Announcement

**Brian S** · 02-06-2010, 06:24 PM

Robin, for whatever reason they chose not to supply the Luftwaffe. Who knows why? Don't care. But that PlM in the display is not the postwar example S&L. It's more a Wagner. To suggest they minted one pre 1945 and then changed to an uglier version postwar makes no sense. These photos do not suggest that more and more items we thought were fake are real.

Nice photos but no answers here.

Only conjecture, and much of it reckless. The S&L PlM is not worth $1,000.

**Les** · 02-06-2010, 06:49 PM

The claim -everything- in the cases was made by S&L. We're told a firm with a sense of pride in what they make, wouldn't offer something made by another firm.

To all of that, how does that set with the fact that if S&L did make -all- of those items, that some of those items don't appear in their 1939 or 1941 catalogs? Making dies to stamp low production run medals means the production costs are going to be high, and one would -think- including all of the products made by the firm would be included.

So far, no genuine S&L maker marked China Denkmunze medals, pre-1945 marked S&L PlMs, and LCTB are known (and to be genuine).

Why be reluctant to sell some other firms "stuff" and then mark -some- of your own, but not all of it? Also, why not include those low production, and possibly resultant high cost pieces in the catalog?

Not wanting to sell some other firms items, and being reluctant to advertise and mark -all- of the items being attributed to the firm doesn't add up and argues against the claim S&L "made it all."

If S&L did place their own markings on items made by other firms, they'd have been in the same type of trouble one TR era firm did when they sold German Crosses they specifically claimed as the product of their own firm when another firm actually made them.

**Zepenthusiast** · 02-06-2010, 07:15 PM

In fairness to S&L's version of the PlM from the 1950s, it deserves to be appreciated as the art it is. They made what they did then for a specific reason, one could say as a tribute to the order, in recognition of its historical importance (and meaning to the German people) as well as to satisfy collector interest, no doubt. That S&L as a respected German jeweler made a replica cross, commonly of fairly good quality, is itself a part of the history of the order, even if not that of its wartime issue. To disparage it at worthless (or worth less than $100 at any rate) is much the same as saying no one should ever buy a print of an artist's original work, or no one should ever pay for a ticket to see a good Elvis impersonator in Vegas. Most of the latter probably don't think it really is Elvis, I'd guess, but capturing the feel of the concert is worth it to them. A 1950-something S&L is not a Wagner PlM, but it is what it is, is often well-crafted, and deserves to have a value of its own, as long as the TRUTH is known to the buyer (the whole origin of this thread.) The relatively substantial value of a quality S&L is in fact a tribute to the value and mystique of the original--that being currently more than 35 times higher yet.

I don't think anyone can doubt S&L could have produced a dead-ringer for a Wagner PlM in the 1950s if they so desired. They had the skill and tooling necessary. They thus chose to make what they did, when they did, likely making certain it and they could not be accused of fakery in that most delicate of circumstances.

I don't believe S&L made PlMs prior to 1945 (or 1950 for that matter), but likely out of respect for those who did. After the demise of the latter, it was no longer an issue.

So, if these pictures may have been taken in Berlin, just before the onset of the LDO, could the display have been part of a "big pitch" to win status and secure the LDO number? The "Thousand Year Reich" was in peak form just then, and some pretty big egos were likely mulling over where contracts should go. Wouldn't that be a great time to showcase that you can provide pretty much anything and everything they might want? The S&L logo then in use, with its Swastika-zoid ArtDeco boldness fits right in--anyone know when they adopted it? Notably it is attached plaque-style above the displays, while the name of the company could easily have been painted from a stencil (and just as easily removed) on the one wall and appears to be part of a glass panel sign above the door.

How much clout would Wagner or Godet have at that point...for the relatively few PlMs which might be needed: might it make sense for either to have evinced willingness to subcontract via S&L for a "big pitch?"

**MH184** · 02-06-2010, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by Zepenthusiast View Post

So, if these pictures may have been taken in Berlin, just before the onset of the LDO, could the display have been part of a "big pitch" to win status and secure the LDO number? The "Thousand Year Reich" was in peak form just then, and some pretty big egos were likely mulling over where contracts should go. Wouldn't that be a great time to showcase that you can provide pretty much anything and everything they might want? The S&L logo then in use, with its Swastika-zoid ArtDeco boldness fits right in--anyone know when they adopted it? Notably it is attached plaque-style above the displays, while the name of the company could easily have been painted from a stencil (and just as easily removed) on the one wall and appears to be part of a glass panel sign above the door.

I doubt very much the display has anything at all to do with marketing/selling themselves for any LDO approval or sanctioning, as several of the cases are LDO cases in the picture. They're not standard cases with printed LDO logo's we see at a time later, but they are of the specific LDO only range (first series, first pattern).

At the time of the picture I would think it is very more likely than not, they were already an approved contractor.

KR

Marcus

**MH184** · 02-06-2010, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post

If it is the same catalog (meaning the same example, i.e. mine) I have no idea why it rests now at GCA without my permission. But that is a different issue.
If it is the same catalog then there is no guessing. It was printed after 1. March 1941 as it announces the LDO number "L 16". How that can be in 1940 is beyond me.

Gordon Williamson posted an example of an S&L catalogue in part with some pages missing on the GMIC several years ago. Those pages are copied over at the GCA, or so I believe that would be the example. I know I've used it in the past as a reference, and indeed over there.

Gordon intimated the possibility of it being of the period of 1940/41 at the time he posted the pages on the GMIC some years back now - or along those lines. The catalogues on the GMIC are under the General TR decorations in a sub-forum titled: Schickle and other wartime catalogues.......it's all in there to read.

I think it would be the same issue as your own example, as it also denotes the L 16 designation for ''copies.''

KR

Marcus

Attached Files

post-101-1142970396.jpg (83.2 KB, 258 views)

**MH184** · 02-06-2010, 09:02 PM

L 16

Attached Files

post-101-1142970492.jpg (36.6 KB, 256 views)

**Robin Lumsden** · 02-06-2010, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Brian S View Post

These photos do not suggest that more and more items we thought were fake are real.

Korrekt!

But they DO suggest that more firms made the PLM (and other awards.............I have no interest whatsoever in the PLM) pre-'45 than current thinking allows.

Keep an open mind!

**Robin Lumsden** · 02-06-2010, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Brian S View Post

There's another agenda at work here... Experienced collectors know exactly what you are saying Les, and others are recklessly throwing out spurious hope to people who hold worthless postwar fakes.

I hope that isn't aimed at me.

**Robin Lumsden** · 02-06-2010, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Brian S View Post

They made it for profit. Nothing else.

Korrekt!

**Robin Lumsden** · 02-06-2010, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Marcus Hatton View Post

I doubt very much the display has anything at all to do with marketing/selling themselves for any LDO approval or sanctioning, as several of the cases are LDO cases in the picture. They're not standard cases with printed LDO logo's we see at a time later, but they are of the specific LDO only range (first series, first pattern).

At the time of the picture I would think it is very more likely than not, they were already an approved contractor.

KR

Marcus

Thank God!
A Voice of Reason...................at last!

**Brian S** · 02-06-2010, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by Robin Lumsden View Post

I hope that isn't aimed at me.

Not aimed at any contributor here, really! It will be taken in the context demanded by sellers on eBay and elsewhere. No one here is selling PlMs on eBay as "genuine wartime manufacturer...". However, some of these posts will be taken in the context that they were... And to be clear, they were NOT.

**Leroy** · 02-06-2010, 10:11 PM

Gentlemen,

I can understand the concerns (a little bit) about a possible S&L PLM made pre-1945, but as a non-PLM collector I can't understand any concern about a PLM made by S&L, of entirely different pattern, post-1945. To me, unless the post-1945 version was the same as a known pre-1945 version, no one should have any concerns at all that it poses a threat of some kind. Its value is whatever someone feels compelled to pay for it. Brian wouldn't pay $100; someone else was willing, apparently, to pay more.

I also don't understand (and perhaps this is just pure ignorance of the Imperial field on my part) why the China Denkmunze is of some great concern. This is one of the reasons I asked if anyone had a pre-1939 catalog from S&L. Is it being implied that if something does not appear in a catalog from 1939 or 1941, that S&L never made it before then? As I understand it (from a quick scan at GMIC) the China Denkmunze was awarded some 40,000times. As a company in business since 1889, wouldn't S&L have been a candidate to make it at some point? Would it have had to be marked to them? Please educate me.

As to the Condor Legion Tank Badge, I can't think of another badge which had so few recipients but which has so many claimed original variants. Why would there ever be more than one manufacturer of anything if the cost of "tooling up" to make it was the only concern? Yet we know it showed up in the Schickle catalog. Did Schickle actually make it? How many CLTB's are marked to any company? I believe some companies, especially those who considered themselves "national level" companies, made things just to have a "presence" and to be able to say they made it. Would it have had to have appeared in a once-a-year (or maybe once-every-two years) catalog which averaged only around 20 pages? Has anyone read every advertisement run by S&L in every publication to see if maybe it showed up once in a magazine somewhere which might have been read by panzer troops? Other than the Schickle version, does anyone have a catalog by any maker which shows it? Would such a badge made by S&L pre-1941 have to be marked at all? To my knowledge, no one has ever seen a CLTB marked to S&L, so I am not aware of any fakes being peddled as S&L products. I simply can't understand the reluctance to think that S&L (certainly a "national level" company) could not possibly have made it.

Regards,
Leroy

**Zepenthusiast** · 02-07-2010, 02:34 AM

Commemorative zeppelin badges may actually outnumber CLTBs for "claimed variants versus originals," but not a contest one would want to win.

I threw out the possibility of S&L lobbying through the showcase for LDO status as a time-coincident possibility, and appreciate being set straight--this is not an area of prior study for me and proves a great shortcut to learn--but what about S&L assembling this uber-grouping to impress any and all influential viewers in the TR hierarchy (and hence including work of potential sub-contractors: I'm thinking Wagner, Godet or any others)?

**saschaw** · 02-07-2010, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by Leroy View Post

I also don't understand (and perhaps this is just pure ignorance of the Imperial field on my part) why the China Denkmunze is of some great concern. This is one of the reasons I asked if anyone had a pre-1939 catalog from S&L. Is it being implied that if something does not appear in a catalog from 1939 or 1941, that S&L never made it before then? As I understand it (from a quick scan at GMIC) the China Denkmunze was awarded some 40,000times. As a company in business since 1889, wouldn't S&L have been a candidate to make it at some point? Would it have had to be marked to them? Please educate me.

Good point!

They made them for sure at some point. I don't get the maker mark part. I have never seen a China medal maker marked at all, so why should St&L mark them? No maker marked medals do not at all proove they were not made by the company. Especially not with such a standard awards sold with thousands of wearer copies sold over decades.

**Leroy** · 02-07-2010, 09:06 AM

Thanks for that information, saschaw!

Can anyone else specifically ID an item in these photos that S&L either for sure did not make at some point, or which would have been unusual for them to have made?

Announcement

S&L Showroom circa 1940/1?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread