A Study of the Godet Style PlM

[regular122]

To my eye, the pieces owned by Tony Colson (and Leroy) are not nearly as narrow at the waist as the Wulff piece, which is what caught my attention about Wulff's in the first place. It's the only thing about Wulffs' that elevates it above the mere.. "Schickle type" .. status that the other straight tail feather PLM's have.. which had, untill Wulffs showed up, been deemed as 20s/30's pieces.

Might be easier to refresh your memory on both pieces by clicking these two links...

TONY COLSON PLM


FRITZ WULFF PLM

Notice in the second link above that Wulffs hollow piece, when shown pictured next to his classic, solid, irrefutably wartime Godet, shows practically no descernable difference in width at the centre. Then compare them to Colsons...

It's already pretty confusing around here with all the names and variations flying about... so it would help to clarify that Wulffs hollow PLM, with it's very narrow waist, is not comparable to any 'Schickle' type piece because the central juncture is practically the same width as the standard classic Godet.

Everything else I've seen shown with straight tail feathers, has a wide... or at least wider.. waist.

Marshall

Thanks Marshall for that important observation to get us back on the center of the cross. Great point. Steve

[Biro]

Hi Leroy

Click on this link....

TAIL FEATHERS

The eagle on the left is from a classic wartime Godet. The tail has actual 'feathers'.. it is significantly better crafted than the eagle on the right, which is the type you have and we are discussing. The feathers are gone and now there are simply straight lines, or "grooves' where the feathers were.

Hope that helps.

Marshall

[Leroy]

Thanks! I see what you are talking about.

[Biro]

Thanks Marshall for that important observation to get us back on the center of the cross. Great point. Steve

It's only an important observation if it's correct!!

Certainly the photos I'm looking at appear to show different waist sizes between Wulffs' and Colsons' pieces.

[Zepenthusiast]

You are dead right about the waists, Marshall. Helps so much to see them in close proximity. Thought about this: Let's call the Wulff cross the prototype, and the fact its size/center form is a dead ringer for the wartime Godet is likely not accidental. If the cut-down theory is correct, we have lost about 1.2 mm in overall height between the reported dimensions of the Wulff cross and Leroy's rose , this may well represent the effective change in waist size. You can cut and paste these out of real paper and prove this, like I did with the Andreas wide-waist version. All that needs to change to make all of these is how much is cut away, and it may well prove it is always from the vertical axis only (which would be interesting in its own right.) Only fly in my theory's ointment is Les's report Colson's cross showed no evidence of a seam in the vicinity to his recollection. I suspect his recollection about examined PlMs is pretty darn good. The pictures I have seen are too low mag/resolution for me to see the tell-tale evidence. It certainly can be subtle, especially if you aren't looking for it.

So, might this place Wulff's cross early in the series of these, then?

Leroy,
I see the marks of which you inquire on the feathers. I think they are slight notching from the process of cleaning up and preparing the eagles for soldering. Looks like a very shallow saw cut notch in the lower more central feather in particular. Actually adds a nice bit of dimension to the feathering--hence they probably didn't see a need to touch it up.

[Biro]

... Let's call the Wulff cross the prototype, and the fact its size/center form is a dead ringer for the wartime Godet is likely not accidental......

Ok - but with that in mind, you also need to re-reference my earlier post...

WULFF PLM vs SCHICKLE PLM

The 'seams' (if that's what they are) that are eveident on many "Schickle types" with a wide waist are also visible on the Wulff ''prototype'' with a narrow waist.

See the dilemma?

Marshall

[Les]

I won't intrude into this thread as I am incompetent to discuss PLM's. If it's useful, here is some data about mine, which I posted about a year ago and which was identified as a Schickle:

Weight: 20.44 g
Width: 54.01 mm
Height from bottom arm edge to top of "pie": 55.28 mm
Arm width: 22.63 mm
"Weep" hole on each arm hidden beneath eagle's wing

Hollow construction.

Measurements can be deceptive if they are not taken by the same person, using the same (properly calibrated) instruments, and sometimes weird factors such as temperature differences. Calipers held at slight angles on the rounded edge of the points of the arms may not be that easy to measure consistent and get the same results each time. A second set of measurements should be taken and compared to the first ones, and if there is a difference, take several more and use an average, and note it as such.

As an aside, I've been playing with scanning PlMs, and placing a minted coin next to the PlM. That allows me to check scales, and overlap images without worrying about camera angles, parallax problems and the like. A 2.5"x 2.5" (inches) scanned image at 4800dpi makes a -huge- digital file, but the resolution is amazing!

For the moment, let's go with Leroy's measurements and I'll look up mine for the ones I took on the Colson piece.

[Les]

Steve, the Colson piece is -BRONZE GILT-, not silver gilt. It wasn't sold by Detlev, and it's not the one Alan has.

It is not gold, and was specifically tested to determine whether it was or not. The oaks were 14 karat gold, the cross was, and I'll repeat this, bronze-gilt.

Tony had it in his collection when he died, and the majority of his estate was sold by Andreas Theiss, who passed on the PlM because he didn't want it. The piece was subsequently sold as one of the few remaining items from Tony's estate that Theiss passed on.

I know where it is, have had the chance to examine and photograph it first hand.

The dimensions of Wulff's pieces are and have been available. They are posted in post #84. Here is the hollow piece again.

Wulff Hollow PlM

Specifications
Width - 53.47mm
Height - 54.64mm
Marks - 'JGuS' and '938' on the pie wedge rim
Weight - 22.24 g Silver-Gilt Hollow
Remarks - Eagle tail feathers are more streamline and long, similar to type known later as Schickle.



I've been traveling and been out of the loop a bit. No question on the silver gilt Colson piece Les but I am not sure the piece discussed in the old Colson thread is the same as the cross sold by Detlev to forum member Alan that came from his estate.

Tony claimed the cross in the old thread was gold. In appearance it differs remarkably from the one Alan now has that was featured on Detlev's auction. There is also no top mark plate on Alan's silver gilt PlM. Below is a picture of the cross Tony discussed as gold and hollow and the one Alan obtained from the Colson collection via Detlev. Whether Tony let it go or not, I have no idea. It might be ashame, especially if the two three stripers were once part of a group together.

Please study the pic below. These two crosses appear to be very different.

If the first Colson cross was not the same, and is gold as claimed, then it compares to the Wulff example as a hollow version of gold vice silver gilt with only a tiny bit less weight. Beyond the difference in metals of manufacture, dimensionally and in appearance, they compare nicely.

The technology and transition of 1916 Godets is historically possible between gold and silver-gilt pieces on the same die. Whether these surviving crosses were is the subject of much discussion already.

I believe the Wulff hollow cross is authentic. Nothing presented makes me believe that it is not. No evidence on Kleitmann, etc. can show it was not at least pre-1938. I believe it to be earlier than that. The manufacturing and markings are consistent with Godet and wartime. Some interesting and insightful discussion has been made on the eagles, but does not sway one way or the other on age of the cross--only possible technique.

I believe the Wulff cross is a fine example of a provenance piece and as such, we need to be careful not to ignore all the information relating to it, whether it fits what we think we may or may not know. As a historical investment, it is quite valuable and should be a welcome and rare cross in any private or public collection, one of the few of its kind.

Appreciate all of the fine and friendly analysis to date on this piece. Steve

[Les]

I don't doubt the Wulff cross is an authentic pre-1945 PlM, but where you are still perhaps pushing the envelope is in belief it is pre-1920, as it would stand as the lone example of its type, should that be true. All others--and this issue of whether the waist size was due to a cut-and-solder approach would make them literally all of the same origin--seem to be dated 1920's or later. Provenance then becomes the critical issue, and as has been previously set forth, that is still a bit up in the air in terms of the interpretation/sources (1st, 2nd, 3rd hand, etc.) Detlev himself is not on the record, for instance, that the hollow cross is wartime, only that is was obtained from the family from a wartime recipient. The rest we only know via the current owner and what he and you have heard from as yet undisclosed family. Given the gravity of the claim regards what is otherwise known and believed, caution remains reasonable/respectful.

Jim,

The matter of when the cross was made is a relevant issue to the discussion. If the piece was made after 1934, then Wulff could not have bought the piece, or owned it, because he died in the fall of 1934.

The provenance on the hollow piece with straight tail feathers is largely based on what the family is reputed to have said, without any direct "first person" input from any member of the family.

Markings? I've repeat the anthem...markings alone are not proof the piece is of wartime manufacture. So far, we're still waiting for them, particularly hi-resolution photos which have not been enhanced or modified in anyway except to make the size of the image acceptable for posting on the forum, before posting. They are important in being able to compare them directly to known and accepted Godet firm markings, but if they don't compare directly, that could potentially be a black mark against the piece.

Marshall, I know you have a nice collection of Godet markings, and should be able to do some comparisons when the time comes.

[Les]

new dies aren't complicated to make

Something that shouldn't be forgotten is the medal held in the hand, is the reverse image of the actual die.

The raised letters, crown, edge of the cross arms which are raised on the stamped piece, are the result of cutting or engraving into the surface of the die. The rest of the surface of the dies are left as is. When the dies are used to strike something, the raised areas on the dies, are forced into the sheet metal.

The dies used to strike a planchet or sheet of metal stock, are not that complicated to make.

During wartime, a jeweler struggling to keep up with orders may not have the luxury of diverting manpower, or a skilled engraver/jeweler to make new dies, and will continue using what works until the dies are worn out, break, or the war is over. Once the war is over, manpower needs, etc and mass production requirements ease-up. Post-war....jewelers have the time and luxury of making new designs to their heart's content, particularly if there are customers who want something different.

I'm hesitant about saying this, but the point is one that should be made.

Marshall's comments about similarities/dissimilarities of the Wulff and "Schickle" pieces do not require new dies, and could be accounted for quite differently than Jim's hypothesis of cutting and soldering.

Bear in mind, the hollow made crosses have the eagles applied separately. Those eagles are cast and creating a new eagle design is not a complicated process. If the crosses are the same on both, the maker could simply change the design of the eagles while using the same cross type. Once design (not materials used) changes in PlMs occur, they tend to be the norm or standard production from that point on.

[Brian S]

I've kept track of the discussion and nothing yet has convinced me that the Wulff cross in question is;

1) Wartime

2) Pre-1945 manufacture by Godet


I remain highly skeptical of this piece.

I am reading way too much where words like "consistent with", "qualities similar to" are being used to presuppose the cross is genuine.

These words have NEVER been presumed by any of the Wehrmacht guys to be an indication of genuine pieces.

They should not be now.

Let's see the maker mark. That at least tells us it was made by Godet. The when will continue to remain unknown but at least it puts it in the shop.

Let's see the maker mark.

[Zepenthusiast]

For Marshall: not a dilemma, really, other than for the apparent contradiction of the Colson cross reported by Les. If this is a manufacturing approach--and he is right that there is no face-value reason I can think of this would be helpful relative to doing hollow crosses the way they did in 1914--all of these should show the seams and the only question would be why they cut some of them down more and produced the wider waisted versions. If the die was creating "arrow heads" from which the tips were cut so as to fit them into a cross shape, all would feature such a finding. One possibility is that the Colson cross (and I guess there are two of those, too, to make matters more complicated) of which Les wrote was finished so finely as to hide the joints from anything but higher magnification inspection. That is not hard to imagine, given how beautifully the seams are disguised in the wartime multi-part crosses.

Les: Do you have images of the Colson cross center which would stand up to zoom/high magnification similar to those linked by Marshall for the Wulff cross?

[Les]

For Marshall: not a dilemma, really, other than for the apparent contradiction of the Colson cross reported by Les. If this is a manufacturing approach--and he is right that there is no face-value reason I can think of this would be helpful relative to doing hollow crosses the way they did in 1914--all of these should show the seams and the only question would be why they cut some of them down more and produced the wider waisted versions. If the die was creating "arrow heads" from which the tips were cut so as to fit them into a cross shape, all would feature such a finding. One possibility is that the Colson cross (and I guess there are two of those, too, to make matters more complicated) of which Les wrote was finished so finely as to hide the joints from anything but higher magnification inspection. That is not hard to imagine, given how beautifully the seams are disguised in the wartime multi-part crosses.

Les: Do you have images of the Colson cross center which would stand up to zoom/high magnification similar to those linked by Marshall for the Wulff cross?

Jim,

PM sent. I can't post directly, and have a larger image, 56k in size, ready to send. No seams in sight. The small "blob" looking thing at the lower-right junction is the result of a small spot where the enamel didn't cover the underlying metal. The "exposed" metal is below the surface of the surrounding model.

The seams in the images shown by Marshall remind me of what can happen when a piece is firmly clamped in a jewelers vice without the holding pins being padded.

The "seams" look like they could have been made when the cross was being hand finished, and held in a jewelers or engravers vise.

Clamping the cross along the sides of the arms could allow the piece to slip in the clamps/jaws, while using clamps at the junction of the arms at the narrowest places available where the piece could not work loose is how I'd clamp or hold this piece. (I've done some tinkering with engraving so I know what some of the problems are first hand.) Working on one surface of the metal with a hammer and chasing tool could leave an impression on the other side.

[Brian S]

I do not believe in multi-part arrow head construction of any legitimate PlM made after 1900! If a die is fabricated correctly in the first place, hundreds of hours of finishing is eliminated.

Existing dies are not 'edited' to produce narrow waist wide waist appearing PlMs. Do you know how hard the steel is on dies?

Let's see the maker mark.

[Les]

I do not believe in multi-part arrow head construction of any legitimate PlM made after 1900! If a die is fabricated correctly in the first place, hundreds of hours of finishing is eliminated.

Let's see the maker mark.

Amen.

Jim's hypothesis of cutting up and soldering crosses didn't consider something that argues in favor of new dies, not "recycling" arrow heads. The wartime Godet's have the "dipped" center on the M, while the "cut and soldered" ones in his hpothesis have "high" centers.

A technical point to something mentioned by Jim, regarding the use of solders that are stronger than the original material:

Using silver solders on gold isn't done because of the resulting chemical and electrical reactions that result. Also, using silver solders on bronze can result in the erosion of the softer material. For an example of metal erosion, consider what happens to bronze and copper plumbing fittings attached to steel pipe. Chemical/electrical reactions will cause the erosion of one material, and deposition of corrosive materials on the other.