STP

Hi,

First, the books are due on our warehouse floor November 5-6. Just received that update. Next, I arranged to have samples sent to me for the Max Show and to further advertise the book. Some of these I sold. Thanks for everyone's patience. We have all been waiting, including myself, but the moment is just about upon us. If you'd like to see additional photos I will attempt to get them posted to our website in the next week or so. A Synopsis is available at www.winidorepress.com We will begin shipping two days after the books hit the floor. It will likely take a full two- weeks to ship every order we currently have and those who have waited the longest will naturally be seeing their books first. I know what it's like to wait for a new badge or book in the mail, and I will work to ship them all accordingly.

My Best,

Stephen

Dear Steve,

can we have some pictures to see more ?

Chris

One of the more obvious reasons it is likely not original has a lot to do with the maker mark. Not the strike of the name as such, but the way it is placed to accommodate the cutout. This "badge" is "sooped-up" in many respects. If this badge were original, the maker mark would be lost in the cut, or located on he pin. It is a more than a stretch to assume the maker would restrike the piece, as if it were brought back to the factory for such purposes. Just would not happen. Next, you have the version of the badge which contains the "story." And what better can one do than to claim a PLM recipient. Not only engrave his name but remind him as well with a PLM motif. So the redundancy is purely theatre. As Ferg mentioned, it looks laser cut. So I guess I'm piling on.

SP

"I received the following from a forum member concerning copyright concerns."

Many forum members have extended the common courtesy of requesting to post photos from a number of copyrighted sources, not just those I have worked so hard to bring to the hobby. Those that have slaved over a book understand fully. Most know that I would comply with such requests as a matter of course. I have shared my imagery with any number of sources, and books still to be completed by others will document this fact. Now a personal email I wrote has been posted by Les (warning to all) which, of course, is a breach of protocal and again, common courtesy. My email speaks to common courtesy, it speaks to copyright, it speaks directly to Les not asking permission to utilize copyrighted information. Now it is publicly noted (thanks again to Les) that he did not ask permission, nor extend that common courtesy. This thread is suppose to be about a PLM, but unfortunately my private email ? thanks to Les ? which was intended not to muddle the waters of the debate, has now entered the debate. This does a disservice to other forum members and is unfortunate. I have expressed my views on the PLM in question. When someone makes such a monumental purchase they must feel absolutely comfortable with it. It is posted on the forum for opinions, not conjecture. Most of us will never be able to afford such a prize. I invite Ralph, Andreas and others to weigh in on the subject. I say it is a good piece. Les has yet to offer an opinion because he does not know. Which is it Les, thumbs-up or down? After all your evidence, surely you know. Don would like to know too.

STP

The Stogieman's right of course, we all make mistakes. For the question on the piece on page 238, it is a hollow-silver gilt. No provenance, but a textbook Friedlander. It originated from Detlev, then found its way to my collection through another collector. Andreas Thies estimated there are very few like it as it is hollow silver-gilt, made like a gold piece but after the Kaiser's decree. Don, the piece you purchased is basically identical. It is what I call the Wagner/Friedlander piece, as both were nearly identical. Your piece is not the known Spanish-type we typically relate to with repros. As another piece, take a look at Major Schniewindt's piece on page 306. Wagner marked. Again, just like the piece you purchased. I am not trying to convince anyone to keep something they do not want, I am only attempting to show you examples which are identical to the piece you first put up. The rest is up to you. Stogieman, wait for the second Iron Time coming out in late April. I've done a lot of work correcting the mistakes of the first book and expanded it some 80 pages and 280 photographs. It must be kept in mind I did the research for the first Iron Time between 1995 and 1999. Not many folks had the facts we all count on today being fed through the internet tube. I'm happy to be able to make a better book from the wonderful feedback I've gotten. I'm very proud of Prussian Blue. A lesson learned from the first Iron Time. I am also proud to have taken the risk of doing original research. I see many folks simply gather their facts from

the internet and regorge them time and time again. When I see an opportunity to help I do. I hope I've been of some help here.

Take care everyone.

STP

Biro,

I think the piece is much more like that shown on page 238, not 272. The long neck of the Eagles, but especially the well-defined lettering and thin frame edging the enamel. The fact that it is unmarked is a good thing as many fakes carry marks from supposed makers. Next, "938" Good. It was not a bargain price either. Of course the buyer must feel a comfort level, that's the most important thing. But the piece is good, even textbook. Notice the grooving beneath the very thin enamel. Just right. I don't need to convince the world here, not trying to. Like myself, Andreas has handled many pieces. Love to hear his opinion a well.

All my best.

STP

I hear what your saying guys.

I respect everyone's opinion. I still think it a good piece. Love to hear Andreas on this as well. From my experience this is a textbook piece. I do not judge it on individual differences with others that we know are good, but overall details. . The eagles are right (for a Wagner or Friedlander) the enamel is right. the undersurface of the enamel is right. The mark is right. Beautiful piece. It is unusual that it is not marked with a maker but I would also venture to pin this piece down to a specific period. Early 1917. I say that based on a hollow-silver gilt that has the 938 on the Baroque arch (pages 238-239). Again, this one is pretty straight-forward in my opinion.

STP

Likely Wagner then, as their mark (when marked) is on the majority of this style of PLM.

STP

Not a hard one. The piece is good. It is a silver-gilt 1917-18 Wagner or Friedlander. What is the maker mark?

STP

Andreas,

I've always loved that piece. I was fortunate enough to examine it while it was still in your collection. Very nice indeed.

STP

Another forum has suggested that it is a genuine Wagner but why no mark and weren't the genuine gold pieces all pie slice suspensions?

Gold 1914-16 PLMs were not all marked. Stamping was not used for hollow-gold pieces when they were marked but rather a scoring or scratching of the mark. Stamping would shatter the piece. Gold presentation pieces featured the Baroque style suspensions for the most part, contrary to the myth that they should all or most have pie-wedge suspensions. Pie-wedge are the Godet pieces, utilized by recipients during both the gold and silver-gilt periods of 1914-18. There also exists a very rare hollow-silver transitional pieces, these being even rarer than the gold PLMs, as they were produced after the Kaiser's decree to switch from gold to silver but before the PLM went to a solid silver-gilt process. Sorry I missed the question on the first pass.

STP

Here is a shot of the silver-gilt PLM with connected letters that Les refers to:

The detail on this example is pretty stunning. Somewhere I think I have a photo of a similar piece sold by Detlev Niemann, but I have allowed my photo collection to slip into a poor state of organization, and I can't figure out which disk it's on. I'll see if I can locate it.

Tim

This also is a good piece. Very nice. The silver-gilts though don't present the same glitter as our hollow-gold friends.

STP

Very interesting thread... could you guys comment on this one. (Sorry if it has been covered previously).

German States

PRUSSIA, Pour-le-Merite

Cross in GOLD and enamels, hollow version, 1916-18. Very good details and quality, unmarked. Mounted on a full length of original neck ribbon. Enamels without any imperfections, in extremely fine condition. Excellent condition and quality, rare. (Sold with expertise of authenticity, D. Niemann).

Another forum has suggested that it is a genuine Wagner but why no mark and weren't the genuine gold pieces all pie slice suspensions?

This is a good piece. but the dates should refer to 1914-late 1916. She's a beaut. Very nice.

STP

Maybe this has already been covered. I've come a little late to the proceedings. The initial PLM to start the thread is, of course, crap. The PLM with the Meybauer mark is Godet. Now, it is important to compare the Weitze example to the Maybauer piece. Forget about the inscription. Look at the construction. Can anyone take a guess which one looks older? Does one look more Third Reichish possibly? Aside, five details are the signature of Godet. Four are outside the enamel......right, the eagles. One is inside the enamel. Right, the crown. When comparing Friedlander to Wagner we get a similar feeling in the pit of our stomachs...as someone pointed out. How many manufacturers does it take to make less than 700 official awards? Now how many copies does each recipient need?

STP

Marshal,

Actually, von Kanitz (not Kaunitz) signed a number of wartime PLM documents in lieu of Wilhelm II, during 1918, including those of Heinrich Schmedes, Martin Otto, Daniel Gerth, Konrad Kraehe and obviously the brilliant Ernst Junger, to name but a few. The stamp represents the General Orders Commission of which General of Infantry v. Jacobi was chief with signatory credentials and General von Kanitz as representative with signatory powers. When Wilhelm II signed, his official stamp was applied, either as a blind emboss or stamp in ink, both were used. Sounds like a great museum when it is open!

Stephen

J?nger was living in France during the last few years of his life. On his 100th birthday, he was visited by many people (Mitterand among them). A reporter who interviewed him at the time, mentioned J?nger showing him his PlM that he kept in a box.

The "Urkunde" in the attached photo is the correct form for the document, although the signature and ink stamp aren't. Normally during WWI, the signature should be Wilhelm's, and the seal should be embossed on the paper. Kaunitz's signature and the ink stamp often appear on other documents (for example the HOH). Without a better photograph, I'm inclined to wonder if the document shown here is real and the museum was using "filler."

Les