken. While the collecting community was in a fever over the Wulff group, another equally impressive group was quietly broken up and sold in 10 auction lots. That was the one belonging to Karl Stumpff. While the individuals that obtained a bit or a bob of this fine group are no doubt as thrilled as I would be to have even a part of it, it is now lost as a group. Such is the way with the passing of time. Steve

[Brian S]

I'm just seeing two different eaglets, I don't want to offend, it's just my observation, and I KNOW how hand finished PlMs were...

[Biro]

...If I may, the owner made the following statement:

"..Both Wulff crosses compares nicely to known Godet wartime examples....

This is a big statement from the owner of this group. One of Wulfs PLM's compares nicely to what we consider classic wartime Godets, the other is some sort of Schickle/Godet hybrid.. neither fully Schickle because the central juncture of the cross-arms is not enlarged, nor 'classic' Godet because the tail feathers are not present.

I wouldn't dispute any of the other claims about this grouping, but would want absolute proof from the owner that the PLM with the chased out tail feathers.. "compares nicely to KNOWN Godet wartime examples...." Merely quoting Detlevs' say-so does not give the owner licence to make an absolute statement like this.

Still - all in all - as I said before, a nice grouping!

Marshall

[regular122]

That is the odd thing Marshall. I, too, did not even consider wartime due to the differences and what we think we know about post war crosses. But, given the other 'customer made' variations of Godet post 1916 crosses, it at least deserves a look. Hence, my updating of this thread with the new information provided to me. I agree that it is not a ringer for a type we think of when we think Schickle because the center is not that pronounced. Still, the eagles, while different, are not out of the realm of Godet at all. Just not out of the same die? Or modified by handwork?

Brian,

As I look closely at the picture, there are indeed some differences to the wartime Godet. But not so much so to the Meyabuer, which, one might assume is post 1918 and both would be bronze-gilt. The filing marks are varying. But the surface of Paul's example still seems a bit cast. Hard to say. A fine piece though and the first two-sided bronze-gilt to surface.

Steve