Pour le Merite which maker?

[grueni1208]

Does anybody know these kind of Pour le Merite?
IMO a post war production by an unknown maker (for me).
No SuL piece.
It's from the 50's/60's.

Sold by Eduard Schiffer (german seller from post war pieces, look at Dietrich's RK book)
Sedlatzek?

Regards
Daniel

[Borzadow]

Hello Daniel,

personally I don't know, but it looks ugly....... (sorry but that is my honest opinion)

Are you sure that this is from 50/60's ?? Looks quite modern...

[Nigel N]

I would agree with you Daniel, that it is postwar and no S&L, but I also have to agree with Patryk, it doesn't look to have much age to it to me, nor the quality I would expect from a piece that might be thought of as a vets replacement?
-Nigel

[grueni1208]

Here the invoice document from 1963 by Eduard Schiffer.

[Nigel N]

Very interesting.... this does seem to prove the PLM is a period original, but I think we are no nearer knowing who the maker was, as up until now, I only considered S&L as a legitimate postwar maker of the PLM...maybe we have to think again!!
-Nigel

[Steve 5]

Very interesting.... this does seem to prove the PLM is a period original, but I think we are no nearer knowing who the maker was, as up until now, I only considered S&L as a legitimate postwar maker of the PLM...maybe we have to think again!! -Nigel

Well said Nigel, the paperwork that came with this PLM proves that another makers was at work....this PLM being obtained direct from a known outlet and not as a reproduction per say' from a doubtful source............who is the maker, perhaps one of our Imperial friends can identify traits that may correspond with known makers....although for such a high end award, it is as already noted not as well made as the St u L award, but IMO still a nice piece, especially with the provenance.
There was an "Eduard Schiffer" located in Bielefeld during the war which held an RZM licence to produce NSDAP awards, RZM code M12/11.....so perhaps they relocated after the war and as St u L did, made their own versions of certain awards not previously attributed to them, such as this PLM ?
Prost ! Steve.

[Borzadow]

First question is: do we are indeed 100% sure that this piece is the same that on this paper? Not from this paper for sure.

Second question:
- far much more problematic - as a bumerang
what is "copy" and what is "original replacement piece" ?? where is the border between them ??

S&L imperial products are copys. So that one is a copy too, whoever was the maker of it.

Anyway an ugly copy, as I have said before, so I doubt that it was made by any of existing medal makers - rather by a homely passionate. It was casted in a brutal way.

And one more thing - it has no tracks of any imperial makers.



That's my humble opinion. You may dissagree with me, but I just don't like it and I won't be suprised if it was made indeed in a more "modern era".

[Nigel N]

Hi Patryk!
Interesting points you make, and all pretty much true!!
Firstly, whenever two or more pieces are found together, wether they are medals and badges from a grouping, a medal and a case, or, as here a medal and paperwork, we can never be 100% sure that they started life together, any two pieces can be "put together"!
So, unless there is more evidence, such as photo's showing the PLM being worn by the vet etc. we may never be sure??
There may be more beckground info, from the family maybe? that can add to our knowledge, otherwise, we only have the PLM, and an invoice!
I can't recall seeing this type of PLM before, neither described as a vets piece, or a simple fake, so that doesn't help, has anyone else seen this type before???
There is always a fine line between a piece we would accept as a vets replacement piece, and a fake (they are all copies strictly speaking, but I hope everyone understands what I mean!)
The majority of the postwar S&L PLM's were bought by collectors, that I think we can be fairly sure of, but several PLM winners did buy, or were bought, the S&L type as a replacement piece, so that is the one accepted by most postwar and 57 collectors as an acceptable type!
The one shown by Daniel is a different type, by a different maker, and a lot more study of the piece needs to be done before anything can really be said for sure IMO???
Daniel.....could you show us some closeups of various parts of the PLM.....Eagles, Enamelling, Gilding, Fonts etc. this may help us to understand the quality of the piece, and maybe the age of it too!!!
-Nigel

[grueni1208]

If the PlM arrived, I will sent better pics.

[grueni1208]

The Pour le Merite arrived. Here are the better pics.
The Pour le Merite is a little bit smaller than the SuL version (1-2 mm).
IMO these version is more hand made (polish, cut out etc.), than the industrially made SuL version.

[grueni1208]

2

[grueni1208]

3

[Nigel N]

Hi Daniel!
Thanks for the extra photos!!
Still a mystery to me this one!!
The quality and style of the enamelling does not match S&L's earlier PLM's, and is not as good, but it is similar to that one their later pieces. Same with the gilding etc.
This is certainly a postwar piece, not by S&L, but who made it, I do not know, never seen another another like it!!!
Not sure how we will find out more, unless anyone has seen another and has some info, or more eventually turn up!!
-Nigel

[Borzadow]

In a closer view it looks not too bad.

Agree with Nigel in his points. It's impossible to tell the maker at the moment.
Maybe Souval? Just my guess. He produced everything, in later period he would reach this type of low quality.

[Alex W.]

..bringing an old thread back from the dead....

I’m finding this type of postwar Pour le Merite very interesting. Granted - it‘s not a real beauty when looking at the eagle details. However, there are some details that the pics don‘t really tell. Having just handled such a cross, I can say that the enameling is better than on many St&L pieces. The highlights on the cross body as well as on the oaks are hand polished - unlike any St&L cross. Interestingly the Oaks are match to the St&L PLM Oaks design. As Daniel already said, they are a tad bit smaller than St&L pieces.
They obviously seem to be very rarely find.

To me, there are no doubts that Daniel’s PLM is indeed from 1963, just as the invoice says.
Here is a picture dating from 1962, showing two such PLM’s on the left and on the right. The center piece is a Rothe made PLM.
It goes to show that these pieces have quite some age to them despite of their rather quirky quality. This piece shouldn‘t be misinterpreted just due to the eagle details.

Regards,
Alex