Another Pour le Merite

[medalnet]

This theory is completely, absurdly wrong.

Sorry Jim. Can't just let it sit up there without a comment.

As you were.

Correct Trevor! This one was contracted as a full blown fake in order to trick collectors out of their money.

[medalnet]

...Kleitmann was for the most part producing bogus new copies from authentic Godet dies, not conjuring up previously unheard-of pseudo-authentic-looking badges. So if 1970s copies were being made, they were arguably made using older dies...

This statement is also not correct.

[Zepenthusiast]

Hi Andreas,

Can you provide an example (or more) of a known Kleitmann forgery that was made from "de novo" dies--that is, produced deliberately to fool collectors and not made from "recycling" original dies? I'm asking this not out of doubt, but for my education--I want to see how the quality and details compare to an original.

My problem with the "this was made to fool collectors" statement for the "Dead Eye" type is that, as much as it is repeated, no one has as yet produced one bit of traceable evidence that it is true: no cited contemporary witnesses, no documented timelines, no patterns of circumstantial evidence...just a consensus statement. I don't expect anyone needs to "disprove" the authenticity of the type for sure, but I also don't accept consensus as being equivalent to hard facts either. Consensus has been wrong way too often in many endeavors.

Kleitmann knew all too well exactly what a PlM should look like, right? He was a recognized expert in Orders. Why would he--or anyone making investment to produce such a forgery--ignore all contemporary evidence as to what it should
look like and generate an odd Wagner-like "Godet"? Why mark any of them "Godet"?
Why not make a fake Godet that looked like a Godet? These are questions I haven't had anyone try to answer, only having them dismissed as not mattering because "it's a fake after all, so why should it need to be explained." But that is just more circular reasoning. And, as I pointed out earlier, the argument these were made just to fool collectors in the 1970s is economically hard to digest, unless the forger were willing to do a whole lot of complicated work for pretty slim return on a relative handful of products. EKs can be cranked out by the hundreds without a great deal of finishing effort or high skill. No way a two-sided-enamel, hollow metal PlM can be fashioned with similar ease.

Best regards,

Jim

[Zepenthusiast]

This one was contracted as a full blown fake ...

Contracted by who and from whom? The statement is made as though there is evidence/clear knowledge that the pieces were commissioned by someone to be made by someone else. If that is so well established, though, isn't there some traceable source(s) or scholarship to support the statement?

Some time back, Les offered actual description of the how/when Cejalvo reportedly manufactured a run of some number of PlMs--at relatively high expense and by commission--that were copies of a Dead Eye type. They didn't make the original pattern from which they made those copies, as is clear because their copies were entirely cast and made no pretense of being hollow (no fake weep holes, etc.). Perhaps a little peculiar to put all that effort into making a run of expensive fakes modeled from a fake. Why didn't they just copy a "real one"? The latter were not in incredibly short supply at the time.

[medalnet]

a) Contracted by who and from whom?
If that is so well established, though, isn't there some traceable source(s) or scholarship to support the statement?
b) Why didn't they just copy a "real one"?
c) The latter were not in incredibly short supply at the time.

I will try to answer those questions out of sequence:

b) A forger mostly tries to take a real example to create a fake. In some instances descriptions from statues were used, thus since the 18th century (any order manufactured privately in a non issuing country) to the 20th century (example: Hessia: Orden Pour la Vertu Militaire during the early 80th). This example is obviously a copy of a Wagner or Friedlaender.

c) Not correct! You may like to look through sales catalogs and auction catalogs, there was a real shortage of imperial and even III.Reich material in Germany after 1950/60th. I can even remember how slim the offerings were (especially on rare material) during the 1980th and 90th. Hence the greater activity on creating and offering fakes.

a) This is a good question! This is also the reason why it is so important to attend collector fairs, OMSA or DGO conventions. Those provide real life contact to those who know, to those who did it. Nothing is more important than to meet fellow collectors and experts during those events. You will learn more then you will ever learn while sitting at home in front of your computer screen.
Coincidentally an expert from Germany spoke about the history of German imperial fakes at the last OMSA convention in Houston, TX. For the first time we tried to live broadcast the seminars held always at those convention. The lecture you would need to listen to, that covers your question is only available half online, due to technical difficulties (my phone battery died). But nevertheless it will give you an introduction to something that only those know that are connected within the real world collector community. (OMSA.ORG on Facebook)

Attend the OMSA convention, DGO convention, European Phaleristic Convention,.....

[Zepenthusiast]

Thanks very much for taking the time to give this thoughtful answer, Andreas!

I will definitely check out the link to the talk, though "classic" that would be the one with the technical difficulty! That is life, no?!?

Over the last two days I have been reading archived threads from other forums with posts by the late Bill Stump, describing some of the known and suspected reproduction and/or forgery activity of the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's, particularly with reference to Dr. Kleitmann and Ingo Blass. While production of PlM fakes is prominently mentioned, it's frustrating there are no photos furnished to identify exact types/qualities of same. Sadly, with his death, no way to learn more from Bill now. (He seems to have stirred up more than a bit of controversy himself, over time, too!)

Ironic that attending shows is clearly a great way to learn, but also apparently the mechanism by which more than a few devious fakes have been introduced among unsuspecting collectors, too, in some cases (from sound of it) by well-known dealers and people recognized as the "experts" of the time. Mistakes...temptations...lots of factors and more and more of it becoming lost in time.

[medalnet]

...lots of factors and more and more of it becoming lost in time.

The one good thing about the societies journals and forums like this. The written word!
Unfortunately there are a lot of false statements here, too.

It's difficult for most to sift through what is true and what is false.

...and we are back to attending medal collectors fairs. Nest: Max Show in Pittsburgh in September!

[Zepenthusiast]

Well said!

[Brian S]

This theory is completely, absurdly wrong.

Sorry Jim. Can't just let it sit up there without a comment.

As you were.

And it didn't take you a thousand words to say it.