Dead eye PLM

[-=Re-Sa=-]

Jim,
I have compared my PLM with the one from Previtera's book.

Please look the picture:



I have pasted a transparent picture of my cross over the cross from Previtera book ( I hope he would not be angry on me because I tok his pictures for researches).
They letters matches perfectly.
Here is another example:



The eagle on page 380 have the same deformation as mine:



Only difference is the outer border, my interpretation for that is outer border/edge little wider, reason for that is hand finish,... jeweller has take away more material during grinding.



That is the reason for little difference in measurments.

Jim, please make a scan of yours PLM, that will help in advanced discusion?

I apologize to Previtera for the use of certain detils from his book, on his wish I will delete this photos.

Regards
Sasha

[Zepenthusiast]

Sasha,

A very nice illustration of correspondence of multiple details, but it is also clearly evident in the top image that the mass of the letters in the Godet-marked cross, and the proximity of the edge of the P to the edge of the o do not match between the two. When you overlay your cross on that from the book, the larger lettering of the latter is able to surround the finer lettering on yours, producing apparently good correspondence. No one is disputing the possiblity the one is copied from the other, but if these were cast or formed from the same mold, they should be nearly identical in this regard. One cannot write off the narrower, finer lettering as the result of hand finishing. It would be a nightmare to refine every single letter in such a fashion. Furthermore, the difference in edge width being caused by hand-finishing presupposes the jeweler were grinding the inside edge (that adjacent to the enamel) all the way around, rather than the outside edge., since the overall size of the crosses is essentially the same. This would also be illogical to do and not easy to work an inside edge all the way around and still leave it smooth, straight, and even. Yes, it could be done, but to what useful end? It does not make either cross look more like a recognized PlM than the other.

In contrast, if Les is right, and your cross represents a copy of the Godet-marked version, these findings make substantial sense, as shrinkage of a cast copy relative to the mold could be expected.

I have a good scan of my cross and will have to upload it for your comparison. I believe it will have more directly in common with yours, but the finish is substantially different, being heavily plated (and demonstrably having been fire-gilded from brushed on gold-mercury solution) and polished to a mirror-like shine on the letters and edges. My enamel is also markedly vaulted, a feature I do not detect on yours (or the Godet-marked piece) by the available photographs/scans. The soldering on my cross is of a more refined nature, as well, excepting the apparently replaced/repaired suspension. The latter possesses solder of a different type and quality from that used to affix the eagles, on mine.

[-=Re-Sa=-]

Jim,
when manufacturer make enamel on the cross, then come next step...brushing of enamel under the water, the letters have cone form and if the enamel is more exposed to brushing then are letters are more fat.
Pictures are taken under little diferent angle, thats why they not cover 100%.
Because the edge is lttle wider come eagels little higher also the catch, this everything depend from hand finish.
The diferences in enamel and gilding are possible and tolerated, also if you comapre original pieces, you will see many diferences... the book from Previtera is holly bible for the PLM

Looking forward to see your scan, and continuing discusion...

[Biro]

... it is also clearly evident in the top image that the mass of the letters in the Godet-marked cross, and the proximity of the edge of the P to the edge of the o do not match between the two.... if these were cast or formed from the same mold, they should be nearly identical in this regard. ....

Sorry Jim, but that argumant just doesn't wash.

Below two original and attributed Wagners.

The more you look, the more small dicrepancies you will find between the lettering of the two, including formation and width.

And yet they are from the same ''mold''.

Regards

Marshall

[Zepenthusiast]

Actually, Marshall, I was "begging my own question," so to speak, curious to see what response was generated to the question. Here is another scanning electron micrograph of my cross which I think makes it very clear how these variations can occur:







As you can see, the enamel (note the substantial vaulting) overlaps the edges of the letters to a degree, allowing one to make the letters essentially whatever exact shape one wants them to be. What the SEM also shows, though--and this fascinates me the most--the face of the letters was gilded again after the enameling, producing a slight overlap of the leading edge of the enamel. The implications for this are somewhat dramatic, because it would require either an incredibly steady hand to "paint" the gilding mixture (keep in mind this gilding has been demonstrated to show all characteristics of fire gilding, including presence of residual mercury), or a mask or template of some kind had to be used to create the precise outlines of the letters "on" the enamel edges.

I believe this was actually standard procedure in WWI...it is the only reasonably plausible way to account for the stunningly sharp lettering of the hollow gold crosses--which also varies from cross to cross as you note, Marshall--and obvious variations in the solid silver versions. No one has ever really explained a mechanism for how "hand finishing" produced the latter, and I think one is needed. Again, one wouldn't want to think somebody really was sitting there shaving, trimming, and filing each of these letters in relief by hand.

I submit this pattern is seen on my cross and those of authentic WWI vintage, but it is not present on the Godet-marked version (though the mold/die for the cross body probably was of the same configuration) and I see no evidence it is definitively present on Sasha's cross. Determining if it is could tell us a lot about what may have been copied from what, and potentially when.

[Zepenthusiast]

This shot is a super-closeup of the edge of the "P", showing the gold re-overlapping the enamel and also a region where the enamel did not melt entirely, revealing remnants of the glass beads:



The gold plating actually spills over into a "pit" in the enamel. Note the scale of the image in the lower right hand part of the frame.

[gregM]

After watching a video of the enameling process, it makes sence to
me that the lettering would need to be reguilded. I would think that
it would have been polished off during the polishing stage of the enameling.

[-=Re-Sa=-]

Jim,
Marshall has show exactly this what I want to say...

I saw this "chubby eagle" crosses in more variants:
-marked with Godet
-without marks
-marked with "silber"
-with diferents unknown marks (moon, nr. for silver...)

I saw on my collecting career many cast copys, and it is not heavy to separate a cast from stamping example. My PLM is for sure not a cast copy, at least not the cross, I dont know about eagels... but if they are a cast, then are on all the same...

Here is one more trick, I saw also copper made crosses with hard gilding and the fakers are made a small hole on it, because they want to trick the collectors that they are gold hollow... what the more interesting is, they weight exactly like gold examples 17-19 grams.

That the enamel overlaps the edges is normal, because the enamel powder not cover the letters before melting, sometime can by melting go over the letters but then come brushing under the water, and letter come back on the light.

Thats why can be inscription flat, letters can be deeper or they can looking out, and then must be brushed here.
On the end goes the cross on gilding.

My cross have heavy patina, it is almost black... on light you can see some gilding traces, but are very dark.

Jim, please make a 600 dpi scan from your cross without the loop, this will explain everything...

Greg, that is correct, first is enamling, then polishing, gilding is on the end... polished are together with enamel, more material goes away more fat are letters.

Regards
Sasha

[Zepenthusiast]

Sasha,
I'm travelling and can't post the scan yet, but I will next week. Meanwhile, I think the very variety of these crosses, as opposed to a bunch of monolithic, mass produced copies, may support the idea they are truly copies of something "real." There is a common prototype to them, for sure, but look at the suspension of yours, for instance. It is neither a true match for the Godet-marked cross, nor is it truly correct match for the proper Wagner. How does one explain the ability to give the apparently high level worksmanship of the eagles and cross body, but mess up something as simple as the suspension? One answer is that whoever copied the cross and eagles didn't originally fashion them and lacked a copy of the original suspension. Have more to say about the gilding but this phone-typing is driving me crazy! Will have to await access to a keyboard.

[-=Re-Sa=-]

Jim,
sorry for a little late answer,

I took my time and had a look in my old archives,

I found pictures from your PLM in a red box, this piece was sold in ebay in June 2007, if you want to know the price, I can send it to you via PM.
In auktion was no description for marks on suspension loop, so I have real doubt that they it was made lately.














I also found one without marks, also from ebay:








and some other types, I don't know from where they are.












You can see, some models have a thinner, some have a more solid suspension loop, that doesn't matter. I have seen both variants on all crosses.

First two crosses are attached to very poor quality ribbon, the last one have a 57 (S&L) version ribbon.

I have also found a description, like the Biro seed in other thread , that product is from the Mariano Cejalvo firm in Madrid. In my opinion, they were produced between 1960-1970.
That model try to be a Wagner or Friedlander, but it is still very good made, with many hours of jewellery work.

There is no question about my PLM, I am sure that the are all from the same mold,
but one question is still open, that is about the ribbon?
I have compare this ribbon with the one from year 1917 in Previtera book on page 266-267, the style of embroidering is the same, there are 14 white rows/lines, between are seams wrapped with alu threads.
On my opinion this is a original ribbon.




Regards
Sasha

[Zepenthusiast]

Sasha,

I think you are bringing to light some important things, but I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of them. I might add your archives are pretty impressive! That is my cross and the box it came in. I know the box is not original to the cross, though the box itself appears to be original, as I have traced its prior sale. I am also aware of the eBay sale of both the box and cross in 2007 as I know the buyer. The seller in that instance did not notice the marks on the loop. The buyer brought them to my attention, curious what they might mean. Since I didn't know, either, other than that they did not match those described in such detail by Stephen Previtera, we both concluded the cross was a good copy and--desirous of having one--I proceeded to purchase it. I subsequently saw the GODET marked cross in Prussian Blue and also initially assumed they were of identical manufacture. Only later did my noticing curious differences drive me to ask more questions and delve deeper. I will attach the hi-res scan of my cross, so all can take note of the details to be discussed, immediately following this posting.

I suspect your ribbon may in fact be original, and think mine may be as well. I understand that is not terribly unusual, as there is quite a bit more original ribbon floating around out there than original crosses. Whether the ribbon was ever previously associated with either cross is another matter, of course. They could easily have been "married," as my cross was "married" to an original box. My ribbon shows oxidation of the silver leaf wrapping the threads--you might see if yours does. It should be silver, by the way, not aluminum.

OK, some points to make:

The first set of images you most recently provided are a "classic" version of the cross type attributed to Cejalvo, including the somewhat misguided formation of the Baroque suspension. I have seen another, essentially identical in all respects. They were most likely (and correctly, one might add) all produced with no marks, Cejalvo being a prestigious jeweler of high regard.

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.

Now, about my cross...

At first inspection, one would assume it is a typical "Cejalvo" type, but on closer evaluation there are some very interesting differences.

1) It is heavier by a significant margin.
2) It has been fire-gilded, and none of those attributed to Cejalvo (or of that distinct form) are. The gilding is not a trivial process, as you realize, especially given my observations about the lettering--more on that in a second.
3) It has enamel formed from melted glass beads and evidencing substantial vaulting. The cross is thicker in the center and tapers substantially to the arm tips. The Cejalvo pieces (and yours, by the photographs) appear to all have relatively flat faces/minimal vaulting and essentially no taper to the arms.
4) My cross has a problematic suspension as well, but it is not identical to the Cejalvo pieces/yours, and shows obvious evidence of being a repair--not an original component of the cross. The solder attaching it is cruder and of a different molecular consistency than that attaching the eagles. While mine lacks the lower arch/rib of a correct Baroque suspension, it is otherwise of accurate form and microscopically suggests evidence it was cast from an original (that was itself perhaps damaged?) That on yours also suggests it was attached "after the fact," and is closer to correct than on the Cejalvo-attributed versions, but still is not quite right (or the same as the GODET marked versions.)
5) The corrosion along the edges of my cross spreads from the seam "outward" toward the edges, while that on yours (and the Cejalvo-attributed version I have seen) is exactly the opposite: seeming to extend from the edges toward the center. I understand, from the coin-collecting world, that the former is more typical of age--and harder to fake--and the latter more typical of an applied finish.
6) My cross bears unmistakable evidence it was gilded both before and after the application of the enamel. Why this would be done is a curiosity worth some speculation--my guess is the desire to better mimic the color qualities of the enamel on a hollow gold cross. This quality, of gilding beneath the enamel, is also seen on chipped solid silver crosses pictured in Prussian Blue until later in WWI, when the crosses seem to have been left ungilded.
7) The workmanship, sharpness of detail, care in soldering: all show what strikes me as a notch higher quality than evident in the Cejalvo-attributed crosses, with the exception of the suspension (as noted above.) If they are truly the same, why all the differences?

Could it be the Cejalvo type is not an attempt to mimic a Wagner (which by 1970, a company of their capability should have had no trouble whatsoever doing--plenty of photographs, as well as originals on display), but rather a copy of an actual type of original? Les would seem to be offering you evidence something along this line definitely existed prior to 1945, though everyone seems to be ignoring the statement. I realize from his comments, he does not think the GODET type is a descendent of what I will suggest was an earlier variant, copied by Cejalvo, but rather feels the copies were made from the GODET type. He may well be right about that, but I submit there are too many inconsistencies to support the Cejalvo type (or mine--or yours) could have been directly copied from one of the GODET versions, but would rather have required a new master for mold/die production.

Lastly, I submit your are too readily accepting the differences in the lettering could be explained by degree or depth of polishing, following the enameling. The lettering is simply not "trapezoidal" enough in cross-section to allow for polishing to so dramatically change the letter width/spacing, and if it were, the enamel should end up level with the metal surface, which it almost never is. Mine also demonstrates very few of the polishing/finishing marks extend across the enamel onto the lettering--only the coarsest, designed to give it "sparkle" do. Someone came back and very carefully re-gilded the lettering, giving it an absolutely straight-edge finish. If one is to claim that occurred just because the gilding won't stick to the enamel, then how did they control the flow of the enamel over the letter, to keep it a razor-straight edge? Melting glass beads would seem very unlikely to respect a precisely straight line, without some kind of barrier to impede the flow. I suggest a mask of some type had to be used to control this process--either the enameling stage or re-gilding of the letters. The evidence shows that on my cross, the lettering was partially overflowed by the enamel, then the enamel by final gilding, to yield the final version of the lettering. On the GODET marked versions and on the Cejalvo types, there is no evidence of overflow of enamel (in both, it appears to but-up against the raised metal of the lettering.) Furthermore, the GODET marked versions are gold, and have no need of gilding. Note no identical version of the GODET marked cross has surfaced made of silver, or demonstrated to be solid. That in Prussian Blue was assumed to be solid with fake weep holes, but there is no testimony the same was proven/demonstrated. Stephen P had good reason to think it a fake (it did not match known Wagners he was documenting) and hence had no particular reason to probe the holes, even if he had access to do so.

While I'm ranting and raving, how many known original PlMs are still in existence, anyway? While there is an established "what is", as forum member Brian likes to point out, does "what is" consist of--what--a few dozen documented specimens? Does anyone really know how many survive? Can we really conclude, based on what have been documented, that of the 600 or so PlMs awarded in WWI, those represent the only versions made nearly 100 years ago, rather than simply the most numerous? Just my food for thought!

[Zepenthusiast]

And the scan:

[-=Re-Sa=-]

Jim,
sorry to say that, my and yours cross are good fakes, that is 100%.

The Godet cross is totaly diferent,... they have totaly diferent shape.

We are talking about the finish on fake crosses, of corse there are possible diferences, if you will look S&L crosses, earlyer and latter models, you will know what I talking about.

The "hollow" version of "chubby" PLM is also not accepted like original, there are some "believers", but I am not one of them.

If this cross would be accepted like possible original, then mr. Weitze will not have a problem to sell one from his shop.

The ribbon from yours, what is on my picture from ebay, is also not even close to original, there is no wave on the edge and knitting is not similar to ribbons before end of ww2.

Godet have produced the PLM-s between both wars, but it was very similar to original ww1 pieces.

Here is one original awarded to Karl von Phlewe, the photo comes from Niemann, and the price was 23.000 Eur, not 2-3.000 like chubbys.
The Phlewe cross was also on auction from emedals, I think the start price was $35.000.

Regards
Sasha

[Zepenthusiast]

Sasha,

I understand you have having to work through translation, and perhaps that is giving your statements a "definitive" quality you may not intend (though it would be hard to misunderstand "100%"!), but I am puzzled how you can make these declarations without giving much evidence to support them. I pointed out 7 distinct differences between my cross and yours, but your only response to this was to say the finishes can be different. Sure they can, but they are not just different, they are qualitatively different in multiple ways which require explanation. One can easily explain the difference in finish in the various Rothe pieces, but no one has yet offered any explanation for the how and why these finishes and components differ, if they were supposedly made by the same source. If you are going to start from the supposition that the only possible Pour le Merites are those photographed by Mr. Previtera, then I suppose it becomes impossible to consider any other interpretation. While I have great respect for his effort to produce a definitive (and beautifully illustrated) work on the subject, like all academics, he has his own biases--to which he is entitled of course--and accordingly he presented his evidence in support of same. That is precisely why he declared the GODET cross a "beautiful and deadly" fake, despite 1) existing evidence it matches a product of pre-WWII production, with provenance, and 2) other evidence among pre 1900 crosses, pictured in Prussian Blue in fact, suggesting Godet made very Wagner-like crosses more than 50 years earlier. It is not so easy to declare "this is all Godet made" and "this is all Wagner made" as some would like to have it. Yes, that would make things very black and white for collectors, but is it really the case historically? If we never question what is thought to be "known", the world remains flat, right?

Also, I am puzzled why you now state the GODET cross is "totally different," when earlier in this thread you were super-imposing the pictures to say they were totally the same? Weitze was selling/sold one of these crosses--or perhaps a copy of one?--but I do not know what it ultimately went for. If it was $3000 for one of hollow gold, that would still not necessarily be surprising as 1) he states up front the cross type is of post WWI manufacture, 2) I'd guess no provenance is offered, and 3) the high market value of attributed and/or "fully correct" WWI crosses is based on their being attributed, "fully correct" by accepted standards, and of WWI vintage. That does not translate to a Godet-manufactured cross, from 1920 to 1945, being a "fake" or otherwise dubious. In the possession of a member of the Order, it would remain symbolically an Imperial award, and would have an historical value accordingly.

Like me, you obviously do a great deal of your research through photographs. Both of us share the problem we are not handling the pieces in person (aside from our own crosses, of course.) Just to demonstrate how photos can mislead, though, you declared my ribbon "not even close to original" based on your interpretation of the eBay photo(s), but here is a better one for you:



I would ask you to tell me how it is in any way substantively different from yours, aside from having 15 rows of silver thread instead of 14? Is it still "not even close to original?" While the classic description of PlM ribbon is to have 14 rows of silver thread, it is also widely noted (and Prussian Blue is full of them) that these ribbons could vary greatly in width and specific details.

Another friendly challenge for you: let's play a game and, for fun, assume my cross is a "rare original variant", made between the end of the hollow gold and silver crosses and the first production of solid, single piece PlMs from the later-war dies...just use your imagination for a moment!...now...offer me some good reasons to believe your cross--and /or any of those possibly made by Cejalvo--are not copies made from it, rather than coming from the same source and time? After all, mine has a repaired/replaced suspension loop that--if someone had reason to believe it were "the real thing", might justify their copying it in error...an error "corrected" to some extent on your cross. What other reason to explain why most of the Cejalvo-attributed crosses do not have a reasonably accurate Baroque suspension? "Because it is a fake" is not an acceptable answer, either! We all agree "these guys" aren't dumb and they are very capable jewelers. So why? I have given you seven (as yet) un-addressed or refuted ways suggesting mine has qualities which were perhaps copied, but are otherwise distinctly different in nature.
I await your response to the challenge!

Having fun with this discussion--hope you are, too!

[Zepenthusiast]

Another shot of the ribbon--the other had two layers one atop the other. In contrast to your ribbon, Sasha, note also that the silver-wrapped threads run loosely over the tighter white weave, a characteristic depicted in Prussian Blue on page 232 in the ribbon attributed to Bockmann and "common to many early war PLM ribbons" as cited on the same page. Bockmann's also has 15 rows of silver threads to each white stripe, incidentally.