A Study of the Godet Style PlM

[regular122]

Sorry for any offense Brian. I got your PM much later in the day to reply to you. One of the disadvantages of the edit system now.

No offense was meant. I am merely trying to avoid trampling on the good nature of those providing info and prevent them from losing patience and providing us nothing that could help from this point.

I do hope you stay tuned Brian as your insights have and will continue to be irreplaceable.

To any others offended, it is not my intention but I felt the point needed to be made. Delivery and words are always a limitation.

Thanks, Steve

[Zepenthusiast]

Steve, I don't think you were out of line to say that. While I think Brian jumps out and voices everyone's interest in seeing the marks, shall we say "avidly" (I rather enjoy the cows, personally, by the way), you are right to point out the gravity of the situation. By extension, what might seem "fiddly" to some in our discussion is of real-world importance. What is written in this forum carries weight in the wider world of collectors. If you doubt that, try Google searching "Schickle PlM" or similar and see what pops up on top. Very significant amounts of money change hands based on what the interested parties in this field believe, and it should not be taken lightly in any fashion. Brian's passion to get to the marks is an expression of this, too, I think you realize. If it wasn't really important, he (and the rest of us) wouldn't be so focused on the subject, either. Anyway, enough of my commentary--looking forward to getting the images if you can. Am particularly interested in the relative size of the digits/letters, too....

[Leroy]

I said I wouldn't comment anymore, but I lied!

I went back and looked at my supposed Schickle PLM following all the very interesting remarks about clamping, separate arms being joined, etc. Under very high magnification, I see NO indication of arms being joined together to create a "whole" cross, or solder being covered over by enamel. I DO, however, believe that there are residual clamp marks in the area of the center, which makes some sense to me as a way to hold two hollow halves together during the heat exposure which would follow from attachment of the eagles (which are attached in a way where the feet actually are directly on top of the "seam lines"). As a novice, I have no idea of the significance, if any, of this observation, but thought I should pass it along as I do have some small advantage in having the piece in hand, so I can read something here and then go directly to the cross to follow up on what I have read. As a sidenote, and just to clarify, I have always "felt" that the piece was post-WWI and probably was made in the 30's. As an old RK collector, I have gotten pretty well atuned to the "look" of a piece from that period (almost like Lovejoy, on a much greater scale, in the old TV and book series was a "divvy").

I have the highest respect and admiration for what you guys are doing here. Please believe me when I tell you that there is a level of expertise and serious thought here that is simply not found very much any more when RK's are discussed. If I thought I would live long enough to learn what you guys already know, I would switch to Imperial in a heartbeat! It's too hard, though, to teach this old dog new tricks!

Now I will (truly, honestly!) keep quiet.

[regular122]

Thanks Jim and Leroy. Having all the facts has never stopped any of us from comment. And observation without a certain depth of understanding can still point out things we all miss. It is like the neighbor that comes over while you have been under the hood of your car all day and says, "there's your problem."

That is what makes this forum valuable. My hope has always been to add to rather than take away and perhaps that can still be achieved in this Godet thread with the insights provided by so many.

Perhaps a summary of where we are on the Wulff hollow piece with information I now have is useful.

Specifications

Width - 53.47mm (as compared to 52.12mm on the traditional Wulff Godet)
Height - 54.64mm (as compared to 54.04mm on the traditional Wulff Godet)
Marks - 'JGuS' and '938' on the pie wedge rim
Weight - 22.24 g Silver-Gilt Hollow (as compared to 32.8 g on the solid, silver-gilt traditional Wulff Godet)

Circumstances of acquisition

Wulff Godets and all medals sold together as a group direct from family by Detlev Niemann. Entire group, minus traditional chipped Godet, sold by Detlev to private individual in 2005.

Traditional Wulff silver-gilt Godet piece with chip sold later direct from family by Detlev Niemann to same individual sometime later (2008?).

Detlev Neimann sells Wulff group again to current owner (2009). Current owner also buys second Wulff PlM separately from Detlev to keep the Wulff group together.

Note from current owner I received last month, "Detlev Niemann states without doubt and has issued an expertise that states clearly that both PLM's are original wartime pieces purchased directly from the family four years ago and that both pieces belonged to Fritz Wulff....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....The family of Fritz Wulff signed a sale receipt to Detlev that all medals and all award documents were in the family possession and belonged to Fritz Wulff."

Note: Hollow piece was always in original group of medals from family. Traditional unquestioned Wulff Godet with chip was purchased later by first owner to rejoin the group, not vice-versa.

Summary of Remarks on Hollow Wulff Godet-

Eagle tail feathers similar to type known later as Schickle.

Narrow Center unlike Schickle - makes it unique and highly unusual. Discussion follows on how center could be narrow while sharing characteristics of wider waist crosses such as the Schickle. Discussion on mitred joints with separate pieces creating a later wide center. Discussion on how and why Godet would transition dies at all.

High centered M unlike traditional Godet but like Schickle types

Maker marks like traditional wartime Godet

Request for pics of maker marks

Poor choice of words by me and a call for patience.

That is a brief summary.


Below is not the best picture on the hollow marks, but my best attempt with what I have until something better comes which may be some weeks. The two wedges below are both from the Wulff Godets. The hollow one is on the left. Thanks, Steve

[Brian S]

Please refer to Previtera's great book on page 364. I do not see a match. The '8' on this specimen is quite distinct. Although one would immediately think "they must have had many many stamps lying around", this does not match what we know to be true. It's my opinion that when the items left a certain stage of the finish, they were graded as "OK" and stamped for release. If anyone can show any other good Godets with markings other than what is shown on the above reference, I'd like to see them.

Thank you for the photo.

[Brian S]

Here's the enlargement so I could see it more clearly:

[Zepenthusiast]

The summary is a good idea, given the growth of this thread, Steve. As cross-currents get woven in, we may need to consider it a fabric and not just a thread!

The markings are not sharply visible of course, but two immediate concerns on seeing this somewhat better and larger image:

1) Correct me if I am wrong, but unlike Wagner's notoriously variable strikes, Godet's known marks tend to be clear and deep. On a silver gilt piece, one cannot cite wear as the cause for the fade off of the marks superiorly, as the gilding would be gone. A better image would of course assist in this regard.

2) It would appear there is an ampersand next to the S, not a "u" or "U." While I understand Godet was known to use an ampersand in some of their marks, this would not appear to be JGuS as stated.

3) The relative size of the marks to the cross margin and to one another (the content mark to the maker mark) appear inconsistent with examples depicted in Prussian Blue. All the characters are larger, and the silver content appears to be of the same size as the maker mark, whereas it is uniformly smaller in other cases.

I point these things out as just the observations they are and will leave those with greater expertise to elaborate upon them.

Leroy--I may draw you back in yet! Appreciate your ability to give testimony based on direct observation of your cross. I have taken the liberty of copying one of the images you previously posted and adding some arrows. Hope that's OK with you. Are the indicated marks illusions of light reflection? I realize photos can trick one as Les has emphasized, but angled light can also reveal subtleties which might be otherwise missed, even under a microscope. I can vouch for that for sure. If these marks are tracks of a vice, etc., they have a peculiar alignment not with each other, but with the edges of the cross?

[IMG][/IMG]

[Leroy]

Leroy--I may draw you back in yet! Appreciate your ability to give testimony based on direct observation of your cross. I have taken the liberty of copying one of the images you previously posted and adding some arrows. Hope that's OK with you. Are the indicated marks illusions of light reflection? I realize photos can trick one as Les has emphasized, but angled light can also reveal subtleties which might be otherwise missed, even under a microscope. I can vouch for that for sure. If these marks are tracks of a vice, etc., they have a peculiar alignment not with each other, but with the edges of the cross?

[IMG][/IMG]

They appear to me to be clamp marks. Why they are arranged in this manner, I have no idea, except perhaps that each area was clamped as the eagle for that area was soldered. Anyway, that's my best GUESS.

[Brian S]

The summary is a good idea, given the growth of this thread, Steve. As cross-currents get woven in, we may need to consider it a fabric and not just a thread!

The markings are not sharply visible of course, but two immediate concerns on seeing this somewhat better and larger image:

1) Correct me if I am wrong, but unlike Wagner's notoriously variable strikes, Godet's known marks tend to be clear and deep. On a silver gilt piece, one cannot cite wear as the cause for the fade off of the marks superiorly, as the gilding would be gone. A better image would of course assist in this regard.

2) It would appear there is an ampersand next to the S, not a "u" or "U." While I understand Godet was known to use an ampersand in some of their marks, this would not appear to be JGuS as stated.

3) The relative size of the marks to the cross margin and to one another (the content mark to the maker mark) appear inconsistent with examples depicted in Prussian Blue. All the characters are larger, and the silver content appears to be of the same size as the maker mark, whereas it is uniformly smaller in other cases.

I point these things out as just the observations they are and will leave those with greater expertise to elaborate upon them.

Leroy--I may draw you back in yet! Appreciate your ability to give testimony based on direct observation of your cross. I have taken the liberty of copying one of the images you previously posted and adding some arrows. Hope that's OK with you. Are the indicated marks illusions of light reflection? I realize photos can trick one as Les has emphasized, but angled light can also reveal subtleties which might be otherwise missed, even under a microscope. I can vouch for that for sure. If these marks are tracks of a vice, etc., they have a peculiar alignment not with each other, but with the edges of the cross?

I'm not sure how this mult-part PlM discussion is adding to the reality of the PlM in question?

[regular122]

Here are a few rim marks Brian. The WUlff hollow mark is upper right for comparison. The upper left is the Krause PlM and the lower right crosses are a silver-gilt and gold respectively. Thanks to Andreas Ising for those pics. The two lower shots on the left side are the same cross. Sorry, I do not know where the photo came from but it was in my files. Apologies to owner if out there.

While there are similiarities, there are also differences. It seems that the one thing for certain when taken together with Prussian Blue marks on page 364 is that nothing is certain with these wartime cross marks. But the comparisons are still good and I, too, would be interested in seeing another ampersand marked Godet for comparison.

Please bear in mind that the poor quality rim pic of Wulff's hollow cross I posted was from the Detlev certificate of authenticity copy sent by the previous owner some time ago. I am hoping that I posted the correct one as I believe I have. If not, I will correct it. Steve

[Brian S]

No match to my eyes.

[Zepenthusiast]

The multi-part issue is important in that the Wulff cross appears to be one of a "type," except that the argument can and has been raised that it has a very narrow waist, more akin to the wartime standard, and hence "can't be considered the same as the wider waist Schickle-types." This assumes there would be no way to make those others from the same master as this one. If, however, one can account for all of this type as being made from a common source (what I deemed "prototype" or original Master, if you will) then I believe one must look at the hollow Wulff cross in context of its apparent "family," all the rest of which have been held to be postwar. That seems pretty relevant.

[Brian S]

You're injecting multi-part construction into the mix and that doesn't make this cross real/unreal or anything else? If you want to prove any wartime or pre-1945 PlM is multi-part you should start a new thread don't you think? This cross simply has to rest on its own no matter what the construction technique.

If even it's 10 or more parts one of those parts such match die for die flaw any part on a proven Godet PlM. As such the number of parts is entirely irrelevant.

[Zepenthusiast]

You cannot decide if it's "real" if you don't know where it fits into the scheme of what was or was not produced at a given point in history. If your point is to decide if this is a classic solid silver Godet, it clearly is not and the markings or anything else don't matter. So no point in wasting any time on any other point.

Can you be absolutely certain this cross was not produced in 1918? Absolutely not. Is it more consistent with work done after 1918? It would appear so. This thread is titled "A Study of the Godet Style Cross," not "A Study of the Godet Cross," so such speculation is not only germane, but perhaps of more global usefulness than the particular question of the hollow Wulff piece. Keep in mind the latter was introduced into this thread for precisely the reason it appeared to be an interesting example of a Godet Style Cross. It was not the origin of this thread.

[Les]

On an arced or curving surface, stamping or marking a piece may require two or more stamps. The images Steve posted, on the left side of his comparisons, show the markings are not lined up, suggesting a flat surfaced die could not strike all of the markings at once. I'm not going to go into a discussion of camera angles on curved surfaces, use of flat dies on curved surfaces, etc. but I am thinking about what all of these factors imply with regards to the hollow straight tailed piece.

Brian has already commented on the "8". There are also very subtle and what appear to be differences in the shape of the "9" and the "3" particularly when compared to the silver gilt example on the right also with an ampersand ( "&" marking ), with a photo courtesy of Andreas. There is something else about that photo with regards to the "Wulff" piece that looks real and not the result of a camera angle, etc.

Look at the height or size of the "Wulff" 938 and compare the "938" on the example from Andreas' web-site. The "Wulff" markings appear to be much larger than the "Andreas example". Look at how much space appears to be on the top and bottom edges of both, and there -seems- to be a size difference in addition to slight differences in the numbers.

The numbers might look alike to some, but these don't appear to have been made from the "same" dies. If better photos are available in the future, would it be possible to see the color of the markings and rim as they appear to the eye. I'd like see how much of the original finish is present, if gilding was applied, and what it any traces remain.