Pour Le Merite

[Zepenthusiast]

Thanks, Trevor--I thought my "close up" would post larger than it did, but photobucket seems to have shrunk it back to original in the upload.

For comparison, here is another PlM, I would argue a typical Wagner (GFM Ferdinand Schorner, from a site called "The Third Reich in Color"). The eagle size seems overtly different, to my eye, compared to that of Goering's PlM.



Note head, neck and shoulders of eagles below the figurative line connecting the vertices of the notches at arms' ends.

[Zepenthusiast]

Here's the two side by side, scaled the same. One has to ask, if the cross Goering is wearing is not the alleged "Goering Dead Eye" or something hauntingly like it, how can one argue it is a conventional Wagner?





I think a good case can be made the overlap of the "P" and "o" is visible in the Goering shot, too.

[Zepenthusiast]

Eagle, a member from Germany, just posted a wonderfully concise summary of the Godet companies--plural now well-established to be correct--organization in the 1930's and thereafter, in the Godet thread coinciding with this one. The multiple great contributions to that thread do much to reinforce the contention here: that the Godet brothers, now legally separated from the original family company structure, would produce a PlM unique to Gebruder Godet and identifiably different from the more commonly recognized private-purchase cross should be a far less controversial claim.
Marshall has always (very reasonably) asked "Why?" and this makes for a very good reason!

[Leroy]

Is there a connection beyween the "Schickle" PLM and the "other" Godet?

[Zepenthusiast]

I would say 1) it makes sense there could be--perhaps a need to "revitalize" their PlM to better compete with the Gebr. Godet version, for what private purchase market existed at the time and 2) you have provided, in post #110 of the Godet thread, several examples of RK hints/connections to Schickle to suggest such an arrangement potentially did exist. It has been previously noted the "Schickle" PlM has a somewhat Art Deco inspired tail feather arrangement, in contrast to the more Baroque curviness of the original private purchase version. Since J. Godet & Sohn no longer included any actual Godets from the sound of it, and the dies must have been aging substantially by then, why not "farm it out" it Schickle to update the cross?

[Biro]

?... Since J. Godet & Sohn no longer included any actual Godets from the sound of it, and the dies must have been aging substantially by then, why not "farm it out" it Schickle to update the cross?

... So that Schickle could then mark the odd one JG&S???

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...239695&page=19

Remember, even the connection of the 'Schickle PLM' to Otto Schickle themselves is somewhat tenuous. We refer to it as the Schikle PLM, but the picture of the Schickle PLM was - as far as I understand it - on a LOOSE LEAF, UNMARKED page, sold by Weitze to Gordon along with the marked Otto Schickle catalogue.

Although it is likely, there is still not 100 % definitive proof that the page actually belonged with the Schickle catalogue. I know there was huge conjecture over the tank badge (which I didn't follow), so someone correct me if I'm wrong on that one.

Marshall

[Biro]

?... Since J. Godet & Sohn no longer included any actual Godets from the sound of it....

Bit ambiguous - Please explain?

[streptile]

...the picture of the Schickle PLM was - as far as I understand it - on a LOOSE LEAF, UNMARKED page, sold by Weitze to Gordon along with the marked Otto Schickle catalogue.

That's my understanding as well.

On a related but separate subject:

One major question will be, who ended up with the Godet dies after "the split"? I have some good preliminary evidence that it may have been Gebrüder Godet who maintained at least some of the tools and dies from J. Godet.

For a teaser, check out p. 286 (a J. Godet PLM mini) and then p. 295 (a Gebrüder Godet pie-wedge mini that's a pretty close match) in Prussian Blue. I know these are minis, and I am not at all confident enough to make any generalizations yet about who ended up with what, and who had to redesign what, but I think that caution is merited when discussing the subject until we know more.

I'll say again that I have no opinion (yet) on the authenticity or period of manufacture of the "Dead Eye" PLM.

[streptile]

Bit ambiguous - Please explain?

I believe it's this:

J. Godet did not employ any person by the name of Godet after (let's say) 1930.

Is that what you meant there?

[Biro]

?.... I have some good preliminary evidence that it may have been Gebrüder Godet who maintained at least some of the tools and dies from J. Godet...

Can you make that a separate thread Trevor - perhaps one that can be linked to in your 'GODET' company thread.

It'll get buried here....

[Biro]

... For a teaser, check out p. 286 (a J. Godet PLM mini) and then p. 295 (a Gebrüder Godet pie-wedge mini that's a pretty close match) in Prussian Blue....

Irrefutably the same mini PLM on both

[streptile]

Can you make that a separate thread Trevor - perhaps one that can be linked to in your 'GODET' company thread. It'll get buried here....

Yes, of course. It'll be a little while, but I'll set it up elsewhere when I'm more confident of the facts.

[Zepenthusiast]

Trevor did take my comment correctly about no-one bearing the name Godet being with J. Godet & Sohn after the sale, that being my interpretation of the two (? only) Godet brothers running Gebr. Godet, and all the discussion of ownership of JG&S not including anyone bearing that surname thence.

That "J.G. & S." marked "Schickle" is regarded as suspicious, though, right Marshall? The mark doesn't directly resemble any of the known "J.G. & .S" versions otherwise identified, unless I am mistaken, and it was clearly added to the cross suspension on a plate of some kind. The only other "Schickle" type bearing a J.G. &S of which I am aware is the one from the Wolff group, which came under considerable fire for the same reason. Even if authentic as a marking, no reason Schickle couldn't be making the type for the consortium and using the most prominent relevant mark belonging to the allied group of companies, and/or Schickle marketing the cross on behalf of the same outfit (who actually made it, that is, perhaps being of less immediate importance).

[Zepenthusiast]

And...sorry, my friend, but those two minis, while very close, are not identical! Check out the pie slices: the hole is not at the same height relative to the cross body (and that cannot be a variation in hand finishing). There are other subtle metallic differences--angle of the hyphens, for instance, and the shaping of the wing-thigh spaces; one might argue the latter two, but the suspension can't be explained otherwise. It can't be drilling variation, either (in case that would be suggested to explain the difference), as the p. 295 example has a raised rim around the hole front and back, implying it had to be formed in place as is. The other one may have such a rim, too, but harder to tell.

A tribute to the sense these had to have a particular "right" form! So...evidence they were working off different dies???

[Biro]

...That "J.G. & S." marked "Schickle" is regarded as suspicious, though, right Marshall? The mark doesn't directly resemble any of the known "J.G. & .S" versions otherwise identified, unless I am mistaken, and it was clearly added to the cross suspension on a plate of some kind.

The only other "Schickle" type bearing a J.G. &S of which I am aware is the one from the Wolff group, which came under considerable fire for the same reason...

The PLM in the link I posted was the one from the Wolff group Jim, which came under considerable fire (from me anyway) not because of the marking, but because it was sold alongside Wolff's bona-fide wartime Godet, as a period piece (1914-1918) not a later replacement. The implication from the family and the dealer being that both types were manufactured concurrently during the war.

... no reason Schickle couldn't be making the type for the consortium and using the most prominent relevant mark belonging to the allied group of companies, and/or Schickle marketing the cross on behalf of the same outfit (who actually made it, that is, perhaps being of less immediate importance)...

I totally beleive that in the case of the PLM associated with the Schickle catalogue, that Schickle were selling on behalf - I doubt VERY much they had any hand in the manufacturing.

Who made it then, of course, WAS irrelevant, but now - given that we are trying to establish which 'GODET' company made what, it is of the utmost importance.