Dead eye PLM

[Zepenthusiast]

Note the taper of the cross arm edges, incidentally.

This brings us to the issue of edges thickness, taper/shape, corrosion, and workmanship.

Here is a side-by-side of my cross and Sasha's:




Note in particular (arrows) how the eagles are set substantially within the edges of the cross by the wider, tapering arms. On Sasha's, they are nearly flush with the face of the cross. Mine is unmarked. There are dings and blemishes in the surface here and there, where I have tried to in vain to extract some sense of a mark. They are just surface injury (one is present on this arm, about where Sasha's was stamped. It is neither a stamp, nor a region abraded to remove one, just a small dent.)

Also, and I can't speak for Sasha's here, what appears to be small divots or gaps in the solder line in this image on mine, are actually slightly raised, dark colored forms of corrosion. There are no gaps in my solder line visible under conventional microscopy. The line itself is, where the gilding is absent. There are also a few pits in the surface to either side of it, as I have shown in some of the SEMs in prior threads.

[Zepenthusiast]

Things to note:

1) The qualitative difference in the gilding--its apparent thickness/robustness, polish/shine.

2) The corrosion on mine is "central"--at the notch and along the seams, fading outward. The corrosion on Sasha's (and on the other alleged Cejalvo version I have seen) is the opposite, avoiding the notch and for the most part approaching the seams from the outside edges.

3) The seam is nearly invisible on mine, except where corrosion attracts attention to it. On Sasha's, it is quite evident in most places.

4) My cross is "fatter" centrally and distinctly tapers to the tips of the arms, Sasha's (and the other alleged Cejalvo) are thinner and minimally tapered.

5) The edge of mine is subtly rounded to a small degree. Sasha's (and the other alleged Cejalvo) are stone-cold flat.

Here is another edge shot of mine:




And for comparison, a borrowed edge view of a hollow gold PlM, used with permission of the photographer:

[Zepenthusiast]

Without going on about it (Sorry, Marshall, this is already another long post), look at the lettering in the two posted scans, particularly the base of the "l" in "le". Mine shows crisp, precise edges and well-defined serifs. Sasha's shows a widening toward the bottom, with loss of the right side of the serif (a feature present on at least one other of the purported Cejalvo crosses.)

The eagle surfaces on mine are quite uniform in detail and finish, with the exception of the 1:30 bird, wherein the tail feathers appear to have been injured during soldering and "dressed up" with a graving tool.

By contrast, all the other versions (including the pie-suspension version you posted, Marshall) have substantial irregularities on the tail feathers and wings at the solder joints in various places, variable finish and detail on the eagles, and no attempt at repair.

I believe all these findings suggest copies vs. an "original" of some kind.

My 10:30 eagle's feathers and feet:



(Sorry about the scale difference--I can't seem edit that in regard to copying Sasha's scan.)

Clearly identical in terms of shapes, but look at the right ankle of mine, vs. Sasha's, in particular. Yes, finish, weathering, etc., could have flattened his and softened the detail on his compared to mine, but so could copying and re-casting.


and Sasha's:

[Zepenthusiast]

The Godet marked crosses are obviously of a different nature. They are hollow, gold, etc. That featured by Weitze at present shows coarser casting/defects on the eagles and the GODET marking is not identical to the other two of these I have seen (that in Prussian Blue, for instance--look carefully at the "E" and the "T".) In contrast to a prior hollow gold offering he declared to be of 1920s to 1930s origin, consistent with what Les said, Weitze notably makes no comment on age or originality of this specimen. It may well be a copy of one of the gold versions. Though the eagles have the same ancestry--whatever will eventually come of that--these crosses are not the same as mine, or as the Cejalvo-attributed copies.

[Zepenthusiast]

Last for now, here is an SEM of one of the notches on my cross at the junction of the arms. I have not been able to prove conclusively how it was made, but it would seem unlikely such a sharp demarcation could have been made by casting. Electroplating a hollow mold could presumably do so, but it would have required one heck of a mold--and then, a mold of what. At this location, the edge could not have been readily formed by millwork/filing/finishing.

[Zepenthusiast]

So, what do I think my cross is? I am really not sure, Marshall. As I have previously said, vanity would be to think it a transitional attempt to produce a solid silver cross from the hollow gold dies, using similar technology and similar finishing steps, albeit modified to reflect the silver base metal.

I don't think it could have been made from the hollow GODET species, though one of the two somehow inherited the eagles from the other. I have no problem with the pre WWII existence of the GODET versions, given Les vouching for the provenance of no less than 4 of them. However, as the old saying goes, "for those who believe, no proof is needed; for those who doubt, no proof is sufficient."

Will leave this off, give it some more thought, hear whatever feedback from you all, then speculate some more if it entertains you.

[-=Re-Sa=-]

Jim,
from all what you are shown, I see only little diferent hand finish on yours, and little poor cast suspension on yours. All the rest is the same, maybe is your cross hard gilded, thats why shines little more.

My cross is maybe little thicker, the reason is little thinner plate of silver for the press.
When stamping the silver, then goes plate to stove for warm up the silver, then to press, after first stamp goes again to the stove,... this proces goes thru 3-5x by silver, and every time is little thiner. This process is necessary because this release forces in silver, otherwise will be break the enamel in 10 seconds after enameling.

So.. my cross goes maybe more times thru this proces or was the silver plate little thinner at the first time...

I wondering why you did not compare the letters or eagles?
You have compare only outer finish,... and that is all hand finsih.

If are anywhere diferences, then they are there. If you will compare more diferent crosses, you will see many such diferences.

Your cross have little more blunted outer edges, that is jewellery hand work...

In below you have compared how are eagles attached, this is again hand finish and prove nothing, only if the jewellery worker have good day before and paeceful hand during his work.

If somebody ask me, which cross is made it before, I will say my... because of better details of eagels and suspension. But for "intermezzo", both crosses are very well made post ww2 examples.

Regards
Sasha

[Biro]

So, what do I think my cross is? I am really not sure, Marshall. As I have previously said, vanity would be to think it a transitional attempt to produce a solid silver cross from the hollow gold dies....

Then I'm not sure exactly what it is you're going to great lengths to try and prove Jim? There seems to be a great deal of forensic work on all the elements that can very reasonably be put down to hand finishing or flash photography.

If you feel the 'provenance' on the hollow gold GODET marked dead-eye PLM's mentioned by Les earlier stands up to scrutiny, and that yours is a natural manufacturing transition from those pieces, then by default (due to the absolute minuscule differences you suggest your plm exhibits when compared to the hollow gold versions - and because any other manufacturing scenario would be just plain ludicrous) your solid silver dead-eye plm has to have been manufactured by godet, right.?

Are you suggesting your cross was of (broadly speaking) WW1 production? If so then you must also be aware this means entertaining the idea of concurrent production of TWO completely different styles of PLM by one manufacturer at the same time period in time - Godet. because we already know for a fact they made one that looks nothing like the 'dead-eye's.

Are you suggesting your cross was of (broadly speaking) WW2 production? If so then you're supporting the theory that Godet - who advertise a PIE WEDGE suspension plm in their late 1930's catalogue - not only modified the tail feathers on the die for their text book classic WW1 examples to produce what we currently refer to as the "Schickle PLM" (as seen offered in Schickle's 1940's catalogue) but very shortly after that, completely changed both the look and manufacturing technique of their plm's to hollow gold baroque suspended 'dead-eyes' in time for Goring to lay his hands on one before his death in 1946 and at some point in between, managed to fit in a transition to solid silver pieces?

I'm struggling here Jim - and that's before I even take into account that your ribbon ring - so integral to your plm that it has worn a matching groove in the suspension loop- is marked with what looks like a direct attempt at a "W"

Help me out here...


Marshall

[Biro]

....There seems to be a great deal of forensic work on all the elements that can very reasonably be put down to hand finishing or flash photography.... Marshall

Sorry Jim - Let me elaborate a little on this point because I'm not about to dismiss all your hard work compiling images etc.. with simply a one-line comment as flippant as this.

There are two images I've posted below of a "dead-eye" PLM. (You can see all 5 consecutive images of this same PLM in ReSa's post #25 HERE directly under the heading "...and some other types, I don't know from where they are"...)

If I read you correctly, your comment (which you can reference HERE.) about this set of images was ...."The other images would all appear to be of copies of the hollow GODET marked pieces, however. None show the edges/weep holes, but the suspensions are correctly formed and attached and the lettering and eagles have the additional "weight" typical of same. Without knowing what they are made of, or if they are hollow, it is impossible to say they are not copies of an original type as described by Les, but, in contrast to the "Cejalvo" type, they run true in all details to the same"....

In actual fact, not only are the two PLM's I've pictured below the exact same piece - one you referred to based solely on the images as "probably copies of the hollow GODET marked pieces" - but they are actually of the PLM with 'provenance' back to '"Goering" upon which the pro dead-eye community rely pretty heavily.

Imagine how easy it would be to look at the letter formation, overlapping 'P and 'O' and all the other variations between these two contrasting images of the same PLM below and put a case together based on a photograph that there are types of solid silver 'dead-eye' PLM's that differ markedly from the Cajalvo fakes.

We all rely heavily on image comparisons here on this forum - I accept that - but great caution is advised when using images as the backbone of a case.

[Zepenthusiast]

Hi Marshall,

Only time for a quick reply, at present--I have to give better attention to the post you made immediately prior to this last. However, knowing the GODET-marked cross Sasha posted was in fact one of the hollow gold versions "having a history," can't you see that I was able, just from a fair photo--based on certain signifcant details--to categorize it as more consistent with one of those and not the presumed Cejalvo product in the images he posted immediately above it? That is reinforcing one of my points.

When I said "probably copies of..." that was not to say "copies" in contrast to "originals", but rather "copies" in the sense of "belonging to a type." Tried to make that clear in the following statement, that to know if they were consistent with "originals" of the GODET marked type, one would at least need to know if they were hollow gold, had weep holes, weight, etc.

There ARE characteristics which make them different--the suspension, the "weight" of the eagles. One of these crosses could be carbon-copied just as easily as an EK, hence the need to look at construction/fine finish/etc. just like anything else, but they are different from mine (and Sashas)!

One doesn't want to make more of an image than one can, but I could spot those differences even on a photo of only fair resolution. It wasn't just a good guess!

[Les]

Godet catalog...early 1930's not -late- 1930's

..........<snip>

Are you suggesting your cross was of (broadly speaking) WW2 production? If so then you're supporting the theory that Godet - who advertise a PIE WEDGE suspension plm in their late 1930's catalogue - not only modified the tail feathers on the die for their text book classic WW1 examples to produce what we currently refer to as the "Schickle PLM" (as seen offered in Schickle's 1940's catalogue) but very shortly after that, completely changed both the look and manufacturing technique of their plm's to hollow gold baroque suspended 'dead-eyes' in time for Goring to lay his hands on one before his death in 1946 and at some point in between, managed to fit in a transition to solid silver pieces?
........<snip>
Marshall

Marshall, your comment about the Godet catalogue being "late 1930's" may not be correct. I am familiar with the Godet catalogues you and GregM have. There are no medals made after January 1934, when the "Hindenburg Cross" was authorized, and all unofficial commemortaive, regimental and other non-governmentally awarded pieces were banned from wear on medal bars. The lack of the "Hindenburg" suggest the catalogs were made in the early 1930's, not 1935 or afterwards.

How accurate is the catalog? It shows a "mini" PlM on a ribbon, that looks the same as EKII's are seen. The fact that no known original/genuine mini-PLM's of that type are known raises questions that the catalog is in fact, not all that accurate.

On the matter of Schickle, and any relationship to Godet, that raises logical problems depending on whether one sees Godet as making only one type of PlM version at a time, or if the period between 1936 and 1944 (when the firm was bombed literally out of the production end of the business) is a bit less simple than "conventional wisdom" has it.

Photos of an S&L showroom were posted on another forum some months back. More than a few forum members from WAF, and the other forum said they felt if a firm had it on display, they must have made it, rather than sell another firms goods.

If one believes that, then the Shickle piece must have been made by Schickle, and not Godet. If one chooses to think Godet could have made the Schickle PlM, then that would imply Godet did in fact use two different sets of dies to make different versions of a PlM during the later part of the 1930's.

If, and that may be a mighty big "if" Godet made the "Schickle" it may be the result of Godet adopting a new type of cross and not making the versions made before 1930.

The hollow gold versions have significant differences from the "Cevaljo" type that I defined on another forum some years ago. What Jim has referred to as an "alleged" Cevaljo on this thread, is in fact, an example made by that firm.

Some people have started referring to these pieces as being made by Cevaljo, but I wonder if they have actually contacted the firm and asked for details? I asked a native Spanish speaker to contact them about whether they made or could make these, and what he was told, was interesting. The firm is very guarded about what they tell people, and will not send photographs or other specific details. Why they won't, isn't something that is relevant here, nor something I care to go into.

Sasha seems to believe all of these pieces are the same, and were made in the 1960-1970 period. I'd like to know "how he knows that." I've learned from someone who actually bought a solid silver PlM almost identical to the one Sasha has, and he bought from Cevaljo during the late 1990's! Some would say that means the firm made them for 30-40 years, or even longer.

Did Cevaljo use the same dies over a long period of time to make solid silver and hollow gold versions? No, not a chance.

Marshall, take a look at the photo(s) Jim posted showing the edge of the arms and eagles. If you look Sasha's piece, and the one Jim has, the eagles are clearly not the same thickness as the adjacent arm edges of the cross. There is a clear "step" from the edge of the arm to the topmost surfaces of the eagles. Jim's and Sasha's eagle thickness to cross arm edge thicknesses are different. On Sasha's piece, the eagles and cross arms are on the same level, or have almost the same thickness.

Also, the center of Jim's cross has a noticeable taper from the center towards the ends. This is not the result of plating/gilding/hand-finishing or something else once the cross was formed. It was made with a distinctive taper, while Sasha's was made flat.

The manufacture of a "flat piece" and tapered cross isn't done by bending the arms "inward" or by plating/finishing, etc. If you tried to create a "taper" by making the enamel thick in the center, and thin towards the edges, that result in very thin enamel towards the arm tips, and a very high breakage rate along the tips rather than towards the center.

The hollow gold pieces marked Godet, have the distinctive edge taper. Also, the eagle to arm edge thickness are not the same. The eagles are noticeably thinner than the adjacent arm edges.

I have carefully measured "Cevaljo" and "Godet" eagles and crosses, and despite Sasha thinking and saying they are the same, they are not. The Cevaljo eagles are -smaller- than the hollow gold Godet marked ones, and there are several measurements that bear this out.

Sashas has overlaid photos of Previtera's Godet marked piece and his solid silver piece. if you look at the position of the eagle's feet/talons and their alignment with the letter "r" below. Also look where the wing tips line up compared to the placement of the crown, the position of the "box" formed by the junction of all four tail feathers, etc. The placement is different and for eagles made by the batch process, hand-finishing alone does not explain why there are numerous measurements taken on Cevaljo pieces that are always smaller than the Godet marked pieces.

Sasha, I'm making these observations from actually handling and looking at pieces, in hand, taking standardized measurements, and when possible with two or more side by side. I dislike and distrust the emphasis of photographs as a substitute for "the real thing" for several reasons.

Before anyone assumes I'm thinking Jim's piece was made during WWI, I'm not, nor do I think it was.

[-=Re-Sa=-]

Les

Sasha seems to believe all of these pieces are the same, and were made in the 1960-1970 period. I'd
like to know "how he knows that." I've learned from someone who actually bought a solid silver PlM
almost identical to the one Sasha has, and he bought from Cevaljo during the late 1990's! Some would
say that means the firm made them for 30-40 years, or even longer.

I belive they are from the same tool, not a year! My opinion they were made in the 70s come from the Previtera book. But I realy belive they are post ww2. Also I dont belive in Goering hollow piece.
Simply, because that is not proved and on any known picture he not wearing PLM like this.

Marshall, take a look at the photo(s) Jim posted showing the edge of the arms and eagles. If you look
Sasha's piece, and the one Jim has, the eagles are clearly not the same thickness as the adjacent arm
edges of the cross. There is a clear "step" from the edge of the arm to the topmost surfaces of the
eagles. Jim's and Sasha's eagle thickness to cross arm edge thicknesses are different. On Sasha's
piece, the eagles and cross arms are on the same level, or have almost the same thickness.

Here we must tuch medalistic themselves and production of decorations ...
Ask how such a decoration was created?
We can skip here the stage of engraving tools and a modeling of eagles and suspensions for loop.
PLM is composed of two parts, talking only about a cross.
we going now on stage of stamping:
the press is inserted silver plate (1 to 1.2 mm thick, I assume) which goes to glowing, then stamping,
again glowing ... the procedure is repated 3-5x
when we gets a stamp, the we cut out the one side of the cross cuts ... we can do this with cuting
tool or manually.
There is the possibility of tolerance, which depends on the number of repeated procedures or the
thickness of silver plate.
So there is a possibility that one piece of thin, others thick.
Prior to the two enameling must be both pieces hand treated, polishing the sharp edges ... therefore
are here possible diferences.
Sides are stamped separatly, because of enamling in oven, not with open fire.
So the next phase is enamelling in the oven, each piece individually. Enameling are at approximately
900 degrees Celsius.
Then the piece merge junction, which is melted to about 500 degrees Celsius.
Then came atthacing the eagles and fixing suspensions,... eagles are likely to be cast, as well as
suspensions.
Indeed, when fitting eagles there are possible tolerances, each piece is unique in this work.
At the end is the gilding.
So why is not it possible that a thicker piece, and another thinner??
This copy is no monolithic, but the product of the same workshop!
This is the same as if you weigh a pilot badge from the same factory and have 2 grams of difference
... and still is the same die-tool!

Sashas has overlaid photos of Previtera's Godet marked piece and his solid silver piece. if you look
at the position of the eagle's feet/talons and their alignment with the letter "r" below. Also look
where the wing tips line up compared to the placement of the crown, the position of the "box" formed
by the junction of all four tail feathers, etc. The placement is different and for eagles made by the
batch process, hand-finishing alone does not explain why there are numerous measurements taken on
Cevaljo pieces that are always smaller than the Godet marked pieces.

the reason is that the photo in Previtera book is not the scan, and the picture is not taken under the same angle.

Sasha, I'm making these observations from actually handling and looking at pieces, in hand, taking
standardized measurements, and when possible with two or more side by side. I dislike and distrust the
emphasis of photographs as a substitute for "the real thing" for several reasons.

Then please make some photos, side by side?

Sorry for my english
Regards
Sasha

[Les]

Sasha,

There is an interesting thread in a site you may not know about. Many people assume medals were stamped using heavy hammer presses. The thread from the other site shows the process of making iron crosses during the WWI era, using hand operated "fly presses" that use the same principle of a fruit or wine press. They are operated by hand, with one or two men, instead of the pneumatic or air driven industrial presses you might have thought were used to repeatedly stamp a PlM. A simple fly press does not require repeated stamping, and the screw is continually turned and the metal slowly squeezed into the dies.

http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=26238&hl

You have mentioned enameling more than once, and seem to think that cast and stamped/pressed pieces can't be enameled easily. Also, you are trying to make a case for two piece crosses having enamel applied differently than one piece crosses.

Herbert Maryon, in 1913, wrote a book which even today, is and remains the standard English language book on enameling and art/metal working. What you've been saying contradicts what Maryon says.

Your claim about two sided pieces and enameling doesn't hold up, even for post-WWII pieces. Ever look at the two types of Rothe made PlM copies made after WWII. They are one piece, and enameled using true enamel, and not made by making two sides, then somehow putting them together. Even the PlM copies made by S&L after 1957, are one piece, and enameled without putting the two sides together.

Furthermore, your comments about enameling may seem like a problem, but they are not. It doesn't matter if a piece is cast, stamped, rolled/pressed, or a lump of metal because gold and silver can be enameled regardless of how they were shaped, by placing the glass (enamel) powder covered piece in a cold overn, and gradually raising the temperature to the point where the glass beads melt and fuse. Enameling a two sided piece can be done by applying a thin coat on one side of high-temperature glass bead powder, and when the first side has been heated, the piece is turned over, and the other side is coated with a glass bead powder that melts at a lower temperature than the first application. This can be done by using special additives. The piece is turned over a second time, and the another layer applied using a glass powder that melts at an even lower temperature. This results in the layers closest to the metal surface being harder than the outer most layers. In other words, the outer surface of the enamel/glass is softer than the stuff underneath.

I'm working on a book that will describe many of the technical details that have not been included in the "standard reference books". I've learned not to post photos on-line that have not been published before. Sorry, but let's use the ones you've already posted.

Since you used Previtera's piece from Prussian Blue, why not post it and yours separately instead of overlapping them? If you look specifically at the way the front and rear of the feet line up with the small letter "r", it's clear that is an indication the eagles are not the same size. I have taken precise measurements from eagle wing-tip to wing-tip across the top of the eagles, and on the Cevaljo made pieces, the distance is smaller on the Cevaljo made pieces than on the hollow gold marked Godet pieces. This is not due to different stampings, tolerances, or such, but because the Cevaljo eagles are smaller in each and every detail, and this is strong evidence they were cast from something larger. Cast pieces usually shrink, but are almost never larger than the piece they were molded on.

Marshall said the hollow gold Godet marked pieces relies heavily on the "Goering" piece. That's not entirely correct. Bob Hritz is a well know, and respected member of WAF and he has previously posted photos of his piece on WAF. That makes it "fair game" for discussing it here. The other three pieces I've referred to have not been, and the owners haven't agreed to have photos posted here, and so on.

More than a few people want photos of someone wearing a cross, or whatever, to demonstrate it is period. The details in most photos are seldom clearly enough to determine more than whether a PlM has a pie-wedge suspension or the baroque loop. Being able to actually see finer details may not be possible.

A famous scientist who wrote about scientific theory, once said, "absence of evidence, is not evidence for absence." Sasha, that might escape you understanding of English, but what that means is something simple. Someone might think there is no evidence for something, but there might be evidence that proves what we think is wrong. We can demonstrate something exists, but to prove it does not, means someone may find something we thought did not exist.

The point is, keep an open mind.

Lastly, you trust what is written in Prussian Blue as if everything in there is absolutely accurate. There are more than a few mistakes, and a couple of them are major ones.

[Zepenthusiast]

Sasha, now you must admit the depth/thickness of a stamped piece, made from a die, is dependent on the depth of the die! Doesn't matter how many times you heat and stamp it, it's thickness can never be thinner than the cavity between the two faces of the die and stamp. The variation in thickness in these crosses is not subtle--it is huge at the scale involved, and the shape difference, tapered versus practically flat, cannot (as Les says--almost began to think I had a convert there! Oh well...) be the result of stamping into the same die.

Don't worry about the translation, Sasha--you are making your points and seem to be following the others--though you are avoiding some! ...like the marked difference in the shape of the enamel!

Still have to get back to your first set of comments, Marshall!

[Biro]

...When I said "probably copies of..." that was not to say "copies" in contrast to "originals", but rather "copies" in the sense of "belonging to a type."

Ok Jim - fair enough. You squeaked out of that one on a technicality!

Hi Les - welcome in mate.

I've looked long and hard for distinguishing features that might give a clue one way or another as to the relationship between the 'hollow gold', the 'solid silver' and the 'Cevaljo' versions that have been touted as all existing and all being different somehow - and it's pretty apparent that's just not going to happen.

Every potential defect, flaw and even the uncanny similarities between all three pieces can too easily be explained away simply by throwing out the word 'casting' - or to take the opposing view - 'hand-finishing'... so I feel it's a dead end. Never had one in hand either, so I trust my friend Les's information about various measurements differing.

Still waiting for you to give me a potential 'time period' for the production of the solid 'dead-eye' though Jim!. I'm sensing you are not about to claim 1914-1918 production or even potentially the 1920's as a starting point... and if you consider it transitional from the hollow gold Les mentions then it must post-date the Goering one? That really only leaves mid WW2 (mid-late 40's at best?) in which case - and please don't take this the wrong way - the gravity of your case for this as an 'original' is somewhat dissipated. When did the first Rothe PLM appear for example... we don't know - but they exist and they're made by Rothe - but just how relevant are they (unless perhaps in the hands of an elderly awardee??)

Lets make no bones here - by FAR the most damning evidence against both the dead-eye versions is the fact that the Spanish medal maker Cevaljo have - as I think you both would claim - openly managed to make a 'copy' of a PLM that is so unbeleivably - almost indistinguishably - accurate that it can ONLY have been done via casting which means hands on access to an 'original'. And yet we don't see a proliferation of Wagners out there which would be decidedly easier to access I would imagine.

And then - just when Cevaljo have got it nearly perfect - they go and do this....