Single sided PLM , fake or copy ?

[Les]

Les, I agree with the principle of what you are saying on the arm center gap. I am trying to get a visual. Are you saying the gap is narrower or broader in the later post-war pieces? If broader, the Meybauer / Godet pieces seem very tight. The issued Godet pieces appear identical in appearance to the Meybauer, Hemmerle and Schickle types. We know that pie-wedge pieces were sold by jewelers during the war as Ernst Udet purchased one in late March 1918 from a jeweler in Berlin. That would rule out Hemmerle. Schickle is unlikely given the known advertisements during the TR period. That would leave Godet or Meybauer as possibilities.

This is why I believe that these Godet and Meybauer type pie-wedge non-issued pieces could pre-date the 1920s. Great discussion. Steve

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

[medalnet]

I new the Tony Colson PlM, due to me meeting with him to discuss the piece. It was a clear Godet piece made in bronze gilt.

In reagrds to the dye: It is a tool and will wear out eventualy. It was common practice to refurbish tools if possible due to the extremly high cost of making one. Keep in mind that the Godet tooling must have been the oldest tooling to exist, since possibly designed after the 1870/71 war PlM style and proof.

It is not a miracle to me that Godet refurbished/had to refurbish the dye during the 20th, maybe 30th to accomodate the possible higher demand during order friendly times after 1934. The fact that at least 2 new firms offered PlM's should prove this theory.

Of course this is all theory, but some it is definetly proven by comparing existing pieces with catalogues of the time.

[Steve Russell]

Thanks guys. And les, thanks. Good run down. I am indeed very interested inthe phot comparisons and the 'gap' comparisons as well. I will gladly be patient. Thanks for the trouble. Steve

[Les]

Thanks guys. And les, thanks. Good run down. I am indeed very interested inthe phot comparisons and the 'gap' comparisons as well. I will gladly be patient. Thanks for the trouble. Steve

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

[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

[Biro]

edit

Edited February 20, 2007 by Biro

[medalnet]

If you guys like to see better pictures from all angles of the PlM Weitze has for sale now visit:

Godet made PlMs

[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

[Steve Russell]

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.

Les, from the initial inspection, it looks to be a solid struck piece in Bronze-Gilt. Is there any specific area I can check to see whether it is hollow or solid? I looked at the arm edges. They show very fine clean edges and workmanship.

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.

The enamel on my Meybauer is also a very rich and dark blue. The eagles on mine appear to be part of the solid piece. I look forward to comparisons and if you need any specific part of my PlM to be photographed, I will gladly provide it. I think we all can benefit from a detailed study of the Meybauer PlM. Thanks, Steve

[medalnet]

Coincidence....just got two 1920th to 1940th PlMs. Obviously made by Godet, yet without markings, the one with oak leaf is a one piece construction in silver gilt, the other one hollow made bronze gilt. Certainly examples distributed by Schickle, Meybauer or maybe even Sedlazek.

[medalnet]

...not to forget to mention, that both are double sidded!

Keep in mind, I always like to trade

[medalnet]

In case somebody wondered. I have listed the bronze gilt piece on ebay.

[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 Russell]

Thanks Les. Your description of the Meybauer you examined sounds identical to mine. I appreciate you giving them a comparison. The overall analysis does still seem to point to the 1920s for the Meyabuers given what you have presented. I wish there was some way to know if they made wartime examples for private purchase but I am very happy to have one of the few Meybauers out there. I only know of only three from collectors in the forums. Maybe more will come to light on them in the future. Steve