Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

... in my archive I have only one foto of such a cross. It is to be seen in the Verkehrsmuseum Berlin (former O?Connor collection). Unfortunately I forgot to notice the name to this cross.

Does anyone know the person on the picture above or the maker of this cross?

With regards, Komtur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Komtur,

I've seen another cross that looks the same as this one, with open spaces between the feathers. It wasn't marked, and I don't know who the maker is/was. You are correct that it's not a known Wagner/Friedl?nder, or a Godet "type."

I don't recognize the photos or the person in it, but will check my references later.

In the photo, the ribbon under the collar looks like it's all the same color. There aren't any bands along the edges which makes me wonder. Whether the cross was photo-shopped on the picture...I can't say but won't say it did or did not happen. I've looked at other photos of people like Ritter von Epp, who wore a smaller ribbon (for a Prinzen?) under his collar and over his neck tie. I know of one PlM that was worn using a Prinzen ribbon during WWII by another PlM-tr?ger.

Les

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Komtur,

I've seen another cross that looks the same as this one, with open spaces between the feathers. It wasn't marked, and I don't know who the maker is/was. You are correct that it's not a known Wagner/Friedl?nder, or a Godet "type."

I don't recognize the photos or the person in it, but will check my references later.

In the photo, the ribbon under the collar looks like it's all the same color. There aren't any bands along the edges which makes me wonder. Whether the cross was photo-shopped on the picture...I can't say but won't say it did or did not happen. I've looked at other photos of people like Ritter von Epp, who wore a smaller ribbon (for a Prinzen?) under his collar and over his neck tie. I know of one PlM that was worn using a Prinzen ribbon during WWII by another PlM-tr?ger.

Les

As I remember I?ve seen another one like this in a private collection and museum in south Germany. It belonged to a pilot and came with other decorations, fotos and papers of him.

I?m quite sure, that this foto is not manipulated. My english is not good enough to describe the reasons, but there is no doubt, if you hold it in your hand.

I have also no problems with not seeing a ribbon. I know at least two different versions (seen with Wagner/Friedl?nder crosses) to wear the pour le m?rite in a way, that makes it possible to see no ribbon at all. At first there was the ring sewed on the lower edge of the ribbon and at the second there was a ribbon only 1 cm wide. In both versions you can?t see the ribbon under the collar. I think this was mostly a question of convenience of wearing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Over on the forum which some of us no longer post on, there is a recent thread on this type of PlM, with a link to the thread on this forum.

I was referred to the "other thread" and then started looking for additional post WWI photos of v.d. Linder wearing his PlM. On the Axis History Forum, another WWII era photo of him was posted. That photo, unlike the one posted at the top of this thread, show him wearing a PlM that does not have the "pie wedge" design but instead what definitely looks like much smaller suspension system (a baroque loop?).

Von der Linde was the fifth officer in WWI to be awarded the PlM. Almost certainly, he was awarded the early war type with a "pie wedge" and hollow gold (either a Wagner or Godet) type. The WWII photo here seems to indicate he had a second, and if the photo posted at the top of the thread is "legit", he even had a third one. Three different "styles"? That's getting into "Goering" territory! :speechless1:

Les

Edited by Les
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a shame really that we are all questing for the truth yet we have so many petty divisions based upon personal preferences. We end up limitting ourselves because of this. Just a thought from someone who frequents many forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A real piece like the one on the picture is in discussion in the WAF. Same eagles, same pie wedge, and it is probably made in the 20th by Rothe in Wien.

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/sho...5448&page=2

Regards

NavalMark

There's lots of guessing going on with that thread.

There are at least -two- badges that are very similar in their details, and when compared to the photo of Otto von der Linde wearing a badge that is similar to -both- of them, there is an unresolved question. Which of the two badges is the closest match to the one in the photo? There simply is not enough detail in the photo to reliably determine an accurate answer.

None of the photos of the badges being discussed have enough detail to show whether the crosses and eagles were stamped from a single piece of metal, or if the eagles were made seperately and then applied to the cross(es) by hand. The feathers were reworked by hand using a jewelers saw and files to create the gaps between them. Depending on the skill of the person doing that work on more than one or two medals, there could easily be differences in a first take appearance and comparison.

If the eagles were made seperately, there's nothing that rules out the possibility that -someone/anyone- decided to do a little "cut and pasting" to create a new type.

The silver content stamping discussion misses the boat in several instances. First off, German, Austrian, and other European laws regulating precious metal contents can be different. Only during the Anschluss era of 1938-1945, when Austria was part of the Reich, would Austrian jewelers (if that's who made the crosses) have been required to follow German silver content marking regulations. Whether the silver content markings are "real"....I don't know.

There are comments about one of the crosses being gold, and also having silver content markings. That led to further comments that perhaps the cross was silver, but the eagles might have been gold. Uh....no. Putting large chunks of gold and silver (not plating over!) creates a potential battery and electrical discharge situation. Remember, dentists don't put gold and silver filings in someone's mouth for a very good reason.....there will be a chemical and electrical reaction. Also, the galvanic reaction causes one metal to deplete the metal content of the other "pole."

There's more, but that's all for now.

Les

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Putting large chunks of gold and silver (not plating over!) creates a potential battery and electrical discharge situation."

I've never heard of this. I thought gold, silver and other precious metals were stable and didn't do things like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Putting large chunks of gold and silver (not plating over!) creates a potential battery and electrical discharge situation."

I've never heard of this. I thought gold, silver and other precious metals were stable and didn't do things like this.

Try a simple experiment. Clean and wash a gold ring and put it in your mouth. Keep it there and put a real silver spoon filled with lemon juice in your mouth and move the juice around with your tongue. Literally, and figuratively, you'll get a jolt and a lasting impression.

If you don't want to put anything in your mouth, use a glass instead. Stir, and measure what happens with a voltage meter.

Les

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

There's lots of guessing going on with that thread.

I am with Don on this one Les. Too bad you could not join the discussion. As to guessing and discussion, yes, well that is the purpose of a forum. Qualifying words are used when something is based on circumstances and not proof. I have always valued your comments on PlMs and would still if you chose to post on the WAF. In my body of PlM work over there, I am always trying to add to the general knowledge of PlMs rather than detract. Your departure didn't help. But as Don states, a great many of us read and contribute both places. To discredit our discussion on the WAF was not very kind.

I still think the PlM is legitimate and opens a new door on type with two known to exist and a picture of it in wear. And I had the same thought as Rick (cigar type) on Rothe possibilities but there are some major differences as well. The Johanniter eagles add to the mystery entirely. Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am with Don on this one Les. Too bad you could not join the discussion. As to guessing and discussion, yes, well that is the purpose of a forum. Qualifying words are used when something is based on circumstances and not proof. I have always valued your comments on PlMs and would still if you chose to post on the WAF. In my body of PlM work over there, I am always trying to add to the general knowledge of PlMs rather than detract. Your departure didn't help. But as Don states, a great many of us read and contribute both places. To discredit our discussion on the WAF was not very kind.

I still think the PlM is legitimate and opens a new door on type with two known to exist and a picture of it in wear. And I had the same thought as Rick (cigar type) on Rothe possibilities but there are some major differences as well. The Johanniter eagles add to the mystery entirely. Steve

Steve,

I'm not the only person who left WAF and came here to GMIC, with no intention of ever going back there. Both Rick's are two well-known examples, and "Stogie Rick" has clearly stated why and made no bones about his decision.

I left WAF in disgust when Steve Previtera, one of the WAF moderators at the time I left, decided that Ad Hominem attacks were "ok" on his part when he didn't like his opinions challenged by me, or being asked directly pointed questions (again by me) that he didn't or couldn't answer. Debating observations, discussing "facts" and engaging in conjecture (provided it is clearly stated as such, but never passed off as "factual" when it's nothing of the kind) is the purpose of forums. Personal attacks and uncivil behavior towards fellow forum members can, but not always, get people kicked off forums. When it comes from a moderator, (who should set examples of forum decorum) I consider that inexcusable, and was a contributory reason in my decision to permanently kiss posting on WAF goodbye.

Personally, I like and prefer the civility that almost always predominates on this forum compared to others that come to mind. There's an old adage that you can tell a lot about the "company" a person keeps. Forums, somewhat like people, develop their own reputations. There are often good people on all types, but the bad ones can go a long way towards creating a reputation that is less than sterling.

Les

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

I'm not the only person who left WAF and came here to GMIC, with no intention of ever going back there. Both Rick's are two well-known examples, and "Stogie Rick" has clearly stated why and made no bones about his decision.

I left WAF in disgust when Steve Previtera, one of the WAF moderators at the time I left, decided that Ad Hominem attacks were "ok" on his part when he didn't like his opinions challenged by me, or being asked directly pointed questions (again by me) that he didn't or couldn't answer. Debating observations, discussing "facts" and engaging in conjecture (provided it is clearly stated as such, but never passed off as "factual" when it's nothing of the kind) is the purpose of forums. Personal attacks and uncivil behavior towards fellow forum members can, but not always, get people kicked off forums. When it comes from a moderator, (who should set examples of forum decorum) I consider that inexcusable, and was a contributory reason in my decision to permanently kiss posting on WAF goodbye.

Personally, I like and prefer the civility that almost always predominates on this forum compared to others that come to mind. There's an old adage that you can tell a lot about the "company" a person keeps. Forums, somewhat like people, develop their own reputations. There are often good people on all types, but the bad ones can go a long way towards creating a reputation that is less than sterling.

Les

Fair enough Les and I told you when you left I regretted your departure and felt it a loss for the reasons already discussed. I joined that forum not long before your departure and was not privy to the infighting of which you speak but I have witnessed since. Your kindness to me at the WAF when I first started my interest in PlMs was most welcome. Even so, I do hope we can continue to collaborate and would welcome, even privately, any of your own observations on my PlM work over there.

I am currently working a Rothe PlM thread to finish out the makers of PlM discussion before getting on to the Arts & Sciences award. This particular piece strikes me as very significant because of the two surfacing examples and its appearance with von der Linde in a wartime photo. As I looked it over though, it differs in a great many respects from Rothe crosses in dimension, letters and style, even though at first blush it looks closer to Rothe than anything else.

While we all have noted that it may be a put together of some kind by a jeweler given the Johanniter eagles, the cross itself is not like any other known maker, making this a unique piece, similar to the initial Schickle discussions, although those were still in the Godet family. This one seems to stand in its own right and were it not for the Linde photo, might be dismissed altogether as an anomaly.

Given the odd marks on the example posted in the WAF and von der Linde's photo, it seems to be that the piece dates somewhere between the late 30s and early 40s.

If not Rothe, who could be the possible maker? Someone that made Johanniters? Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we all have noted that it may be a put together of some kind by a jeweler given the Johanniter eagles, the cross itself is not like any other known maker, making this a unique piece, similar to the initial Schickle discussions, although those were still in the Godet family. This one seems to stand in its own right and were it not for the Linde photo, might be dismissed altogether as an anomaly.

Given the odd marks on the example posted in the WAF and von der Linde's photo, it seems to be that the piece dates somewhere between the late 30s and early 40s.

If not Rothe, who could be the possible maker? Someone that made Johanniters? Steve

Far too many tenuous connections are being made based on "facts" that may not be sound at all, and then trying to make sense of things.

I don't like using images, not photos, that are digital reproductions. In more ways than one, digital images are often not accepted in court. The images precise origins and particular details have not been given. Yes, it's based on a photo? But was it printed prior to 1945, and directly from the original negative? Can photo manipulation be ruled out? At the moment, not really.

There's also the question, of where Linde''s "original" medal is....the one in the photo? Does the family have it, is it in a collection? No one seems to know, and a great deal is being made of a photo that is doesn't have enough details to eliminate one of the two medals shown in the thread. It might be one, it can't be both of them.

The "other" medal I'm referring to is, a very similar one owned by "Epsomgreen" (Charles) that he's posted an image of, on WAF. It doesn't appear in this thread, but it's close similarity to the one here can't be ruled out as being "the one" in the Linde image.

For the moment, let's take the image matter as a tentative given, so the next point can be addressed. There are two similar crosses, but they are not exactly the same. Which one is the one in the so-called photo? Could be either.... The eagle feathers in the photo are clearly cut or separated, but the details of the cross itself are not visible in the photo. The two crosses that have surfaced, have different core details, but neither can be conclusively shown to be the same as the one in the photo.

I could go on about other "facts" being drawn on.

If there were dozens, or even a dozen crosses that were either identical or very very similar, you could build a good case for the existence of a type. You have two similar but not identical candidates that look like the one in the Linde "photo" but neither one can be conclusively shown to be the one, and the other ruled out beyond a shadow of a doubt. Also, one or two examples that are very similar, but not identical pose problems for defining a "type."

Consider the scientific approach to facts, hypothesis, and conclusions. Martin Popper who wrote the "book" on modern scientific thought says this. A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Think about how that applies to hypothesis and theories about medals, and then apply that way of thinking. Showing that something "is" or what it is claimed to be, is an elusive concept at the best of times.

Les

Edited by Les
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If not Rothe, who could be the possible maker? Someone that made Johanniters? Steve

Anyone who pays someone to work, doesn't like seeing the employee having nothing to do while "on the clock." In the business world, a boss will find something for you to do if he sees you without anything to do.

A master engraver is highly skilled and what he does takes time and patience to learn in addition to having the hand-eye skills needed to do the actual work of cutting metal. I suspect any large jewelry firm that has a master engraver on it's employee list will keep the many busy. On the other hand, a firm could contract the work out but the process of using dies in production work means dies wear out, have to be replaced, and a times new master or working dies have to be made. Apprentice engravers have to learn how to improve their skills and require practice to get better. Some hand-eye skills require routine and frequent practice at the risk of "use it or lose it."

It would not surprise me if more than one jewelry firm made dies for medals that were not necessarily put into production. A boss could easily put an engraver to work making dies to keep the engraver working instead of spending time around the secretaries or hiding somewhere out of sight.... :rolleyes: (Think about how NCO's find work for enlisted men who seem to be standing around doing nothing while on duty.)

To answer your question, there were many jewelers that could have made stamping dies, but not necessarily put the dies into production. Someone sent me a copy of the image of the shop worker in the "Wagner die vault" Don D posted on WAF, but chose not to post on this forum. (Didn't someone lament about how people weren't posting on -both- forums when I commented earlier in this thread about people who weren't part of that "other" forum? I guess being members of both but posting something of interest on only one of them is ok.... :rolleyes: .)

Wagner didn't make Johanniter looking medals during WWII, but that die on one of the shelves looks suspiciously like one.

That raises the question of what ever happened to -all- of the dies made and used by German firms for making medals? Did they completely and totally cease to exist on 8 May 1945 and were never seen (or used) again? Original dies from WWII (not to mention WWI or earlier!) could be dangerous in the wrong hands. Haemmerle in Munich is said to still have their original dies used during the Imperial era. What about the other firms that are no longer in business?

By the way, Rothe isn't the only Austrian jeweler capable of making very high quality meals. Best known, yes, but not the only one.

Les

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I concur that using photos in today's world is sketchy for proof and verification. What if someone of the appropriate age, dressed up in an authentic WWII uniform, put on my Steinhauer & Luck PLM, or any other version in question was photographed in B/W and posted here. That could/would fuel a debate on its authenticty, regardless that the photo was a total fraud.

In Germany the Ernst Junger museum sent me a photo of his PLM on display there. It is clearly a 1957 S&L piece, not a pre-1918 award piece. This raises the question where is the original, Was the swapped?, did he have 2 (or more), who knows.

Two many variables these days, so best to go on pure facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I am certainly not one to ignore facts. But to dismiss digital photos simply because they are digital would be to eliminate much of the research and medal and ribbon bar solving that goes on in this forum. Rick can spot a ribbon bar in a digital photo, track the owner and say with a very high degree of certainty that the owner was named such and such. And he would of course likely be right.

I do think there is the matter where common sense takes hold as well. If something walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it might just be a duck. We could over analyze it to make it impossible to prove that it actually was a duck, but...

Now, what does that have to do with this PlM? Well, for one, the cross in Berlin has a twin. See below Grant Bias' on the left and the Berlin cross on the right. The crown gap on the right side, the letter dimensions, the cross itself--they match. They both look like the same duck to me.

While it may be hard to say if either or neither belonged to Linde (although I think the Berlin cross is Linde's and will show why in a later post), Linde's photo does seem to prove that this cross existed during the TR era. And while I appreciate that photos can be faked and that Linde's actual face could be added and that a cross that no one has ever seen could be inserted and that it could be taken after the war even though Linde looks like he did during the war, I think it safe to assume that this cross Linde is wearing is the same type as the one in Berlin and the one Grant Bias owns and posted in the WAF.

And that would make it something unique in that it has surfaced in two real examples and in one actual recipient's photo. That is why I for one am excited about this cross. I am not ready to dismiss it as an anomaly. Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...