PLM Opinions please

[dond]

I'd like some opinions on this PLM. I've gone thru my Prussian Blue and have my own idea. Now I'd like to hear some others.

thanks in advance.

[dond]

Marked 938 on the barouque loop. It has been heavily worn.

[dond]

Reverse

[dond]

eagle and loop.

[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

[dond]

There is no maker mark.

[STP]

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

STP

[dond]

So far one says good and a pm that says bad. I guess by the resounding silence from most it is problematic at best. This one will be going back.

[Stogieman]

You might want to wait for Andreas and Ralph to weigh in... they have good examples and lots of experience with these...

[Biro]

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

STP

I'm not sure I'd agree with you on that one Steve.

The eagles most resemble the 'fake' PLM in Prussian Blue (page 272) ... check the tail feathers.

It appears to have been refined somewhat, but it is the same one I am sure of it.

regards

Marshall

[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

[dond]

You might want to wait for Andreas and Ralph to weigh in... they have good examples and lots of experience with these...

I'm open to all opinions t this point.

[Les]

I'm open to all opinions t this point.

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

[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

[dond]

Steven, what is the history of the PLM on pg 238?

[Stogieman]

Now this is what I call a discussion. I gave up long ago trying to differentiate these pieces. I'll concentrate on the aviation badges, you guys are doing great with the PLM's. I would (sorry) also be just a little hesitant to cite a single reference regarding these pieces.... Great book, yes... but I think you'll find that just maybe, there's the possibility of some errors. Just like there was in Iron Time..... Nobody's flawless.... a point to remember always.

[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

[dond]

Thanks Steven. I've been back thru Prussian Blue from cover to cover tonight and have noted what you've said. I will think things through this weekend. The award is beautiful. I just have to wrap my mind around it and get comfortable with it or not. I noticed that no two PLMs are exactly alike even by maker. Given that there cannot be that many dies do you attribute these differences to hand finishing? I think the lack of a maker mark bugs me the most. Is this atypical? I also think this award used to belong to Andreas and I wish he would weigh in. I've dealt with him in the past and respect his opinion.

On another note, we met at the Dulles Expo center last year. Had a nice chat as I remember it. I'm looking forward to my deluxe copy of the Iron Time.

[Daniel Cole]

If that piece is a copy, I'd sure love to have one like it.

[Biro]

Biro...I think the piece is much more like that shown on page 238, not 272.....STP...

Of course you are right - and if I had thought to ask Don whether it was hollow in the first place, I wouldn't have been quite so quick off the mark!

The hollow silver gilt are so seldom encountered, I was naturally stumped when I couldn't match the eagles to my own solid Friedlanders eagles... and of course now I know why and have advised Don.

The tailfeathers of these hollow pieces are FRIGHTENINGLY similar to the one labelled in Steves book as a fake. While I am certainly way off expert status, I am reasonably well researched on these - and I admit I was caught out here.

Good eye Steve for picking it up right off the bat... and congratulations Don.

Marshall

[dond]

I want to thank everyone that has provided input on this award, both publicly and via PM/email. Whether right or wrong it was all with good intent which speaks volumes for the people around here. For those that haven't made a purchase of this magnitude (no slam intended) you cannot imagine the pressure one feels to get it right. The fact others want to help you get it right is comforting. In this vein I want to express my heart-felt thanks to all of you. You have all helped me make a very big decision that I am comfortable living with, I will keep this award. Thanks for looking out for me and whether you were right or wrong is immaterial because at the end of the day you were doing it for the right reason- to protect a fellow collector. I would urge you to continue this as it helps us all to know we, as a collective community, can find assistance when we need it.

thanks again.

ps. So this is what you get when you covert your Nazi zink into Prussian silver/gold.

[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

[dond]

Les, why not just post the scans here yourself? I for one, would like to see this PLM fake you are talking about. I would like to make my own determination on this.

thanks for all the helpful info guys.

[Les]

Les, why not just post the scans here yourself? I for one, would like to see this PLM fake you are talking about. I would like to make my own determination on this.

thanks for all the helpful info guys.

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

Edited March 21, 2007 by Les

[Les]

Don,

Compare the following: