Les

The hollow silver Wagner from page 238 of "P.B."

A few cropped images..

The hollow silver example posted by Don. Compare this to the one above, from page 238. Do not dwell on the eagles (which are seperately applied on this one, and the Cejalvo). Focus on the non-moveable parts of the cross itself, which are an integral part of the die(s?) used to make these. Hand-finishing may shorten the length of finials, or remove them entirely (if damaged in production). The spacing of components, relative to other components should not change if the dies are the exact same dies. That brings me to the matter of the "Po" realtionship among the hollow gold, hollow silver, and even the later war silver gilt examples. Typically, Wagner made pieces do not have -overlapping- "Po" configurations, although this seems to be the case with at least one documented fake on the market. Les

Prussian Blue has a limited number of pre-1916 hollow gold (or silver) PlMs to draw on which have been published, or can be found on this forum or others. STP has published views of Mackensen's PlM, von Belows, von Bockman's, and that completes the list of hollow gold Wagners. These are very similar and all have what I refer to as the open "Po" configuration where the large P doesn't overlap the smaller "o". Comparing these to each other, the length of the upper edge of the letter F may vary a little, and some of the letters have finials, while not all do. Von Bockamn's has a finial on the "t", but not the upper part of the "l." The hollow silver gilt on page 238, has an open "Po", t-finial, but no l-finial. The Cejalvo has a slightly shorter upper left corner of the F./crown edge than the hollow gold examples, a closed "Po", a t-finial, and no l-finial. The hollow silver gilt example on pape 238 of Prussian Blue is included here for comparative purposes.

The hollow gold PlM named to Mackensen. This has the typical cross characterisitcs of the hollow gold type, not considering the eagles or loop/pie. Note the light circles around the "Po", the letter F, and the finials on the letters "l" and "t".

Don, Compare the following:

Cejalvo has been in the jewelry business since circa 1900, and is still offering these...for the not so small sum of Eur3500 ! Comparing -this- "Cejalvo" item to known genuine Wagner made pieces provides several differences. Instead of focusing on the eagles, which are integral with the cross but added, perhaps it's best to focus on the details of the cross itself. The eagles can be 'improved" by a motivated forger who upgrades the eagles using an original example to mold and cast copies that can be added to a piece like this. That can spell trouble for someone who doesn't look at -all- of the details. Missing details such as the length of a "serif" or finial may be the result of hand-finishing or cleaning up a blank after it has been pressed in the dies. Previously in this thread, the Cejalvo is shown with an example of a type identified by STP as a "BbD" fake. The example STP examined is said to be solid, and gas vents present were said to be drilled. The example shown in the photo is within seven-tenths of a gram in combined loop/medal weight. The loop on this particular example is gold, and smaller than typical PlM suspension loops (or "paperclips"). One other important difference....it is -NOT- solid. It is hollow. The gas vents are not drilled and if the gas vents aligned with a light in the background, light can be seen through opposing holes. The example in the photo comparing the loops is multi-piece construction with a center seam along the arms of the cross, and seperately applied eagles. When there are "anomalies" such as the spacing of the "Po" that raises questions. Is it the result of hand finishing, or is it "another die"...either another working die used by Wagner, or a die used by someone who copied the design? The spacing of the "Po" might not seem critical but the center of these letters doesn't move around. They are fixed on the dies. Compare the spacing of these letters for yourself. I'll make some comparisons of examples from Prussian Blue, in the thread started by DonD regarding the hollow silver gilt example he posted. Les

The color of the enamel is a wee bit ligher than the "Bbd" example. It is solid silver, and very lightly gilted. At first glance, it appears identical to the "BbD" but measurements and closer examination indicate there are subtle differences. The baroque loops are one difference. The Cejalvo loop lacks the underlying rib typically found on Wagner wartime pieces with the loop. The Cejalvo loop is also slightly smaller and sets more deeply in the arms of the cross than a real Wagner, or compared to the "BbD."

A birdie....

Grey-scale view, showing left/upper part of the cross.

View of upper part of the cross, showing the F/crown details (note the size of the upper part of the "F" in relation to the bse of the crown). Also, the Po spacing can be seen a bit better than in the general view. This shot has been "grey-scaled" because it lessens the effect of the pronounced halo in the enamel around the letters.

Side arm, showing seamline. This is not visible with the naked eye and requires magnification to be seen.

Note the "overlap" of the P and following o. This is a specific characteristic not usually found in Wagner made PlMs.

As promised. Firstly, I have to correct myself on the spelling of the firm's name that made this. It's Cejalvo, not Cevaljo. My mistake. Here's an obverse view. In details, it closely resembles the "Beautiful but Deadly" PlM STP included in Prussian Blue. This example is multi-piece construction with the two sides of the cross soldered together, and the eagles applied seperately. The dimensions of the cross are slightly smaller than the "BbD" example, and so are the eagles which appear to have been cast using the "BbD" eagles as patterns. More views to follow.... Les

Don, I've been using a heavily firewalled computer over the last year and don't have the 'net at home at this time. I -can- upload and send images but have to do so through a friends computer. Give me a day or two (this coming Weds at the latest) to put the images on a "jump drive" and do as you requested. I'll post them in a seperate thread as "Cevaljo fake PlM." That way I can go into detail without getting too far afield from the thread here. What the Cevaljo means is trouble, and it's an item I've been quietly investigating since I got it last year. I'll do the usual obverse, reverse, and then a comparison of the "Po", "t" and crowns showing yours, a hollow gold Wagner posted on another forum, and the hollow silver gilt one in SP's book. Many comparisons get hung up with the details of the eagles, and on the later war silver-gilt Wagners I understand the reasons. Multi-piece construction pieces with eagles applied to the cross allow for "cut and pasting." Take a fake cross, remove eagles that aren't right, mold and cast eagles from a real cross, and there could be trouble brewing...and that's specifically why the Cevaljo is a danger signal. When comparing early or hollow PlMs, the cross itself however, should be very consistent with known others, and that's why I have a concern or two that I'll show through a "Marshall wanna be" attempt. (Warning....I'm nowhere near as good as Marshall on the photo comparisons.) I'm not saying the one you posted is good or bad. The cross (not considering the eagles) is different in a few subtle ways from the hollow gold Wagners and the silver gilt one on page 238 of SP's book. (Edit note: The name of the firm is "Cejalvo", not Cevaljo. A mistake on my part. Les

Don, did you examine the piece well enough to determine that it is hollow? The "Cevaljo" piece I referred to, and acquired from a fellow forum member here, was made by the Madrid jewelery and medal makers by that name. It is not the same as the current, and widely available "Spanish" copies often seen on ebay. There are some interesting aspects of how that piece was made. The eagles were applied after the cross was formed, and the cross itself was stamped as two pieces, then soldered together. The eagles were soldered on. That means the whole piece is multi-construction. It does not appear to be hollow, but under a jewelers loupe the "center" seam along the edges of the cross can be seen. Don, you didn't describe your piece as hollow. Stephen did. Please examine it, and look for gas vents that go all the way through. If possible, align the holes and try to see if light can be seen from one side to the other. Even with a multi-piece construction example of the fake made by Cevaljo, the "Cevaljo" example can be made to constructed to appear as a multipiece crosss with gas vents. If you look at the early hollow gold Wagners (rare), and then compare them to the later war silver gilt ones, it's apparent that Wagner changed dies during the war. One attribute seen on the early war examples is the lower "t" with the upper part of the "t" pointing to the upper right. That is missing on the later war examples. That plus the appearance of die flaws later in the war is a clear indication of new dies being used. Transitional silver gilt examples are rare, and I haven't had the chance to examaine a documented example "in the flesh." These presumably were made using the same dies to make the hollow gold examples, and therefore should have the -same- characterisitics of the hollow gold ones. The disimilar "t" leads to the question of what dies were used to make the particular piece you posted. The fact that a piece is multi-construction may actually make altering a piece easier for whoever made it. Eagle styles can be changed easier than with a solid "single" strike example. The Cevaljo piece is a fake that I own, and can personally vouchsafe that it is multi-piece, and the eagles were applied after the cross was made from two pieces. That means a firm like Cevaljo, could easily alter eagle style (or the cross itself) since any part of the overall piece that isn't quite right can be "improved" in later production pieces. Read a forum like this one, take note of what's not right, make changes on the next one, and the fakes get one step better. The later war pieces are single strike, with all parts of the design being formed at the same time. The die flaws present on the Wagner/Friedlander pieces appear to have been part of the first master or working die and is seen on all solid silver gilt examples that I've seen. That leads me to believe that the change in dies took place -after- the hollow gold and hollow silver gilt examples were no longer being made, and production methods changed to single piece, single strike pieces. The fact that I intentionally bought a known "fake" that was sold for what it was/is, was because I wanted to examine it and take notes. When I dicovered it was multi-piece construction, and the eagles were soldered on, I realized that this was important documentation of how some fakes are being made. The fact it is multi-piece, means that it can be literally "cut and pasted" together to allow "upgrading" PlM fakes. What doesn't seem right about the piece that Don posted, is that if it is indeed "hollow" it should correspond to all of the eagle and cross characteristics of the hollow gold Wagners if they were made from the same dies. They don't quite. The "t" is different and that raises questions that require closer examination of the whole piece. The fact that the "t" resembles the later war Wagners made as solid single strike pieces but is lacks other specific characeristics of the later war dies is another reason for looking closer. Unless it corresponds to one set of dies or the other, is it really a transitional piece made by Wagner, and can it be clearly shown not to have been made by Cevaljo (these aren't found on ebay) rather than the other currently available Spanish fake often found on ebay? I will send some hi-res images to Marshall so he can do his usual superb cut and paste comparisons and focus on details that often escape others and bring them to our attention. Les

I share the same opinon that Marshall has of this one. The one Don posted doesn't have any of the tell-tale die flaws. That isn't a good sign, which means the piece could not have been made from original wartime Wagner dies. Indeed, it does look like a cleaned up version of the one on page 272 of Prussian Blue, with the exception that the upper part of the letter "t" doesn't have the one-o'clock thingie sticking out. Ignore the marked up "GODET" on the one in the book, and look elsewhere. Look at the letter P and position of the small case letter "o" on the "Beautiful but deadly" example on page 272, and how the large P overhangs the smaller o...compared to an identified/provenanced Wagner/Friedlander. I bought a piece from a fellow forum member last year. The piece was made by Cevaljo, a Madrid jeweler, and is unlike the usual Spanish copies on the market. The "Cevaljo" is a ringer for the one on page 272. The "Cevaljo" is solid silver, with soldered on eagles that appear to have been cast seperately from the rest of the piece with was struck. Les

Andreas, The bronze gilt one apppears to be identical to the one Tony Colson had. One of the clues is the presence of small angles lines in the tail feathers that doesn't show up in the wartime Godet made pieces. In the WAF archives, there's a post by Marshall that compares the drawing from the 1940 Schickel catalogue to Tony's example. Based on the drawing, this might be a "Schickel". Tony's example had a soldered on "plate" on the top of the pie wedge, with "J G & S" on it. There are no other marks. I took several measurements of Tony's piece, and also weighed it. Before letting that one get away, could you get at least the weight of the piece, and perhaps a measurement or two? Steve ®, I looked at the single sided Meybauer again. The piece I looked at is gilted bronze. It is solid, and appears to have been cast, not struck or stamped from dies. The eagles compare very closely to the wartime examples, but there are some slight differences suggesting that the Meybauer example(s) were probably made using either a 'cleaned up' die used as a mold, or possibly even a newly fabricated mold. Interestingly, instead of the cross being smaller, the cross appears to be slightly larger than wartime Godet examples. I'm not sure how the sizes of the eagles compare, although if Meybauer made them by molding and casting the eagles from a Godet example, then I'd expect cast eagle copies to be smaller than those made by being struck from original dies. Les

Steve, Over the weekend I got the chance to look at the single-sided Meybauer. The short version is that the "Tony Colson" one is double sided, and multi-piece construction (it's hollow, and the eagles were applied individually). There are enough distinctive die details that indicate it was -not- made from the same dies used to make the Meybauer pieces, and/or vice-versa. The Tony Colson example was/is larger than the Meybauer piece. I was using digital electronic calipers to take measurements, and battery failure stopped me from getting all of the measurements that I wanted. I mention the matter of the eagles being applied individually, rather than eagles being part of the overall die for a specific reason. If the eagles are made seperately and then soldered to the cross, the eagles are likely to be identical and where the wind up on the cross is probably going to be randomn. If the eagles are part of the die and are part of the medal blank when struck, there is the opportunity for each of the eagles to have specific differences (wear, die flaws, how the jeweler applied the eagles, etc). The Meybauers as you've already indicated, are single sided, and the eagles were part of the original medal blank and did not have to be applied by hand. The example I looked at had significant wear (rub or scrape marks) that I couldn't be absolutely certain that it wasn't cast rather than struck. The Meybauer came with a Eichenlaub or oakleaves that was fire-gilt (the gilting matched the rest of the gilting on the medal itself). The oakleaves were beyond any doubt, cast. Steve, could you look at yours carefully to determine if it was cast or struck? Bear in mind that some castings can be hard to detect if you don't look carefully, and also that fire-gilting will also affect the appearance of the surface. The Meybauer and oaks came from a WWII vet (my friend got them directly from the vet), who acquired them in or near Coblenz, as part of a small grouping that included a flat spiked helmet plate that was also gilt, and did not have the mounting prongs or attachments on the back. It had never been shaped or curved to fit a helmet. The plate was struck, and fire-gilt. Condition and finish matched the Meybauer and oaks. The grouping with the plate does lend some support to the idea the single sided Meybauer might have been intended for display (a pillow cross?) rather than wear. The enamelling on the Meybauer that I looked at was a very dark blue (a bit darker than seen on Godet examples). The eagles appeared to be almost identical, however, I could see there was a clear lack of detail that made direct comparisons between wartime Godets (particularly the earlier hollow gold examples), and the "fixed" eagles in the single-sided Meybauer. My -initial- impression is that the Meybauer could have been made using Godet dies, or molded from a Godet example. Although one of the eagles I looked at on the Meybauer and compared to two Godet examples, there was a high degree of comparability albeit with a few differences suggesting the same exact dies were not used. (It's possible that Godet had several working or production dies in use "simultaneously". ) That is a pre-liminary impression only, and for the moment. I'll compare the photos I took over the weekend with a few other photos I have on file, and get back to you with my follow up observations. http://gmic.co.uk/style_images/gmicfinal2/...cons/icon10.gif Les

Steve, Let's not make too much of the "Schickle" concept since there aren't any -known- pieces with the Schickle firm markings. All that's known about the "Schickle" is that a line drawing of a PlM appears in their 1940 and 1941 catalogues. In another forum, Marshall pointed out the close similarity between the PlM owned by the late Tony Colson, and the line drawing in the firm's catalogue. The eagles in the example do look a great deal like Godet type eagles, however, the tail feathers on the example Tony posted are straight and not like the typical Godet feathers that are rounded towards the center part of the cross. The feathers in fact look more like the Meybauer eagles. The center gap is larger on Tony's example, and Andreas at one point said he felt the example was post-war. Nimmergut in one of his volumes (from the five volume series) shows one identical to the Colson example as not only bronze-gilt, but says it's from the 1860's... The example Tony owned had/has a thin plate or "plaque" soldered onto the top-most edge of the "pie wedge" and that extra addition is stamped "J.G. u. S." That raises some interesting questions about what might be underneath, and why someone chose to add extra metal to a medal that really didn't need repair work. Was it to cover a previous stamping? I don't know, and am uncertain about how best to examine that aspect of the medal without removing the soldered on material, and whether some highly specialized lab tests are "worth the candle." Previtera's book "Prussian Blue" shows one post war Godet reputedly owned and worn by Daniel Goerth. It looks like the wartime examples, however, has a silver content mark of "925." The center gap however, is -small-, and not as large as the Meybauer example you have or the Tony Colson piece. -If- and at this point we're dealing with more conjecture than fact, -if- Godet made medals for Meybauer (and perhaps Schickle?), then there is evidence of a die change with the center junction not only increasing in size, but also a change in the tail feathers of the eagles. I have access to a single sided Meybauer that I'll be examining this week (weather permitting) and will not only take some high resolution photos, but some measurements that can be compared to the example formerly owned by Tony Colson. If you can wait a week or so, I'll get back to this matter in a little more detail. Les

The "Friedlander" PlM appears to have been made from the same exact dies that Wagner made PlMs from. Comparing the two "types" side by side, shows both have highly specific die flaws that resulted in blanks having the same production flaws. Friedlander appears to have acquired blanks (or even possibly finished but unmarked medals) from Wagner, and sold them with the Friedlander firm's Ritzmarke on them. Friedlander does not appear to have been a manufacturer of the order, but a -retailer-. There might well be a similar connection between the wartime Godet PlM, and the single-sided Meybauer example(s). When Meybauer "acquired" or sold the single sided examples is not as clear cut as Steve might like to say by his statement there is "no evidence" the firm "didn't" make them during the war. In fact, there is no evidence that Meybauer did, or did not. That being said, let's look at the fact that post-war (those made in the 1920's) Godet made PlM's while they still look very similar to the wartime production examples, have a junction or center space where the arms converge. The center "gap" is large enough that this would change the geometry of the outer arms of the crosses working dies enough that a new die would have to be made to produce the post war examples made/sold by Godet. Andreas has pointed out (several times and on his web-site) that the wartime Godet did not change and the type remained very constant throughout the war years even with the change from gold to silver gilt. After the war however, there is evidence that Godet changed his dies at least once, and there is the possibility he may have done so at least once more during the late 1930's. Now, a question for thought...what happened to the -wartime- dies? Did Godet dispose of them, or use them for making and supplying other -retailers- who in turn sold the items with their own firm's markings on them, with an item his firm was no longer making and selling as the main product? Les

J'ai concur avec Tim. The matter of connected letters and the "serifs" on the letters are an aspect of how the dies were made so they could be used for forming the medal blanks. Once the medal blank was made, the connected letters were tidied up and seperated. Berthold's ( a gold example) example is one that did not have the letters seperated after the medal was formed. There is at least one silver gilt example that I know of that has connected letters. I've handled it enough and taken extensive photos of it, and it has all of the specific attributes (including some highly specific die flaws that can only have been produced from Wagner's dies) of wartime orignals. Tim (or Marshall), for the edification of the readers, could you post a photo or two that I've sent you previously of the example with the connected letters? It's tangental to the thread, but it does show that not all examples with connected letters are obvious fakes. Many people see the letters and look no further, not realizing there are other things to look at before passing judgement. There are plenty of later wartime silver gilt examples made by Wagner (and that includes those bearing the "Fr" ritzmarke) that it's possible to say whether an example was made by Wanger or not. There is some variation, but not all that much. What differences there are, are the result of die wear and hand-finishing. The example being offered on the internet by "emedals" or Barry Turk, was made by Wagner using his first set of wartime dies. There are some highly specific differences between the earliest wartime hollow gold wartime PlMs, and his later silver gilt examples. The evidence points to a change in dies circa 1916, that took place independantly of the change over from pieces with the "pie wedge" to baroque suspension loop. There are a -very- small number of hollow gold examples with the baroque suspension loop. If I had to guess at how many of these were made, I'd estimate perhaps 10-15 were made that have the features this particular example has. Consequently, comparing it to others is not all that easy given the relatively small number of pieces made by Wagner at that specific period of the war (late 1915?). Is this one real? It compares favorably to some of the very few hollow gold Wagners I've been able to make comparisons to it. I haven't actually handled this one, and going on photos alone can sometimes be a risky proposition. It does look good though. Les Les

Wartime "feldgrau" was limited to a few units that fought as naval infantry (the two Matrosen Divisions) on the western front, and these formations were primarily up against the Belgians, and French. The Naval Divisions in 1918 had some limited use against the British (Ramcke was awarded his GMVK for his leadership during an attack against a British position in 1918). As Rick pointed, out "souveniring' is primarily limited to picking up items from units in the area. This is an important consideration in where items show up after a war. The Imperial navy was not all "that" large before or during the war, and following the Versailles Treaty was almost non-existent. The Reichsmarine between the wars was mostly limited to coastal defense, mine sweeping duties, and "defensive" measures. The uniforms however, were almost the same, and any pre-war or wartime blues or whites could have been held over for years after the war. After 1918, many Feldgrau army uniforms were modified (dyed, recut, or simply worn as work clothes by farmers) for civilian useage. The naval uniforms are much easier to modify for civilian use, and by removing braid and buttons, an officer could use a naval frock or duty coat after the war easier than a returning soldier could. The only item of the naval uniform that doesn't immediately "convert" to civilian use is the naval cap. That cap however, is still an item that could be used by the merchant marine, civilian owned ships (and their captains/crews), etc. The navy was an "Imperial" arm, and as such, recruited from all over the Empire and not necessarily from the coastal areas of Germany. At the end of the war, ex-sailors might return home or if they could find employment (during the economic collapses of the 1920's????) near their old bases. The German naval bases (see #4 and #5 above) were captured and occupied by British/Canadian forces, -not- the Soviets at the end of WWII. One point above Soviet looting during and after the war. The Communists running things claimed -everything- was state property, and looting for personal gain was a punishable offense. The Soviets did take almost everything they could carry off, but there was a pecking order to what got sent East. Machinery and equipment of all kinds were taken with the expectation that Russia needed rebuilt and almost anything could be of use. Naval caps are part of a uniform, and if a sailor is out of uniform, he has no need to salute and no need for wearing a military cap of any sort. Other items of his uniform are far more likely to be expropriated for civilian use after the war. Dark blue reefer jackets, dark blue trousers, can be easily worn with or without modifications for post war civilian use. Even whites can be dyed and worn as part of civlian clothing. The pre-war navy was originally a high-prestige formation. In 1914, many thought the fleet would sweep the British from the seas. Instead, the navy spent much of it's time in port, and unable to break the British-French blockade. The pre-war status fell with the navy's inability to do anything, or perceived inaction in "doing something" to prevent civilians from starving, from industries not being able to get imported raw materials for the war effort, etc. The 1918 naval mutinies came about for several reasons. After the war, the navy was not seen as a "proud" formation that did it's bit, and many ex-sailors may have not wanted to be associated with having served at home "lounging around" while many soldiers fought, died, or came home missing body parts. Quite possibly, ego played a part in why many caps didn't survive. The owners probably saw little or no reason for keeping them as they couldn't be worn after the war, and if they were, without running the risk of army-navy rivalries after the war. Les

I know of -one- that's in a local friend's collection, and it's not for sale (I can't imagine why. ) I like the look of them, and in order to fill the void in my "wants" list, I resorted to buying one of the repro visor caps on the market. The repro isn't all that great, but it's one of the very few repro items I'm willing to tolerate owning. Les

The Rothe firm went out of business permanently about two or three years ago. The "family" who were still active in the business (two sisters) sold off -all- of their inventory and closed the doors. I've heard that sale also included everything else owned by the firm....tools, dies, materials, etc. Perhaps the biggest loss to the phaleristic community is the records (production runs, correspondance with various states over orders, etc) that folks like Meester Reekee would kill for.... No one seems to know if records from the Imperial era were around when the firm went under, or what happened to them. Les