Pour Le Merite

[-=Re-Sa=-]

"The same type of cross is for sale in weitze shop for 4200 Eur."

Thats coming from the guy who sold it to you, not a very strong point.
He is in much the same position as you, trying to justify somehow the high price for a copy by reasoning of "others do it" & "I think it might probably maybe be real".

Yes that coming from me, but my opinion is clearly descriebed in thread "dead eye plm", and till nobody know for what price I have sold the piece, so long please no comment this. I can only say, that was much less than have Zepenthusiast pay for his on ebay...

[JamesUS]

Yes that coming from me, but my opinion is clearly descriebed in thread "dead eye plm", and till nobody know for what price I have sold the piece, so long please no comment this. I can only say, that was much less than have Zepenthusiast pay for his on ebay...

Understood.
I was only pointing out that a party involved in a transaction is usually not the best source for a neutral opinion, no disrespect meant towards you.
The fact that the buyer saw the thread before purchase shows clearly that you did not try to deceive - I think that is much more than can be said about his subsequent ebay auction, which of course doesn't involve you at all.

[Zepenthusiast]

Sasha,

That you have matched the cross I researched in detail to a sale on eBay some years ago doesn't mean I was the purchaser in that same transaction, nor do I see how it is germane to this discussion to put that in this thread, complete with dramatic "...". I don't appreciate it.

I went to some length to point out significant differences between that cross--bearing no definitively spurious markings and possessing some unique attributes, and the one you went on to sell to USGI. Did you use my contention the type may have some historical value (and note, I say "historical value") to sell USGI on the possibility the other cross was not a fake of recent manufacture, while up front in this forum claiming it and all similar are fakes? So which is the truth? I don't really care how much you sold it to him for, people are welcome to buy whatever for what it is worth to them, but I do care what information you "sold him on," if you are using claims about what I supposedly did or didn't spend on something in the past as a lure. Did you tell USGI I bought a similar cross for $X ???

Don, while I, like RAF_Louvert, have just been trying to recognize we can't judge USGI's heart, you are certainly correct that this forum and its members have a responsibility to stand up for flat-out honesty, and there was certainly enough written on the subject of the origin of this cross type being controversial to suggest it couldn't just be declared a Wagner. I appreciate your objection.

I'll also add, for my part, that I am still not sure the one USGI bought and sold is, in fact, a Cejalvo copy or fake of recent manufacture. I have definitely developed doubts it or any of these were made by Wagner. While I had meant to propose a theory in this thread, these developments perhaps render it either moot or undesirable to pursue at present.

[streptile]

Let's please be careful not to conflate Sasha's sale of his PLM, with the later sale on eBay. It's really not fair to a valued member here.

Sasha stated two truths to the buyer of his cross that we know about: 1) Weitze has one of these for sale for €4200, and 2) Weitze believes his is a good copy from the 1920s. We don't know what else he said -- but those two statements are not indications that he sold it as an authentic piece at all.

As for his quote about Zepp's purchase price, let's assume it was a problem of language and insufficient information. Knowing Sasha a bit, I really don't think he meant any harm.

[-=Re-Sa=-]

Trevor, thank you that you understand me and help me out, I realy have some problems with my english...
----------------------
Zepenthusiast , your PLM and my ex are IMO from the same manufacturer, except that your Godet marked as more common. Presumably, that code on my Silber is original from the manufacturer, while W and 938 are IMO made after.
All, Godet or Silber, from my point of view are fakes... also for general collectors community, of course with some exceptions.
I am sorry, I did not know that you are not a buyer on ebay... I mentionet this in old thread and you did not say that wasnt you the buyer. But the sale price on ebay before some years was very close to USGI price.

My view is that both are fakes, and from the same manufacturer, I clearly wrote this in my post 1,52,57,... in the following thread:
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=444807

Other thing here is ribbon on "Silber" marked PLM.
Imo ribbon is more worth than both PLMs (Godet and Silber) together.

---------------------
It is true that such PLMs have a high price in the market, among other things, I do not see where the USGI wrote that original piece. He simply has escaped assessment, which really does not know and leave that to the customer. In my opinion he did even fair with the upper limit price.
I can say that I have view also more expensive copys on the markt, for example: German order from Souval, for $7500

This is my position, if I willl sale this PLM on ebay, I would do differently, but ...

[willlee]

plm

Do I understand this correctly,
what has been for sale here has been a ribbon ,and the questionable PLM attached was just an irrelevant accessory that no one insisted was legitimate and there just wasnt enough evidence to warrant the seller to state that it was a copy?

[Montgomery Burns]

Do I understand this correctly,
what has been for sale here has been a ribbon ,and the questionable PLM attached was just an irrelevant accessory that no one insisted was legitimate and there just wasnt enough evidence to warrant the seller to state that it was a copy?

welcome to internet ...no shame here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd3RY...eature=related










.

[Zepenthusiast]

The PlM I have been investigating bears no distinct marks whatsoever on the cross body or the suspension. Unlike the hollow versions, both those in gold to which Les referred, and the silver cross Weitze has for sale, it is not marked GODET on the suspension. The suspension is rather beat up and shows signs of having been repaired at some point, but despite my best efforts, I cannot find any evidence of markings there present now or previously. Just lots of scratches. There is a peculiar indent on one edge of the lower arm, about where it should be marked for silver content, and it draws the eye as though it were from a punch mark. No amount of scrutiny on my part can make anything definitive of if, though. It is a solitary thing, with no adjacent suggestion of additional marks, and it is not a letter (certainly not a "W"). Strangely, it does not register on the electron microscope image as present at all--creepy, in that it's so visible to the naked eye, but perhaps that is due to the mirror/reflective qualities of the surface gilding. Whatever the reason, the cross is effectively unmarked. The cryptic markings on the loop are another matter. Content of the loop is essentially .999 fine silver with traces of a now missing gilding. Why someone would make a loop of nearly pure silver, gild it, then remove the gilding to the point it is no longer remotely visible to the naked eye remains one of its charms. While one of its markings can be taken to be a "W", it is just as easily read as an "M"--perhaps more so, as the sides are nearly parallel--and the adjacent figure of (?) "1" would also argue against someone trying to fake a Wagner mark. There is a probable silver content mark next to it, perhaps to be read as "925" though it could conceivably be "935" or "938" without too much imagination (only the top half of each numeral being discernable, and the third is poorly formed). Something was also once stamped into the loop a little further down, but it is too worn away to be intelligible by any means of which I am aware (and heaven knows I've tried).

The type is understandably "damned by association" with the Cejalvo copy and markings applied--at some point, earlier or later--like the "W" in question here, but I would ask everyone to remember there has never been any known case of a hollow version of the same made by Cejalvo. We know they made ten solid crosses and have seen pictures of one of them (and Les has seen the real thing, of course). That's it, no other vouched work of theirs has emerged to my knowledge. If Cejalvo was copying the hollow crosses, they were nonetheless making a copy of something, not inventing their own PlM style. And if it is a copy of something, that something might be only hollow crosses, or it might not. While I will try to remain the last to insist this type must be an authentic variant of legitimate manufacture, I would also suggest that there is insufficient evidence at this point to tar them with "fake" (implicating Weitze, etc., in the process for selling one), unless one is going to consider any PlM, not currently recognized as provenanced/verifiable Wagner or Godet piece and made prior to 1918, as a "fake." "Presumed copy" would be more fair. Fake markings, attempting to present something to be something it isn't, deserve their own condemnation, of course.

[willlee]

why must the Cejalvo be a copy, it doesnt seem to be a copy of anything but rather a creation of a court jeweller, ie rothe . Did Cejalvo state that the only plm they have ever created was this commissioned run. Why not others since 1860.perhaps this last run was modeled after drawings on file of their earlier work. Why would they copy exactly another jeweller's work. maybe the fake, poor spanish copies, or those speculated to be produced further east, actually originated in spain and are copies of the Cejalvo model. maybe those marked godet are cejalvos from the 20's or 30's with spurious marks added later or actual godet marks when sent for repair or re-enameling.

[-=Re-Sa=-]

IMO also "GODET" is fake mark, because this "Dead eye" have nothing common with original Godet crosses, I mean all types of dead eye... "Original" hollow copy or copy of hollow copy or copy of copy.
All marks and crosses are fakes. Alslo I dont belive in hollow dead eye, they are all fakes, and there is not even one prove that they are made before 1945.
If someone prove me diferent I will apologize to all WAF members and I will confess that I was wrong.

Can someone do a poll how many WAF members belive in that story about Goering piece and Dead eye Godets

We can only talk here, if they are made in 1960, 1970, 1980...

I know only, if I want to buy WW1 piece, then I must buy Wagner, Friedlander or Godet, and be prepared to pay $25.000 or more.
Before of that I will buy literature, do my home work and learn everything about PLMs.

As a matter of fact I have already do the second thing, only problem in this moment are finances , I dont want to sell my KC, Yugoslav national hero, and some DKs to buy one PLM

[Montgomery Burns]

IMO also "GODET" is fake mark, because this "Dead eye" have nothing common with original Godet crosses, I mean all types of dead eye... "Original" hollow copy or copy of hollow copy or copy of copy.
All marks and crosses are fakes. Alslo I dont belive in hollow dead eye, they are all fakes, and there is not even one prove that they are made before 1945.
If someone prove me diferent I will apologize to all WAF members and I will confess that I was wrong.

Can someone do a poll how many WAF members belive in that story about Goering piece and Dead eye Godets

We can only talk here, if they are made in 1960, 1970, 1980...

I know only, if I want to buy WW1 piece, then I must buy Wagner, Friedlander or Godet, and be prepared to pay $25.000 or more.
Before of that I will buy literature, do my home work and learn everything about PLMs.

As a matter of fact I have already do the second thing, only problem in this moment are finances , I dont want to sell my KC, Yugoslav national hero, and some DKs to buy one PLM

its not looking like an original ,,,and not as an fake ,,so it must be A original off one off the known jewellers ..

didn't you know that ????


but I am glad you still standing with your own opinion ...you got my vote






.

[Zepenthusiast]

A Hi to Willleee, your question deserves a reasoned response: Cejalvo, while a longstanding jeweler with multiple European royal appointments and history of producing high-quality work, has no documented history of working on commission for the Prussian or German states, and the latter had no particular need of them (having excellent local resources). If Cejalvo had ever done such work, I would think they would be quick to acknowledge it and likely still have the records. In contrast, they are actually rather evasive about the subject. While one could speculate about high ranking German officer presence in Spain during and after the civil war there, as well as any seeking asylum after WWII, it would be purely speculative. I do wonder if the latter is the mechanism by which Cejalvo obtained a model or prototype from which they made the copies Les described, though.

As for the acknowledged forms of PlMs, there is a kind of dogma being accepted, largely without question (see Sasha's most recent post, for instance) that what we know as the typical Wagner, Godet, and "Friedlander" PlMs are utterly consistent amongst themselves and exclusive of any reasonable challenge. First of all, the former isn't true. There are distinct differences in important details between the hollow vs. solid crosses produced by Godet and Wagner, including differences between the hollow gold and hollow silver versions (so much so that the existence of the latter is still contested amongst some of you, I know). As recent as 1981, Edkins wrote that the "W" mark was perhaps associated with the Wagner firm, but he was by no means certain of that. Stephen Previtera stated this more conclusively, though how he came to that conclusion he does not detail with any record citations, etc. I don't personally doubt it's true, but I'm trying to emphasize what little concrete evidence there may be for any of the professed "certainties" that are thrown against speculations about what else may have existed. Those mocking speculation about what Godet may have made as kind of "bobbing in the water" are themselves, honestly, standing on what is closer to ice than dry land. Presumably there is some dry land under it, but it remains pure presumption, in terms of any hard evidence actually published, of which I am aware anyway. Please correct me with a citation, if I am wrong about that.

While Stephen Previtera assigns the "FR" to be Friedlander, even he is careful to state it is logical presumption, but unproven and perhaps unprovable. And yet, that is the "bedrock" belief so readily engraved in stone, to the point of declaring Friedlaner a "manufacturer" of the PlM, even though every marked cross attributed to them is identical to those from Wagner's dies. Assuming they didn't borrow the dies for awhile, it's far more likely Friedlander was finishing and or just selling the awards than "making" them.

I have asked three times is different threads (once in this one) for someone to give a good ballpark for the actual number of those 600+ WWI PlMs which are known/accounted for...not one reponse yet from all those "certain" of what was made. So if you are basing your knowledge of what types actually were made based on a dozen, or two dozen examples with provenance, and few of the Wagner attributed versions even have an identical maker's mark (they vary quite a bit, based on what is photographed and presented in Prussian Blue), how do we get such certainty that closes off all other lines of inquiry?
Again, I am talking about seeking forensic evidence, not just throwing out neat theories. These events occured very close to 100 years ago, now, and without some degree of open-minded investigation of what might have been, some history may be forever lost.

All I'm asking for is a little less scorn and mocking, and a little more open-mindedness to exploring and investigating possibilities. Yes, they must be recognized truthfully for what they are, but that doesn't mean guilty until proven innocent, either.

[streptile]

A small but interesting piece of information that may be of some use to the discussion.

In 1930 or 1931, J. Godet & Sohn was sold (to J.H. Werner of Berlin, in my opinion).

The former owners began a new company called Gebrüder Godet in 1931.

[Biro]

.... In 1930 or 1931, J. Godet & Sohn was sold (to J.H. Werner of Berlin, in my opinion)....

Would that theory be based on the existance of these??

[streptile]

Would that theory be based on the existance of these??

Hi Marshall,

Yes, among a few other things: the Berlin phonebook, other sources, Godet-Werner marked EKs, etc.

I have been meaning to find the time to write it all out, but I never seem to be able to.

By the way, nice labels!