Dead eye PLM

[Zepenthusiast]

If the Cejalvo crosses have been made since the early 1970s, they could easily have been fabricated by creating a master, through photoetching, of the cross face with its crown and lettering. That would explain how the lettering has essentially the size and shape of mine, yet the enamel could be flush against the edges of the letters, as it appears to be on your cross, instead of over-flowing their edges, as it does on mine.

The same die or mold could not have readily made both the letters on my cross and those on yours, since what you can see on mine is not all which is there in metal. "Hand finishing" is responsible for the final shape and quality of the lettering on my cross, for sure, but not just in the sense of brushing away more or less enamel from a letter with sloping sides.

[Zepenthusiast]

Hi Marshall,

Sorry--I was typing the reply to Sasha when your post just came on.

Fair enough!

1) You are not separating the issue of how the hollow gold cross body was made from how their eagles were made, treating them as a single mold/die. While a single set of dies were used to make the typical solid silver Wagner (no contest,) it would appear the eagles were soldered onto the hollow gold crosses. So, "no" to totally new molds for anything but eagles, which were in need of them by 1917. Yeah, their beaks aren't the best, but I can show you "equally good" in undisputed hollow gold (and at least they don't look like a seagull.)

2) I believe the hollow silver examples are original, but respectfully I think you are wrong their eagles are "totally consistent"--they are in style, but the body feathers don't match the hollow gold version, unless I am really mistaken, nor are their eyes identical to those on their predecessors, even accounting for the infamous hand-finishing issue. My point was, why accept them as "perfectly consistent"--when they are not--and yet refuse to consider there may have been more than one set of molds for eagles available?

3) No. I think Godet got Wagner's old hollow gold dies, and relatively low-use molds for eagles to accompany, and did what was easy. Preferring a three piece construction, they used the faces and put a spacer in between. Instant hollow (and thicker, which it is) cross. Why didn't they just use their own? Why doesn't Goering wear one of their "standard" versions in the pictures Sasha posted. I don't know, maybe the style was "too Imperial Baroque" and not Art Deco enough for the times.

4) Yes. They came up with their design somewhere, and since mine has all the requirements to explain it being a model, that makes as much sense to me as that they made this thing from scratch, roughed it up to an equisite degree, broke off its suspension, then reattached it, then made a bunch of not quite right copies and stuck "W"s on them just to drive me and all of you crazy.

How many German officers ended up in Spain, after WWII? What did they have with them? It's my food for thought.

Thank you for bearing with me Marshall (and Sasha and Les.) I know all of you are very serious collectors with years and years of experience. I know my ideas are radical in that setting, but experience amongst academics (much of my life) has shown me they rarely look outside established paradigms at ideas which don't seem to match current understanding. It can be helpful to challenge the status quo a bit, if nothing else to keep it from being sleepy for those in it. If this discussion does nothing other than to get people to take a fresh look at how the accepted hollow gold PlMs were actually made, that is worthwhile to me. As I have said before, my cross is what it is, whatever it is. I enjoy it for that and it is likely the only such thing I'll ever own, so I might as well see where the ticket takes me. Disneyland isn't so bad.

[-=Re-Sa=-]

If the Cejalvo crosses have been made since the early 1970s, they could easily have been fabricated by creating a master, through photoetching, of the cross face with its crown and lettering. That would explain how the lettering has essentially the size and shape of mine, yet the enamel could be flush against the edges of the letters, as it appears to be on your cross, instead of over-flowing their edges, as it does on mine.

did you ever see what come out with photoetching?
My cross is NOT cast, that is verified with test hardness, by the way if you clank of cross is like a coin,... the cross is stamped 100%.
The lettering has essentially the size and shape of mine because both PLMs are produced from the same tool from the same maker.
The eagles are maybe casted, but they have the same thickness like on your PLM.

The same die or mold could not have readily made both the letters on my cross and those on yours, since what you can see on mine is not all which is there in metal. "Hand finishing" is responsible for the final shape and quality of the lettering on my cross, for sure, but not just in the sense of brushing away more or less enamel from a letter with sloping sides.

Mold or die-tool for my and yours is only one... qualitiy of letters on both are the same. Fonts are 100% the identical.
If someone can make a such perfect copy, there will be many Friedlanders or Wagners on the mart...
Only diference between my and yours is in thickness stamped plate silver and hand finished brishing on the edges...outer arms of cross.

Ok, let my cross behind, how will you explain that weitzes cross is not from the same tool like yours?

Our PLM is from collectors community not accepted like original, such discusision is dangerous for young collectors, they can be quickly ripped on ebay with such description of chubby PLM.

Regards
Sasha

[Zepenthusiast]

Hi Sasha,
I see you are online!

If you look earlier in the thread at Les' comments on electroplated copies, you will see why I have been unable to prove my cross was stamped, even with scanning electron microscope images. I suspect it was, but can't as yet prove he is wrong about the possibility of it being an electroplated copy. Andreas has discussed this on Medalnet, too, and it would seem such copies--if made of solid silver--would sound same as a coined piece. I guess that is the reason the technique is commonly used for faking collectible coins, in particular. That, and the very high capture of detail and avoidance of casting defects. I doubt you will convince any of them the cross is stamped and not electroplated, just by the old clank test, therefore!

You ask about how my cross is any different from the Weitze version. Aside from the obvious ways--he says it is hollow (and advertises it as much lighter than mine, 27 grams with the oaks, mine being 30.4 grams without even the jump ring) and the difference in the suspension, here are some other important differences. The Weitze version is obviously flat enamelling, front and back, unlike mine. The Weitze version has the same defect in the base of the letter "l" as yours (see arrows on the following pictures.) Mine, by contrast, has nice, sharp serif and a well formed letter. If these are "coined" or stamped, and the enamel placed and finished as you say, that would be a reproducible coining defect, yet it is missing on mine. If you are going to keep saying all these metalwork changes are "hand finishing", then we are going to need people working over every part of every letter, and the concept of coining or casting defects becomes useless, because anything can be written off as "they were too lazy to fix that, or they decided to focus in and make that perfect", ignoring eveything else.

The arrows on the eagles' wings show pretty dramatic defects, either from casting or bad torch work (or both.) These are crude by comparison to mine, and in any other discussion would be readily accepted as evidence of a copy/forgery. For some reason, it is only in the case of my cross that evidence of highly refined effort is written off as the forger having a good day, while all contrary examples are just "variation in hand finishing." Does it not seem strange to anyone, that multiple copies of Cejalvo crosses are known, all sharing the same defects, and not one other has turned up with the same vaulted enamel work or surface characteristics (the pattern of corrosion, for instance, which you have ignored commenting upon, though the distinction in distribution is plainly obvious) of mine? These others match one another in essentially all respects, the only real variation being the type of suspension.
I have also marked one foot of the Weitze cross. It has what I call the "staple" shape, and also represents a cruder rendition than any feet on my cross possess. (I know..."hand finishing".)

[Zepenthusiast]

Photo-etching could easily be used to produce high quality positive or negative images, by the way, from which a jeweller of Cejalvo's capability could easily machine dies for stamping, or molds for casting/electroplating copies. Having established the outline of the lettering and crown, all that would be necessary is to mill a little deeper to get the desired enamel thickness. Yes, I have seen photoetched output, and it is easily capable of giving the quality of lettering seen on the Cejalvo types. A small shop might find the milling tedious, by contrast, though it could certainly be done as you know. This may not be a popular way to produce fakes simply because it is only useful for the cross face/lettering, not the eagles and suspension. It would only be worth applying if you are in possession of an enamelled original worth copying, and don't wish to disturb the enamel of the original.

[-=Re-Sa=-]

Hi Jim,
my cross and one from weitze have the same weight and they are not hollow, that is normal wight for that cross. If you will compare a original Wagners and Friedlanders from same period of time, you will see that they have tolerances in measurments, 0.5 mm or 1-2 grams beetwen diferent crosses.

Marked deformations on the eagels are from soldering of eagles on the cross, and not from photoetching.

I ask my friend who work in medal factory which have produced medal and orders for 40 years in ex Yugoslavia... he sed that is impossible, he also told me production proces which I descriebed here.
That was nothing new for me, but I want only confirmation from him.

Look please your suspension,... I can say, your suspension is poor casted or poor photoeached, because of poor details.
Suspinsion looks like worn, but is not, because is gilding still there, If will be worn, then silver will be looking out... or?

Suspinsion is also not changed, there will be 100% trace of repairing?
There on this forum, you can not find the badge with repaired catch or suspension, where is that 100% covered.

If is my and Weitzes Cevaljo, then is also yours, If you dont want accept this, then I can not help...

It is hard to convince someone who belive in something for what he wish that would be so.

When I found my first RK S&L 935, I have also wish and belive, that is big deal... unfortunately it was not!
If would be fotoetching so perfekt, ask your self how many perfekt fakes would be there, how many KCs, Pilots J1... or silver RK KVK?

So I will not say your, weitzes or my cross is cevaljo... I dont know that, but I can say only for what I am sure, and that is, they are from the same maker!

If my english would be beter I will describe many more things about production proces of medals, I have oportunty to see stamping of golden plaque for the Pope with 500 T pres, or order for extraordinarily merit for Hans-Dietrich Genscher and many other things which were specila presents from Slovenia to other statesmans.

Or I have seen full boxes of copys there, for some very respectful dealers... but about that maybe next time

So.. that is, I think I am out of this discusion.

regards
Sasha

[Biro]

...I firmly believe my cross (and the hollow GODETs of pre-WWII vintage) were stamped from the exact same dies used for the hollow gold crosses--the same dies used for the hollow silver transitional version, too. The lettering and crown at face value look different, but I can demonstrate how what you see on the hollow gold GODET is likely the "base" stamped metal version, and all the rest of the variations are created by how the enamel is overlaid and finished. ....

Ok - so unless I've totally mis-read this, this is the most outlandish statement yet Jim!

I'll just clarify this...

You've stated 'firmly believe'. Not just a random, 'I'm throwing it out there' thought.... you've thought about this and you FIRMLY believe - that the dies Wagner used to make their 2 famous hollow WW1 PLM's were also used to make the dead-eyes?.

I've put a composite together of 4 pieces

1) A genuine hollow gold Wagner
2) A genuine hollow silver-gilt Wagner
3) A genuine solid silver-gilt Wagner
4) Your solid 'Dead-eye'


Marked plainly in RED on the blown-up right hand image are three features found on the body of a dead-eye PLM.

Sure, there are small areas on all 4 of the the PLM's below that plainly differ slightly and yes, that would be where the enamel may have overlapped, but overwhelmingly, the 3 Wagners are consistant with each other. I would be intrigued though to hear how you can explain that enamel overlap alone (because you have not mentioned anything about 're-working the crown and lettering' to make a modified 'dead eye' die, presumably because that would be plainly a rediculous notion) can account for:

1) The distinctive up-sweep of enamel on that left hand side of the crown where indicated in the red box (and not seen on any of the 3 Wagners)
2) The distinct increase in curvature of the base of the crown (not seen on any of the 3 Wagners)
3) The missing part of the 'F' as indicated in the red box (also not seen on any of the 3 Wagners)

To imply these may have been the result of small modifications done when somehow 'refreshing' the die for use on the dead-eye production is a non-starter, so please don't even go there...

[Biro]

And just so we're all clear, this is not just random enamel overlapping on any old dead-eye that I happened to have selected for the comparison above because it suited my purposes. These 3 features are consistent among all dead-eyes of all types, hollow, solid, Cejalvo. They are 3 of the 4 distinctive features I can see even at a distance that immediately identify a dead-eye to me, the 4<SUP>th</SUP> being of course, the dead eyes.

Here is a selection of ‘dead-eyes’ previously seen in this thread so it can be verified the features are common to all dead eyes.

[Zepenthusiast]

You have that absolutely right, Marshall. The images you have posted will help me make my point, too, but I want to gather a couple more to back it up. Stay with me on this one, please, because it really is the crux of the whole theory I have.

First--throw out the solid silver Wagner from comparison. I know it supports your point that the Wagner style is consistent, but we know they were not made from the same dies as the hollow gold and silver versions, and you can see the F does not align with the crown in the same position (they are "left-shifted" in the solid silver version, relative to the gold crosses and the mystery crosses--sorry, but I just can't call 'em "dead eyes" even to console you.)

Next, really take a good look at the variation in the two hollow Wagner versions you have selected. I will be showing you more, too. Look at the width and shape of the curved portions of the crown top, and especially the little cross/orb device on top. Now, answer for me exactly how those outcomes were achieved by "hand finishing", please? No one would seriously sit there and file away at the top of the crown to make such things, nor would they be likely to dink around with the little bow-tie like components lower in the crown. The F's are not even the same width! I think--and my SEMs would seem to support (lthough from a mystery cross variant, of course!)--that the fine details of the crowns, and the serifs on the letters for that matter, are the result of laying enamel overlapping a larger, more generously surfaced stamped-in-relief crown, and fine-shaping the outcome either by trimming the enamel back to desired shape (being very thin in the overlap) or perhaps via use of some kind of masking agent. That is mechanistically a whole lot easier than trying to micro-file metal on the cross face. Wouldn't be surprised if--even on a solid gold cross--there turned out to be a final gilding with a little re-overlap of the enamel (as on mine) to create the mirror finish and really sharp detail which makes the gold crosses so utterly beguiling.

The crown base would seem harder to swallow, but let me put together my best evidence that it may be the case. That the Cejalvo versions (which to me includes Sasha's and the pie top) match would be of no surprise if they are copied from mine, since they will be modeled precisely on it. And with apologies to Sasha--I really appreciate you starting this thread and if you are now taking your leave, it has been a pleasure and will look forward to some future conversation: you are hard to convince, but a gentleman!--photoetching could easily accomplish such a feat for the cross body. I am saying that--to be absolutely clear!--about only the cross BODY, not the eagles. That's why it's not useful for faking EKs, KCs, pilot's badges, etc.. They are too three dimensional--as are the PlMs eagles--for photoetching to be helpful. But the PlM face is nearly flat and all one needs to capture its distinctive lettering and crown decor is a good picture. It would work best from an original, though, for scale and resolution.

Cejalvo made specific and unique mistakes in this cross, if they were trying to copy a Wagner for real, mistakes that should have been obvious and were totally unnecessary, again--unless they had reason to think they were copying an original.

So--give me a reasonable mechanistic explanation for how die-stamped originals result in the variation you see in the gold examples--variation not seen to the same extent in all the solid silver Wagners--and I will mark and post the other evidence for you to consider!

[Zepenthusiast]

Oh--and while you are at it--check out the EXACT shape of the little cross on top of the hollow silver crown...note the relative size of its little arms and their shape, then compare that little detail with mine...

[streptile]

Hello guys.

This thread -- and the two or three similar threads we've seen over the past year -- are a bit intimidating to jump into feet first. I've been following the discussion carefully, though (as I'm sure have others), and I feel at this point like I just have to weigh in on two small points.

Cejalvo made specific and unique mistakes in this cross, if they were trying to copy a Wagner for real, mistakes that should have been obvious and were totally unnecessary, again--unless they had reason to think they were copying an original.

When Cejalvo was copying the PLM, the demands and expectations of collectors were different from what they are today. The kind of knowledge we have about these awards -- specifically, a very limited and finite number of types that are considered textbook originals, and to which any one specific example ought to conform in order to be considered authentic -- was lacking. Look at the "Rounder RKs," to take only one example. It was not a copy of a specific type, but rather an attempt to replicate the shape, materials and methods of construction of an original. In other words, it was an attempt to create a new type. That is how fakers operated back then, and the Cejalvo is a perfect illustration of this practice.

That is changed now, and the new generation of fakers makes an effort to duplicate one specific, accepted type. If someone decides to put the time and resources into producing a new PLM fake, you can bet it'll be modeled on a Wagner or Godet. But I think it is a mistake to think that Cejalvo attempted to copy a specific original of any type.

I firmly believe my cross [was] stamped from the exact same dies used for the hollow gold crosses--the same dies used for the hollow silver transitional version, too.

Jim, I admire your tenacity and relentless curiosity on this subject, but it must be said that it is perfectly plain to see that the Hollow Gold, and the Hollow Silver PLM bodies are made from one die, and that yours is from a different die. If you focus your prodigious energies on explaining away the three differences Marshall has highlighted, you run the risk of overlooking other, larger differences. For one thing, the entire shape of the crown is different!

I don't feel qualified to authenticate any PLM, but I do know that claiming yours is from the same die as the Wagners is a non-starter.

It's not uncommon for a collector to believe that his piece is "the original, authentic model on which fakes were modeled," but I think you have the develop a theory that postulates a previously unknown type of original if you wish to make this case for your piece. It simply can not fit, where you are theorizing that it fits.

[Biro]

.....Oh--and while you are at it--check out the EXACT shape of the little cross on top of the hollow silver crown...note the relative size of its little arms and their shape, then compare that little detail with mine... ....

I did - and yep, they're a pretty good match. In fact they're probably spot on. Unlike the THREE features I outlined for you which are clearly still very different. There are minor differences everywhere, in all PLM's of any specific group and type as you would expect when dealing with hand made, hand finished and hand poured objects. But surely it's the irrefutable differences that are incriminating when talking about a die, not the occaisional similarity.

.....Next, really take a good look at the variation in the two hollow Wagner versions you have selected. Look at the width and shape of the curved portions of the crown top, and especially the little cross/orb device on top. The F's are not even the same width!....

Remember, I'm not the one "firmly" postulating that the Hollow Gold, Hollow Silver and Dead-Eye are from the same die. You are! So which is it... are all three dies the same or are all three different now? I refuse to let you have it both ways!!!

.....First--throw out the solid silver Wagner from comparison. I know it supports your point that the Wagner style is consistent, but we know they were not made from the same dies as the hollow gold and silver versions, and you can see the F does not align with the crown in the same position (they are "left-shifted" in the solid silver version, relative to the gold crosses and the mystery crosses....

I wouldn't dispute that about the 'F' on the solid silver Wagner. But seeing as you've raised the point - lets talk some more about this problematic "left shifting" then?

Uh-oh....



.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...............................

[Zepenthusiast]

Ok, y'all--I don't have my pictures quite ready yet, but I can't resist...

"are all three dies the same or are all three different now?

Marshall, are you now offering me "three" dies?

One for the hollow gold, one for the hollow silver and one for the "dead eye"?

That "F" is getting a little fatter, it would seem, in one of them there hollow crosses and one side of it seems to be able to move to the left a little...hmmm...what if the the right side moved to the right a little....what if there were a picture of something like that from an unimpeachable source... hmmm.....

[Zepenthusiast]

Nice to have you join the fray, Trevor! I am working on my crown piece d' la resistance (or however one would spell that) now!

[streptile]

Thanks for the warm welcome Jim.

lets talk some more about this problematic "left shifting" then?
Uh-oh....

Really an excellent observation, Marshall. There are so many, many small differences between the dies -- but this is a pretty major one.