A Study of the Godet Style PlM

[regular122]

The back

[regular122]

Rim marks. Glare makes them a bit tough to read on the J.G.&S. but much better than what we had.

[regular122]

And an eagle detail. Many thanks again to the owner of this wonderful cross. Steve

[Zepenthusiast]

These are beautiful pictures of a beautiful cross, Steve. Many thanks to you and the owner for posting them. The reverse side: re the theory this type of hollow cross could be assembled from multiple parts at the center junction, it would sure seem there is a seam-line of sorts passing beneath the enamel (and leaving a surface effect) between the 7:30 and 10:30 vertices. I am sure someone will immediately call it a trick of the light and say I'm imagining it, and maybe I am, but seems like a heck of an incidental...

[Zepenthusiast]

Could be a crack in the enamel, I suppose...

[Biro]

Probably worthy of addition to this thread is this example currently in auction at Herman Historica.

There is no mention of Godet or Schickle, but the sales description is fairly clear on the dating of this piece.

Note there is no letter chasing and it is a little ambiguous as to whether the eagles were applied after 1918 or whether the whole piece post dates 1918 - I suspect they mean the latter.

The reserve price of 1500 euro indicates that while it is labelled a "Jewellers Copy", they consider this not much more than a trinket.

Marshall


From their catalogue...

Herman Historica Auction # 59
Lot Nr.5110
An Order Pour le mérite. <O></O>
Gilt silver and blue enamel, a high quality jeweller's copy with separately applied eagles after 1918. Dimensions 54 x 53 mm. Weight 22.5 g. <O></O>
<TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0cm; WIDTH: 111pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0cm" width=148>
</TD><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0cm; WIDTH: 102pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0cm" width=136>Limit: 1500 EURO<O></O>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Zepenthusiast]

Quite a bit of interesting observations to be made from this one, Marshall!

Note the notches on the left side of one of the central tail feather "veins" which radiate downward--very reproducibly present in size and postion on both this cross and the gilded version under discussion. These would appear to be die-flaws. It would seem the eagles, while attached separately to the cross body, were apparently stamped, not cast, and made from the same dies.

Second, there sure seems a powerful suggestion of the postulated joints at the cross arms here.

[Zepenthusiast]

If you look at the HH auction posting for the cross, there is a very nice tool which allows fantastic high detail analysis. I submit there can be no doubt that particular specimen was formed by joining of two or more separate sets of arms. The seams are utterly obvious under high magnification and there is no overlying gilding to hide them. Incidentally, the detail on the eagles is terrific as well under high-mag. The tail feathers show individual veins and the notches previously noticed would appear to be intentional detail and not a die flaw per se. Very beautiful piece of craftsmanship in its own respect.

[Biro]

...I submit there can be no doubt that particular specimen was formed by joining of two or more separate sets of arms. ....

I didn't argue with that theory then http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...&postcount=174 , and I can't argue with it now..



Marshall

[Biro]

Front

[Zepenthusiast]

Wow, Marshall--magic image capture! Great close-ups. So...vertical arms in one piece with the side arms added as "wings," or four pieces joined together? The nature of the joints have frequently suggested the former, to me, but the measurements of the "wide center" crosses suggested the horizontal width was stable and the truncation was vertical (bringing the base of the "F" closer to the top of the "rite," that is.) This one is not truncated, of course.

[Brian S]

Quite a bit of interesting observations to be made from this one, Marshall!

Note the notches on the left side of one of the central tail feather "veins" which radiate downward--very reproducibly present in size and postion on both this cross and the gilded version under discussion. These would appear to be die-flaws. It would seem the eagles, while attached separately to the cross body, were apparently stamped, not cast, and made from the same dies.

Second, there sure seems a powerful suggestion of the postulated joints at the cross arms here.

On this "trinket" I would agree. I would further postulate that any PlM so manufactured of seperate pieces is a "TRINKET".

[Zepenthusiast]

Even if not a wartime cross, Brian, these were assembled by very skilled artisans who went to a lot of trouble to provide a quality piece during one of the greatest economic depressions ever experienced by a developed nation. I'm not sure how many trinket collectors were around in 1920's Germany, but one might reasonably surmise the effort was targeted at members of the Order who could afford to buy it and had a reason to do so.

[Brian S]

No Jim. I disagree. These were created much much later. PlM dies were plentiful enough to create PlMs honestly. These are more recent copies where a section from perhaps a real cross was molded to start a fake frame.

These are all fakes in my opinion. You can try to build a PlM from a Pig's Ear but in the end you still have a badly assembled Hog. I'm not getting into this with you. You believe what you want. No honest PlM is of multipart construction like these fakes.



I doubt Marshal is agreeing with you that these are old stock PlMs of multipart construction. If he is then I disagree with him also.

Multipart yes, fake yes.

Skilled artisans during the Great Depression, NONSENSE! Cheap fakes created from molding post 1950's.

Honestly, I don't care if you buy one of these for many thousands of dollars. That's your choice, enjoy.

[Zepenthusiast]

When it gets down to it, Brian, I'm not buying anything, anyway. I'm decidedly a "photo guy" and admittedly an amateur. I don't have a budget to spend on anything known to be original. However, there is no doubt the, shall we call it, "Schickle" tail feather assemblage existed prior to 1940. As I see it ("Joe objective"), there is not a single one of these post-1918 crosses with this tail feather pattern which are not potentially of the postulated multi-part construction. How one can pin them to the 1950's I don't know--it would seem there are plenty of authoritative German sources allocating them to the 1920's. Apologies to Marshall and Les if that is going too far for someone of my limited experience.

Sure, if your interest is only in 1918 and earlier Pour le Merite variants, then you can quit now and know you remain on solid territory. I'm not saying any of these are wartime/earlier than 1920's and no contention there. They are worth what they are worth to whoever wants to pay whatever for them. The Order of the PlM, while not bestowed afer the abdication of the Kaiser, nonetheless has a significant history played out throughout the lives of the recipients. The interwar years and WWII do matter to the study of the Wehrmacht, and this being a quintessentially Imperial award, it is entirely reasonable its "descent" should be of interest as well. It is certainly pertinent in hashing over phenomena like the provenance-accompanied sales discussed earlier in this thread.