wehrmacht awards


Go Back   Wehrmacht-Awards.com Militaria Forums > Ken Jasper International Militaria Forums > Imperial Militaria Forum

Imperial Militaria Forum The discussion and study of Imperial German awards and of their Central Powers Allies from the First World War

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Another Pour le Merite
Old 07-11-2019, 02:41 PM   #1
medalnet
Forum Sponsor
 
medalnet is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 609
Default Another Pour le Merite

Curious to see about the general consensus on this golden Pour le Merite
Attached Images
File Type: jpg PlM-av.jpg (107.1 KB, 571 views)
File Type: jpg PlM-rv.jpg (93.1 KB, 571 views)
File Type: jpg PlM-detail.jpg (148.0 KB, 571 views)
__________________


medalnet.net and medalnetservices.com


  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2019, 05:37 PM   #2
blind pew
Association Member
 
blind pew is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: US
Posts: 283
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by medalnet View Post
Curious to see about the general consensus on this golden Pour le Merite
It looks nice- how long ago was it made?

The enamel appears to be dead flat with no central curvature at all. There appears to be some evidence of casting marks on the eagles. Look at the finishing of some of the letters at the junction of the enamel- the "t" in the "rite" is sloppy and the peripheral margins of the letters look muted. This does not appear to be quality work we would expect of an early PLM at a point in which speed was not at a premium and the quality would be expected to be better, not worse.

Looking at the details of the feathers and tail feathers of the eagles, they are far more muted than even the transitional gilt-hollow model I have and much less defined than the pure gold hollow Wagner.

To each his own, but don't like it. The quality is excellent, but for the above reasons I cannot see how an earlier strike (which this would have to be) would have far worse detail than a known later transitional piece, as well as a known earlier gold piece. The enamel looks brand new, has no central curve, and has essentially no damage.

I am very suspicious of any PLMs with very little, if any, enamel damage. Every PLM I have had with decent provenance has an abused look to the enamel and evidence of ring wear. Being a gold piece, we should expect more, not less wear.

Most everyone else will probably like it or love it.

What other medals, materials, or documents were presented in conjunction with this? What does the case look like?

Out of curiosity, why are you even asking, as you obviously have already drawn your own conclusions and have examined it in detail with a loupe?

Last edited by blind pew; 07-11-2019 at 06:05 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2019, 07:17 PM   #3
Patrick W
Association Member
 
Patrick W is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Southern England
Posts: 6,837
Default

That one is a well known copy
__________________
Best regards, Patrick

"Rein muss er" und wenn wir beide weinen! - Personal inscription of Oblt Klaus Faber, JV44 Papagei Staffel
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-12-2019, 06:43 AM   #4
blind pew
Association Member
 
blind pew is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: US
Posts: 283
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick W View Post
That one is a well known copy
I am just wondering why the OP posed this question, as he obviously knows what it is.

What are we missing here?
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-12-2019, 08:12 AM   #5
medalnet
Forum Sponsor
 
medalnet is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 609
Default

I had hoped to see some more stabs at this, but this shows that a well made piece can always stir up a discussion. Patrick W hit it on the head. It is a fake, but probably the very first made to intentionally sell as the real thing to believing customers.

It is obviously very well made, in the same manner as the pre 1916 originals. Hollow from multiple pieces and even has the de-gassing holes.

A direct comparison will reveal the truth rather quickly.

Thank you for your opinions!
__________________


medalnet.net and medalnetservices.com


  Reply With Quote

Old 07-12-2019, 09:32 AM   #6
Erickn
Association Member
 
Erickn is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: .....
Posts: 1,453
Default

Although a nicely produced piece, my initial gut impression of the details reminded me of the so-called Spanish fake. Fact, the piece is hollow reflects the fakers are improving their skills and have prepared to take it to the next level, but have a long way to go. Ribbon does not look much better to me. Thanks for showing this very interesting fake.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-12-2019, 03:35 PM   #7
medalnet
Forum Sponsor
 
medalnet is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erickn View Post
Although a nicely produced piece, my initial gut impression of the details reminded me of the so-called Spanish fake. Fact, the piece is hollow reflects the fakers are improving their skills and have prepared to take it to the next level, but have a long way to go. Ribbon does not look much better to me. Thanks for showing this very interesting fake.
This fake actually dates back to the 1970th!
__________________


medalnet.net and medalnetservices.com


  Reply With Quote

Old 07-12-2019, 04:35 PM   #8
Erickn
Association Member
 
Erickn is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: .....
Posts: 1,453
Default

Wow, 1970th, learn something new every day. This is the first hollow in this design I remember seeing. Thanks for the up date.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-12-2019, 07:34 PM   #9
blind pew
Association Member
 
blind pew is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: US
Posts: 283
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by medalnet View Post
I had hoped to see some more stabs at this, but this shows that a well made piece can always stir up a discussion. Patrick W hit it on the head. It is a fake, but probably the very first made to intentionally sell as the real thing to believing customers.

It is obviously very well made, in the same manner as the pre 1916 originals. Hollow from multiple pieces and even has the de-gassing holes.

A direct comparison will reveal the truth rather quickly.

Thank you for your opinions!
I now understand the purpose of you posting. Thank you for showing a fake to alert to the presence of a hollow fake.

I just pulled out my two hollow pieces and compared them to the images and it was pretty quick to tell the difference.

In isolation, identifying it might be harder.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2019, 04:25 AM   #10
gmu
Member
 
gmu's Avatar
 
gmu is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 159
Default

Oh, nice one. Unfortunately, it is not an authentic cross. Dangerous fake!
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-03-2019, 05:03 PM   #11
Zepenthusiast
Member
 
Zepenthusiast's Avatar
 
Zepenthusiast is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eastern USA
Posts: 899
Default

Despite having deep respect for Andreas, I have to take issue with the certain declaration this type--elsewhere commonly referred to as the "Dead Eye"--is without doubt a fake dating from the 1970s. (Reference my long-running thread "Much That Once Was...", quiet for a good long time, but can assure you not dead yet! Sorry Trevor, you probably had your hopes...) Unless some new and highly compelling evidence has emerged proving the 1970s origin, though--and please show it if there is--to my understanding that is widely believed but is itself without any concrete evidence.

In contrast, there are at least three of these hollow versions of which I am aware with reasonably good history tracing them to WWII war-trophy status. While such anecdotal "provenance" is certainly open to question, in at least one case the cross was obtained from the family of a deceased Free French soldier, not known to be a collector himself and accompanying his other wartime personal effects, and they didn't themselves know what it was. That would constitute a strange history for an otherwise non-collector obtaining something in the 1970s.

My theory remains this type's origin was post-1917 Godet, meant to be "Probemäßig" for official bestowal, in contrast to their commonly recognized private purchase pieces. As I have pointed out in the mentioned thread, they bear more than a coincidental number of "fingerprints" of Godet artistic design, would explain why one of the premier and most highly favored of Imperial jewelers somehow didn't otherwise seem interested in producing an official version of such an exalted award, the obvious quality of the construction, and--for Blind Pew--even the durability of the enamel (Classic Godet PlMs seldom show anywhere near the enamel damage common to period Wagners...I think that is pretty easy to back up).

If the theory had any merit, there would not have ever been many of them from the earliest years, as they would have been laborious to construct by comparison to a one-piece, stamped Wagner. Furthermore, two or more decades of post-war production would explain some of the several variants out there now--something otherwise hard to explain under the "1970s fake" story, since series of fakes tend to be manufactured (not surprisingly) much alike. Consider the "Spanish Fake" in that regard. While it may be easy to consider someone putting the effort to build a hollow, three-part gilded silver and enameled cross together for the contemporary market nowadays with a potential 10-20K+ return, would someone having the needed talent have put a similar effort creating a relative handful of them in the 1970s for a fraction of the return? There are certainly high quality fake badges/breast stars, etc. from that period, but the effort to produce this piece would be an order of magnitude greater, without much more to show for it.

Lastly, while Trevor strongly advanced the suggestion Kleitmann was behind these, keep in mind 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...

Last edited by Zepenthusiast; 08-03-2019 at 06:32 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-04-2019, 03:27 PM   #12
Forssmann
Association Member
 
Forssmann's Avatar
 
Forssmann is online now
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: NC
Posts: 170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zepenthusiast View Post
Despite having deep respect for Andreas, I have to take issue with the certain declaration this type--elsewhere commonly referred to as the "Dead Eye"--is without doubt a fake dating from the 1970s. (Reference my long-running thread "Much That Once Was...", quiet for a good long time, but can assure you not dead yet! Sorry Trevor, you probably had your hopes...) Unless some new and highly compelling evidence has emerged proving the 1970s origin, though--and please show it if there is--to my understanding that is widely believed but is itself without any concrete evidence.

In contrast, there are at least three of these hollow versions of which I am aware with reasonably good history tracing them to WWII war-trophy status. While such anecdotal "provenance" is certainly open to question, in at least one case the cross was obtained from the family of a deceased Free French soldier, not known to be a collector himself and accompanying his other wartime personal effects, and they didn't themselves know what it was. That would constitute a strange history for an otherwise non-collector obtaining something in the 1970s.

My theory remains this type's origin was post-1917 Godet, meant to be "Probemäßig" for official bestowal, in contrast to their commonly recognized private purchase pieces. As I have pointed out in the mentioned thread, they bear more than a coincidental number of "fingerprints" of Godet artistic design, would explain why one of the premier and most highly favored of Imperial jewelers somehow didn't otherwise seem interested in producing an official version of such an exalted award, the obvious quality of the construction, and--for Blind Pew--even the durability of the enamel (Classic Godet PlMs seldom show anywhere near the enamel damage common to period Wagners...I think that is pretty easy to back up).

If the theory had any merit, there would not have ever been many of them from the earliest years, as they would have been laborious to construct by comparison to a one-piece, stamped Wagner. Furthermore, two or more decades of post-war production would explain some of the several variants out there now--something otherwise hard to explain under the "1970s fake" story, since series of fakes tend to be manufactured (not surprisingly) much alike. Consider the "Spanish Fake" in that regard. While it may be easy to consider someone putting the effort to build a hollow, three-part gilded silver and enameled cross together for the contemporary market nowadays with a potential 10-20K+ return, would someone having the needed talent have put a similar effort creating a relative handful of them in the 1970s for a fraction of the return? There are certainly high quality fake badges/breast stars, etc. from that period, but the effort to produce this piece would be an order of magnitude greater, without much more to show for it.

Lastly, while Trevor strongly advanced the suggestion Kleitmann was behind these, keep in mind 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...
Well, this one was posted to the etrader a few weeks ago for ~$1000, and marked sold shortly after if memory serves me right
__________________
2D BN 9TH Marines - Hell in a Helmet
OEF 2011 & 2012
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-04-2019, 10:24 PM   #13
Zepenthusiast
Member
 
Zepenthusiast's Avatar
 
Zepenthusiast is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eastern USA
Posts: 899
Default

Hi Forssmann,

Not surprised at the quick sale--I would have scooped it up myself at that price had I been aware of the posting. Don't think anyone could have it manufactured it for that price nowadays. People might be willing to breath mercury vapor to fire gild it, and they might have the metal-working skills to make dies and press the silver, then sweat them together for hollow three-piece construction. But enameling well on both external faces of a hollow structure and keeping it looking good takes a whole lot of talent. I know there are many who would disagree, but I'd say someone got a good deal on that one.

Best regards,

Jim
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-08-2019, 10:27 PM   #14
streptile
Lifetime Member
 
streptile's Avatar
 
streptile is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 15,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zepenthusiast View Post
My theory remains this type's origin was post-1917 Godet, meant to be "Probemäßig" for official bestowal, in contrast to their commonly recognized private purchase pieces.
This theory is completely, absurdly wrong.

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

As you were.
__________________
Best regards,
Streptile

Looking for ROUND BUTTON 1939 EK1 Spange cases (LDO or PKZ)
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-12-2019, 12:50 AM   #15
Zepenthusiast
Member
 
Zepenthusiast's Avatar
 
Zepenthusiast is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eastern USA
Posts: 899
Default

Hello Trevor!
I'd be disappointed if you hadn't chimed in Not thinking to sneak one past you.

Any additional evidence emerge on nefarious manufacture of "Dead Eye" types? I recall you were hot on the trail of something potentially persuasive, but the thread went to sleep. As you know, I don't doubt someone has copied the type in more recent years, since the "Cejalvo" version appears to be just that, but the question for me is copy of a copy?...or copy of an original type? And if some kind of original, "how original"?

If any individuals who read German natively (Andreas??) can chime in as to whether there is anything in the German phaleristic literature exposing or researching the 1970s manufacture concept, that could prove helpful in settling the question in my mind.

I do know that Die Ritter des Ordens Pour le merite by Karl-Friedrich Hildebrand and Christian Zweng clearly features a "Dead Eye" PlM in gilt relief on the covers of volumes I & II (and curiously a classic Godet cross on volume III). Eminent researchers who just didn't pay attention to the execution of the cover of their magnum opus? Seems strange... Hildebrand had passed on at time of publication, in fairness, but Zweng certainly alive and well then.

Hermann von Stein's circa 1927 personal PlM case, featured in Prussian Blue was considered to have gravitas and provenance, until I pointed out that it prominently featured a "Dead Eye" on the lid. At that point it then suddenly "had" to be a forgery because "Dead Eye" types simply could not have existed at that time, thus any evidence they did must be rejected as forgeries, too. Kind of circular, you have to admit
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump






vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Wehrmacht-Awards.com