Dead eye PLM

[-=Re-Sa=-]

Hi all,
her is another dead eye PLM commonly marked as "Godet",
but this version is with a "silber" mark
It is 2 pice construction with specially fited eagles, with nice enamel.
On the lover part is marked with W and 935 (?).
Dimensions are: w: 53.62 mm , h: 53.58 mm
weight 27.11 g
Ribbon is very scary, looks almost like a original.
I know taht this is this well known fake, but I want to ask if has anybody seen this version of PLM with such marks?

Regards
Sasha

[-=Re-Sa=-]

Some more photos:

[-=Re-Sa=-]

marks:

[Les]

Hi all,
her is another dead eye PLM commonly marked as "Godet",
but this version is with a "silber" mark
It is 2 pice construction with specially fited eagles, with nice enamel.
On the lover part is marked with W and 935 (?).
Dimensions are: w: 53.62 mm , h: 53.58 mm
weight 27.11 g
Ribbon is very scary, looks almost like a original.
I know taht this is this well known fake, but I want to ask if has anybody seen this version of PLM with such marks?

Regards
Sasha

Sasha,

This piece is made with a solid one piece cross, and attached eagles. These were made in silver, with no markings.

There is another cross which is very similar to this, although the cross is hollow (not solid with drilled holes as has been claimed in one publication), also with applied eagles, and the material used to make this type is gold, not silver, or bronze gilt. These have been seen with Godet markings. Although the style closely resembles Wagner made crosses, there are four known crosses with varying degrees of provenance that go with them. Bob Hritz, a member of this forum owns one, that is attributed to Hermann Goering. Another, with Urkunde belongs to a former President of OMSA. A third, also with urkunde is in a private collection. Another that is part of a large grouping, has a very good provenance attached to the group. One of them has been tested for metal content, and it is gold, not bronze gilt.

The solid silver cross with applied eagles and hollow gold piece are very similar, but there are several details that indicate the silver cross is a very well made casting that is smaller than the hollow Godet marked pieces. The solid silver crosses are relatively recently made and appear to have been cast using another cross as the model. The firm that made the silver ones is still in existence, and apparently still ready and willing to make more if someone is willing to pay their asking price.

"Zeppenthushiast" has posted examples of a cross he owns, that bears similarities to the solid silver cross you've shown, but there are details about the cross that are differences between his cross and the type of cross you've shown. He has submitted his cross for SEM analysis, and has presented some of the preliminary findings on this forum. I'm sure he is quite able to present his point of view better than I can, and I'll let him do so.

Given there are four examples, all with identical characteristics, and with varying degrees of provenance that lend credibility to these actually having been made by Godet, but during the end of the 1930's, but probably not much past 1940. At this time, that statement doesn't fit with the conventional ideas in the current literature, however, when there are documented examples that all point in the same direction, it's time to pay a bit more attention instead of tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

There's nothing more I'm going to add at this point.

[Zepenthusiast]

Hi Sasha,

The thread Les is referring to is "A Pour le Merite--What to Make of It"
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...&highlight=plm

The similarities and differences between this version and the one I had been investigating may be of interest. I have more SEMs (scanning electron micrographs) not yet posted. Still been trying to make sense of some unusual microstructural details and what they may tell us about manufacture.

Jim

[-=Re-Sa=-]

Les,
Thanks for the reply and explanations.
A piece of my own is not one piece construction, it is the two parts that I will try to show on the pictures, it is nice to see one and the other edge of two parts.
Eagle is exactly the same as in Previtera book... I identified one lesion on the model (wing of eagle), which is for sure the same die-tool.
I have often observed that many collectors have written here on the forum that PLM-s are casts, but the fact is that real enamel cracks on the casting models... when enamel cooling down, then cracks...only on stamped models enamel remain normal.
The reason that the piece is little smaller is because outer edges are thinner... this is a possible reason to hand finish, IMO therefore is slightly thinner outer edge.
On silver one originals is front side always enamled in furnace, the back side with open fire.
Enamling with open fire is already alomost forgotten technology.
I know today some firms for medals, but no one use this technology anymore, thats why are modern pieces 2 sided.
In addition to this piece in my possession, I believe that all versions of this chubby eagle come from the same tools, the differences and tolerances are possible due to hand finishing ... I completly agree with conclusion from Mr. Stephen Previtera in his book.
The fact that in making such a huge piece brought a lot of jevellery producers time, it certainly can not be a cheap.
Other question is very good made of ribbon, it looks pretty authentic??
Sorry for my english, I using google-translate.
Regards
Sasha


Here is one pic with a flaw, the same flaw is in Godet model in Previtera book on page 380.

[Zepenthusiast]

If I may, the indicated finding is not a flaw, but reflection off an intentionally formed facet. Each of the inner wing feathers of this eagle type features such a facet, but angle of incident light (and the fact some are more pronounced than others) makes this one stand out particularly well. That crosses featuring this are of common design and parentage remains true, of course, but that would be expected of a casting as well, whether made from an original possessing the trait or from the same mold. That these eagles are cast is suggested by the surface texture, but is made reasonably certain by the irregular mold separation lines around the edges at the feet and tail feather junctions. Those formations are not flat, as would be the case with the flash from stamping, but rather three dimensional and irregular/unfinished.

That's a bit of a bombshell, by the way, Les, that there are four hollow gold Godet-marked crosses with pre-WWII provenance bearing these eagles! Are any of them posted/accessible pictures? Bob H's came up in a prior thread, but I don't believe it was accompanied by any images. I would dearly like to get a high-res look at them...

[-=Re-Sa=-]

Jim,
very good thread, you have made some very good analysis...
My point of view is that are all chubby eagles from the some mold, agree they can be also casted...

I personally dont belive in the story about a Goering special PLM.
Agree with you Jim, also I would like to see some hi-res pictures from this PLM?

It anybody know how much is today markt price for pieces like this?

Regards
Sasha

Here are some pics, where is visible line between two parts:

[-=Re-Sa=-]

Here are some hi-res scans 600 dpi

[Zepenthusiast]

Thanks, Sasha--these are a great resource for investigation. The scans eliminate so many issues of reflections.

Your comments about the ribbon deserve remark, too--been waiting for some of the much more seasoned commentators to chime in, but from my amateur point of view that is either a section of real ribbon mated to the cross or somebody has learned to make one heck of a copy...

[-=Re-Sa=-]

Thanks, Jim... agree, If anyone would ask me, if this ribbon original is, then I would say "yes"... but if this copy is, then is very dangerous.

Looking forward to see some comments?

[Les]

Jim,
very good thread, you have made some very good analysis...
My point of view is that are all chubby eagles from the some mold, agree they can be also casted...

I personally dont belive in the story about a Goering special PLM.
Agree with you Jim, also I would like to see some hi-res pictures from this PLM?

It anybody know how much is today markt price for pieces like this?

Regards
Sasha

Here are some pics, where is visible line between two parts:

Sasha,

The edge seams on the solid silver crosses of this type, are strong indications of the piece being made by electoforming, which is similar to plating the inside of a mold and using an electrical current to build up a solid one piece item.

Andreas Schulze-Ising, a reasonably well known medal collector, an appraiser and staff member of a well-known auction house, member of OMSA, BDMOS and general all around good source of information on Imperial German medals, is also a member of this forum. Andreas has a web-site, and has posted an article he wrote for OMSA on the process of electoforming fakes.

The article, in German....

http://www.medalnet.net/Galvanoplast...achbildung.htm


The "Goering" piece was not a specially made one, for Goering alone. If this was a single piece without others of the same exact type being known, and credible histories along with each of the pieces, I can understand the skepticism. However, there are at least three others with provenace.

The "Goering" piece is in Bob Hritz's collection. Bob is a well-known member of this forum, and is honesty is above reproach. I've contacted Bob directly, and in the process, learned from him, that he located this and other pieces several decades ago, and was not able to buy them at the time. Bob provided important details about the pieces, and the PlM in particular, that he has not shared with the forum. I'm inclined to believe what Bob has told me about the details and background of his piece. The details and other information is consistent with what I know from the details of others that are identical in construction, and so on.

The hollow gold Godet marked pieces, and the solid silver ones look a great deal alike, however, when both are placed side by side, hand in hand, there are details that show they are not the same, and the differences are important and significant. I've held and compared both side by side. The hollow gold pieces are clearly NOT solid, the gas vent ("weep holes" are NOT drilled through a solid piece, and someone who believes otherwise would be wrong thinking they are solid.

[Les]

Les,

..<snip>

I have often observed that many collectors have written here on the forum that PLM-s are casts, but the fact is that real enamel cracks on the casting models... when enamel cooling down, then cracks...only on stamped models enamel remain normal.
The reason that the piece is little smaller is because outer edges are thinner... this is a possible reason to hand finish, IMO therefore is slightly thinner outer edge.
On silver one originals is front side always enamled in furnace, the back side with open fire.
Enamling with open fire is already alomost forgotten technology.
I know today some firms for medals, but no one use this technology anymore, thats why are modern pieces 2 sided.
In addition to this piece in my possession, I believe that all versions of this chubby eagle come from the same tools, the differences and tolerances are possible due to hand finishing ... I completly agree with conclusion from Mr. Stephen Previtera in his book.
The fact that in making such a huge piece brought a lot of jevellery producers time, it certainly can not be a cheap.
Other question is very good made of ribbon, it looks pretty authentic??
Sorry for my english, I using google-translate.
Regards
Sasha

Sasha,

I posted a comment on why your item is one, not two pieces.

Fakes of the PlM have been cast, and also stamped. Regardless of what someone thinks of S&L made copies, there are other post war fakes that were made by stamping.

Open fire enamelling is not a forgotten technology. Burning solid fuel (coal, coke, iron, charcoal and so on) can result in small pieces of burned and unburned material being included in the enamel and flawing the result. During the early 1800's, coal gas was used to light streets in London, Paris, Berlin and many other large cities. By the start of the Imperial era in Berlin, the use of gas for lighting streets, houses, cooking, and industry was wide-spread. Gas fired enameling manufacturing methods are possible for small scale shops using their own equipment, or if in larger cities, through access to public gas lines. Berlin began installing gas lighting systems as early as 1825, and are still in use some parts of Berlin today. Wagner and Godet, both Berlin firms, very likely had access to commercial and industrial gas sources. The consistently high quality of their enamel work indicates a reliable source of gas, and the ability to control gas firing temperatures that would not have been possible using less reliable open fire methods.

Enamel breakage is not the result of the casting or stamping differences. It is entirely due to the quality of the enamel used, proper enameling methods, and the way in which pieces are allowed to cool down after firing.

The eagles on the hollow gold pieces are slightly larger than the silver piece ones. I've measured them from the top of the eagle heads, across the center of the crosses, and there is a definite size difference that is not the result of how the pieces were measured. In hand, side by side, the difference in the size of the eagles is noticeable, but not easily and accurately measured.

The solid silver pieces appeared on the market a little over ten years ago, and I know who the maker was. The hollow gold pieces have been around much longer. Four of the hollow gold ones have various degrees of provenance attached to them, and all four are associated or attributed to men who were dead before 1946.

These reasons, the technologies used, size differences, and other factors are reasons that suggest the solid silver pieces were copied from a hollow gold example using advanced molding/electroforming methods. Both look very simiilar, but were not made the same way, or from the same molds, and equipment.

[-=Re-Sa=-]

Les,
thanks for exhaustive reply...

I agree with you about open-fire enamling technology, but today modern companys dont using this technology anymore, they rather producing two-piece construction medals and enamling separate piece by piece.
My knowledge come out from our company (Heledis ex. Aurea) for our state medals and insignia, to this company I have sold some machines in the past, and I have oportunity to see productions of many state medals and orders.

Also I have ben seen the higest state awards more pieces construction and precious stones, production of one medal cost the state 8000-10000 Eur (here I must say, that are our Slovenian medals a most uglyes on the world... like Star trek medals)
There also I have chance to talk with many people which working in medalistic also for 40 years... I have still the contact with them.
I have show my PLM to one of the leading masters and he say that is definitly two piece construction.

My opinion is, that are "Godet" in Previtera book (page 272) and mine marked "silber" from the same tool. On my opinon both post 1970 production. I also think that is this chubby eagle not Godet product. Of course I accept also other opinions too, If they are corroborated with the facts.

I have seen this type of PLM (marked Godet) on ebay before 6 years and I contacted the seller If he want to sell me the piece beside the auction, he wanted 900 Eur for direct buy, on the end was the price over 1800 Eur. Description on ebay was: "Spanish fake".

It is here on the WAF possible to see also the hollow gold example?
It would be nice a 600 dpi scan
Also would be interesting to see other 4 diferent examples?

Les, what is your opinion about neck ribbon?

Regards
Sasha

[Zepenthusiast]

Sasha,
One question, though: if the Godet-marked cross and yours derived from the same tool, how do you explain the substantial difference in the overlap of the "P" and the "o" in the Godet-marked cross, versus yours? Same tool should produce same letter spacing, no?

Incidentally, the "chubby" eagles are actually very true to shape for the gold Wagner eagles of early war hollow crosses. The feather patterns differ (clearly not made from the same molds, that is), but they share very similar qualities in terms of body shape, thigh shape and position, and leg form. There is even the noticeable difference in width between the bodies of the right and left facing eagles in both types of crosses. The suggestion of "chubbiness" comes from the lack of removal of the seam-line "fill" between the thighs and lower wing edges, creating the illusion of a plumper body. Black this out on your computer using an editing tool and you get a really scary copy. People quickly note the difference between these and the somewhat emaciated-looking eagles of the single-piece solid silver type, but the latter are not really equivalent to their gold predecessors in exact shape or dimension.

Your cross, while demonstrating substantial quality as a copy (far better than the Spanish Fakes, I would submit), could very easily have been made a better version of a (correct) Wagner, forgetting the inconsistency of the markings. That some pretty obvious features were left as they are may be indirect evidence the maker was in fact rendering an accurate reproduction of something they fully believed to be authentic. Whoever had the talent to make that didn't need to make the apparent mistakes they did. Raises the distinct possibility they were copying one of the hollow crosses Les describes?