Detlev PLM Fake of the Week

[Biro]

Enthisiasts of the PLM should take a look at Detlevs Fake of the Week this week and take careful note.

This one is as deadly as it gets... forget the Spanish Fake etc... this PLM is so close it just HAS to be cast from an original, as it exhibits many of the tell tale die flaws seen on a genuine wartime Wagner of Friedlander.

Beware...

[-=Re-Sa=-]

Dangerous PLM, one like this was by Weitze not so long ago. Describet like between a WW1 and WW2 made second piece. Price was over 2000 Euro.

[Steve P]

Mmmm!

[regular122]

Marshall,

I think this was made from a reworked S&L or maybe from an S&L mold than from a Wagner. It differs considerably from a Wagner in tail and feet placement, crown shape and internal crown details, etc.

The eagle heads are small like an S&L eagle. Looks to me like the cut away of the eagles is sculpted more like a Wagner but they are still the S&L style. But the connected 'ur' and the rest of the letters match an S&L mold very close.

They are getting better! Steve

[Zepenthusiast]

Take a close look at the position of the F beneath the crown. It is appropriately "left-shifted," as would be a later war Wagner. All the S&Ls I have looked at on the forum show a distinctly "right-shifted" F, and the lettering is coarser. The suspension appears closer to correct than those on the typical S&L, too. If reworked, seems like a lot of reworking. Cast from an original? Unclear from the images or description if evidence of form of manufacture. Scary--just in time for Halloween.

Jim

[Biro]

Marshall... It differs considerably from a Wagner in tail and feet placement, crown shape and internal crown details, etc....Steve

Not the Wagner I'm looking at Steve..

The eagles on Detlevs examples have been cast from an original Wagner/Friedlander eagle. Of this I am quite sure. They are finished rather haphazardly and are therefore thinner in appearance than you might expect to see on Wagners.

Although the photo detail is not there to sufficiently identify a few more of the eagles flaws, I can see plain as day the two or three stand out flaws that as you are well aware I wont go into here publicly.

There are a number of other experienced PLM collectors out there who have been in contact with me to confirm their concerns.

This is not "They are getting better"... This is dangerous... and as close as they've come.

Marshall

[streptile]

Of note is that Detlev Niemann dates this one from the 1960s or 1970s.

[regular122]

Not the Wagner I'm looking at Steve..

The eagles on Detlevs examples have been cast from an original Wagner/Friedlander eagle. Of this I am quite sure. They are finished rather haphazardly and are therefore thinner in appearance than you might expect to see on Wagners.

Although the photo detail is not there to sufficiently identify a few more of the eagles flaws, I can see plain as day the two or three stand out flaws that as you are well aware I wont go into here publicly.

There are a number of other experienced PLM collectors out there who have been in contact with me to confirm their concerns.

This is not "They are getting better"... This is dangerous... and as close as they've come.

Marshall

I agree with your observations Marshall. I went back and looked at earlier examples of Wagners rather than the late war examples. While there are some differences more akin to S&L as compared to the late war, it is almost identical to the early Wagner. This is indeed scary. It also raises many questions.

If this was made in the 1960s or 1970s, then is it an anomaly or are there more of them out there? Or are they being made currently?

I've posted a comparison of this piece as it is sure to generate more discussion and not all here may be members of Detlev's site. Steve

[Stephen Stout]

Wow that is scary almost looks orginal!

[Brian S]

Better photo of the fake?

The enamel on the fake looks fugly.

[Les]

I agree with your observations Marshall. I went back and looked at earlier examples of Wagners rather than the late war examples. While there are some differences more akin to S&L as compared to the late war, it is almost identical to the early Wagner. This is indeed scary. It also raises many questions.

If this was made in the 1960s or 1970s, then is it an anomaly or are there more of them out there? Or are they being made currently?

I've posted a comparison of this piece as it is sure to generate more discussion and not all here may be members of Detlev's site. Steve

I stopped posting to this forum a while back. However, I feel compelled to add something here.

The image of the "early" example with connected letters and dark blue background has been used without citing where it came from, and without the owners permission.

I know the owner and have his permission to use images of that piece. Steve Russell does not, and has used them without prior consent or any attribution of where it came from. Although the image is not copyrighted, use of photos should at least carry some citation as to where they came from for "fair use" provisions to apply. I'll repeat this once more. None of that has been done.

Next time, at least have the courtesy to provide an attribution for where the photo came from if you aren't going to ask the owner or person who originally posted the image if you can use it. "Research" in the academic world requires attribution and citation of sources, something sadly lacking in the person's research claims posted here, and at times elsewhere.

Please delete that photo or run the risk of hearing from the owners' attorney.


While I'm here, I'll second Marshall's observations. The photo shows specific die flaws that could only have come from directly molding and casting a copy, using a -later- war solid silver gilt Wagner/Fr example.

For one moment, step back and consider whether Detlev Niemann is correct or not in his assessment. He might be, and then again, he might not. The photo shows characteristics that suggest the piece is "real" but the clarity of the image is not good enough to make an accurate assessment. It is not possible to determine from the photo if the piece was die-struck, cast, made in parts and then assembled, or all once piece. Detlev's description does not provide enough information and in this situation, a photo is not worth a thousand words.

The "fake" shown here is a situation where I would not want to be forced to rely on using photos only. There are times when it is possible to state a piece is a definite fake, but this photo provides support for the problematical nature of photos-only for making determinations of authenticity.

For the moment, let's assume Detlev's assessment is correct. There are ways this piece could have been made but the fact that it has specific "die flaws" that are found on later war solid silver gilt pieces has implications on how it could have been made. Marshall is correct that discussing the flaws openly in this forum is not something that should be done, as this and other forums have archives that can be mined and used by those who have, and plan on making better fakes. This example is a case in point, if it is indeed a fake.

Detlev states in his short description the piece was made in the 1960-1970 era but does not say why. If that's a hunch based on when he was told or thinks it found it's way into a collection, he may be off by a few decades. For reasons I don't care to go into, I suspect a date closer to the last half of the 1990's might be more accurate, but that's based on private observations of my own.

One last point to consider. If the piece was cast, it was molded without the enamel on the cross. Otherwise, many of the details would not be transferred during the molding process. If so, then the maker could have easily removed the connecting bars between the letters in Pou=r. On this example they are there, but is that the case on any others? It's possible more than a few of the unconnected letter variety may have found their way into recent or current collections. The paranoid may loose sleep over that possibility.

Detlev says it's a fake, but one certainty is that there needs to be better photos of some very specific details rather than relying on a grainy photo with less than stellar details, and no way to compare specific characteristics to orignanls, and other fakes that may come along.

[Brian S]

Les, the moment you let loose your photos on this site, you've released them for public consumption...

[regular122]

The photo of the early Wagner I found in a file dated 2006. If I knew who it belonged to I would be all too happy to share it. Funny you should pursue that with such zeal here. I seem to recall well-intended and innocent postings of pics from Prussian Blue.

Truth is, many of the forum members here have graciously granted ongoing permission to use their pictures in my PlM study series. Many have emailed pics but on the proviso that I not identify them. In any case, this picture I did not have the info as it came from an old web file I had before I started to seriously collect PlMs and categorize the pics.

Nice to see your disdain for me brought you back up on the WAF, if even to slight my character. I will not return the favor. As much as you hate me Les, I'll move on and address something I agree with you on.

I had also considered whether the piece is so exact as to cause a reexamination of it altogether. I'm with Brian, better pics would be nice. Perhaps we could persuade Detlev to offer more pictures of it and in greater detail. But perhaps as has been noted, too much detail can have adverse consequences as well. Steve

[streptile]

The photo shows characteristics that suggest the piece is "real" ... I suspect a date closer to the last half of the 1990's might be more accurate.

I'm not sure I follow you here. You're saying it's possibly real, but if it's fake, you see evidence it was made in the 1990s? Is that about right?

[Les]

Les, the moment you let loose your photos on this site, you've released them for public consumption...

Brian,

Photos are often borrowed without asking, and there's little or nothing that can be done about that. What bothers me is the use of photos and other information that is someone elses', being taken out of context, and not being cited as to where it came from. Sometimes the descriptions and context of photos and related details can be important.


I understand the legal concept of fair use, but that concept carries with it a duty to acknowledge where items are taken from.

Since you mention photos are available for public consumption on this site, that would seem you are saying that implies to the awards you have in your collection and those that belonged to your grandfather, his photos, etc?