Les Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 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". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 A few cropped images.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 The hollow silver Wagner from page 238 of "P.B." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Mackensen's.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 I'll summarize, and at this point wrap it up. Eagles made seperately from, and applied after the cross was made might look similar but if "cut and pasted" could be deceptive.Look at "non-moveable" elements of the cross part of the design. Some features might be subject to hand-finishing and possibly removed during the phase in which the cross is being trimmed from the die-pressing process, etc.That could result in finials being present on some crosses, and absent on others. What it doesn't account for is the lack of overlapping "Po" letters in the usual Wagner made pieces. If there is significant "overlap", I suggest that any piece said to have been made from the dies used to make hollow gold (or solid silver gilt wartime W/Fr pieces) can not have been made from either of the dies used to make the hollow gold, or solid silver gilt Wagner PlMs.Les Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dond Posted March 22, 2007 Author Share Posted March 22, 2007 You might want to wait for Andreas and Ralph to weigh in... they have good examples and lots of experience with these...We still haven't heard from either of these members.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph A Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Sorry, Don. I've been busy; I've curtailed most forum activity until I've finished some important private business that will take about eight months to complete. It involves a publisher... Until then, I will be scarce.I will take a closer look at the cross you posted this weekend, and then I will weigh in. I want to examine especially and carefully the center of your cross, and comapre it to my own Friedlaender and to my image library. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I received the following from a forum member concerning copyright concerns.<quote>Les,I would advise that you AT LEAST extend the courtesy to request permission to reproduce images from copyrighted material on the internet. I worked thousands of hours and traveled tens of thousands of miles to capture the images in my books. I paid a high price in time away from work and my family. These images aren't free! What right do you have to simply scan them and post?! None. It is called breaking the law, and you have documented all the evidence for everybody to see! What should I do now?! For your part I strongly suggest you add an addendum to your thread NOW stating all images are copyright Stephen Thomas Previtera anad Winidore Press, Inc.. I would follow that with an apology. Now these images can be downloaded by the world! PLEASE THINK man, before you get yourself in hot water!Stephen<endquote>I thought I had referred the source of the photos used, but if I haven't clearly done so, my apologies to all. The owner requests an addendum stating the images are his, and that request is acknowledged. Again, my apologies to all for any misunderstandings.Les Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STP Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 "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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph A Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 I will reply privately. Best regards to all true gentlemen,Ralph McCall Abercrombie III Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now