pour le m?rite

[RAO]

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.

Regards Mike

[Rod]

Sigh.... when I first started collecting I thought I would never be able to afford a REAL pour le merite..... so I fussed and fumed with the less expensive items.

BUT when I look back the cost of what I have that exceeds the price of a really nice one....

Wish I could do it all over again!!!!

Rod

Edited December 30, 2008 by Rod

[Les]

Standards of "proof" or degree of information is needed to support a point of view varies according to how important the claim is. Most of us can afford to loose US$150 (or Euros) if we buy a bad ribbon bar. If we buy a Pour le Merite costing ten times that amount and we later find out it is bad, we won't react anywhere near the same as we would over a ribbon bar. A loss of E15000 would be a major disaster for almost everyone on this forum. Consequently, what is "proof" is far more important than what is "proof" for a ribbon bar.

Rick is good at what he does, but if someone takes the time to read his posts, re-use pieces of original bars (including using old thread, etc), and put bars together based on what a known individual wore or could have worn....Rick might not be able to spot the difference. Bear in mind, the fakers will spend far more time and effort if they have the needed skills (or contacts) to make a high quality fake that will pass. The bigger the reward, the bigger the temptation and risk. Considering the price of a real PlM, and the ever increasing skills of fakers and modern technology, there is not much room for guesswork, wishful thinking, and flat out hunches.

Photos are not, and never will be a substitute for genuine documented medals. Considering the values and risks, it is necessary to start out with undisputable facts, then and only then, to use supporting information. Using digital photos from on-line sources is not a sound source of "data gathering." Photos can reveal quite a bit, but they are not a substitute for on-hands personal examination. Photos don't always reveal information about manufacturing processes, optical quality of enamels (versus paste or cloisonne like materials) and other details that can be seen by someone that knows what to look for and has the item and good quality hand lenses in hand.

Les

Edited December 30, 2008 by Les

[Steve Russell]

Ancillary discussion. Can anyone look at the two crosses and tell me why you do not believe they are the same or look at the Linde pic and tell me why you believe they do not match. Of course, you may believe they do and that is fine too.

I've shown both crosses side by side. I've described a few lead in discussions points such as the same right side crown gaps, the cross lettering dimensions and overall cross dimensions being the same. I've also shown them compared to the Linde pic over at the WAF where this cross has been discussed at length. To not address any of this by just dismissing a picture's format or analyzing price comparisons between ribbons and PlMs is somewhat of a mystery to me. I am making no attempt at rudeness, just trying to get back to discussing this cross. I sincerely value the opinions of those on this forum. Would love to hear why some believe the crosses are or are not the same. I believe they are. Thanks, Steve

[Les]

Ancillary discussion. Can anyone look at the two crosses and tell me why you do not believe they are the same or look at the Linde pic and tell me why you believe they do not match. Of course, you may believe they do and that is fine too.

I've shown both crosses side by side. I've described a few lead in discussions points such as the same right side crown gaps, the cross lettering dimensions and overall cross dimensions being the same. I've also shown them compared to the Linde pic over at the WAF where this cross has been discussed at length. To not address any of this by just dismissing a picture's format or analyzing price comparisons between ribbons and PlMs is somewhat of a mystery to me. I am making no attempt at rudeness, just trying to get back to discussing this cross. I sincerely value the opinions of those on this forum. Would love to hear why some believe the crosses are or are not the same. I believe they are. Thanks, Steve

Steve,

There is not enough detail in the photo to see what the crown or other details of the cross look like. The silhouette of the two medals you've shown look a great deal like the one in the Linde image. However, there is a problem because the image of the cross posted by "Epsomgreen" or Charles on WAF has what appears to be the same types of eagles, but show differences to the two you've shown here.

Can you conclusively determine whether the one in the Linde image is closer to the PlM "Epsomgreen" has, or the other two you've posted here? Since there isn't enough detail in the Linde image, -neither- can be ruled out.

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/sho...ad.php?t=239515

I "borrowed" an image of Epsom's cross and pasted it here. It looks much like the two you posted here, but there are a few differences. Can you rule this one out based on the photo details, or are you convinced it's not this one, but something like the other two?

Les

[Steve Russell]

Les,

Charles PlM is a light enamel Rothe style with Johanniter eagles. Grant Bias' may be made by Rothe (I am still skeptical) but not from the same mold or die at all. They are so completely different. If we can defer the eagle discussion on them and focus only on the cross we can see why. But first, to answer the question on what Charles' cross is--a Rothe. See comparison pic below with a rich blue example compared to the light blue of Charles. I personally am very wary of light blue enameled Rothes but that is another discussion entirely.

What makes Charles cross a Rothe?

Crown - 5 jewel base. Crown at top has a 'saddle' where the cross meets it rather than being perched on a 'peak' like other PlM crowns.

F - offset to the right where it joins the crown.

Lettering - Besides matching letter for letter, it has the ladder style etching so common on Rothes.

le - top of 'l' has 'cap' that points right instead of left or none at all.

Arm Rays - Flat and broad. This characteristic to me makes Rothes so identifiable in my opinion because regardless of what eagles they have, the broad flat and wide arm rays always set them apart. Other common maker PlMs have more recessed ray ends with a much sharper angle in the center of the ray.

Now, if we accept that Charles' cross is a Rothe with the descriptions above and with the comparison cross I posted, I do believe I can show why the one Linde has is not this type of Rothe cross but is like the cross in the Berlin museum and like the one Grant owns. This will come in my next post. Steve

[Steve Russell]

Here is a side by side of Grant's unknown type with Charles' Rothe type. As you can see, there are a great many stark differences that make these two crosses completely at odds with one another. I do not believe these can be from the same dies.

More in next post...

[Steve Russell]

In Grant's example and the one in Berllin, you will note a distinct 'raised' crown that is like an Iron Cross. This feature is not encountered on any of the normal makers of the PlM and gives it a unique signature. The rest of the lettering is flat with the enamel, like all PlMs. But the crown casts a shadow because it is raised. This is important in addition to the basic shape characteristics also noted.

More in next post...

[Steve Russell]

The crown is significant because if the Linde photo did not have the crown casting a shadow, this photo might easily be mistaken to show a Johanniter due to the glare that would show no letters and further complicated by Johanniter eagles on this PlM. But two things are in the pic's favor.

First, there is a crown clearly casting a shadow when it should not be due to glare, showing its raised structure. Second, it is a photo of Linde, a known PlM recipient.

Here is the side by side of the pic with this type of cross. Note the crown. Note the steep angles of the arm rays that are recessed much steeper than a Rothe like Charles' example I have discussed.

This is why I think this PlM is the type in Berlin and why I think it is the same as Grant's type. A study of the Berlin cross even shows a striking resemblance to the actual Linde PlM in his pic.

This should excite all of us that study PlMs because it is something not yet previously known but certainly has evidence of existing prior to 1945 and that has at least two surviving examples today. Thanks for walking through this with me. Steve

Edited December 31, 2008 by Steve Russell

[Komtur]

The crown is significant because if the Linde photo did not have the crown casting a shadow, this photo might easily be mistaken to show a Johanniter due to the glare that would show no letters and further complicated by Johanniter eagles on this PlM. But two things are in the pic's favor.

First, there is a crown clearly casting a shadow when it should not be due to glare, showing its raised structure. Second, it is a photo of Linde, a known PlM recipient.

Here is the side by side of the pic with this type of cross. Note the crown. Note the steep angles of the arm rays that are recessed much steeper than a Rothe like Charles' example I have discussed.

This is why I think this PlM is the type in Berlin and why I think it is the same as Grant's type. A study of the Berlin cross even shows a striking resemblance to the actual Linde PlM in his pic.

This should excite all of us that study PlMs because it is something not yet previously known but certainly has evidence of existing prior to 1945 and that has at least two surviving examples today. Thanks for walking through this with me. Steve

Thank you for that interesting study. I can follow you in every step you take, except one: I would not call the eagle of the discussed Plm a "Johanniter type". This eagle is a type of its own. As one can see comparing it with the eagles on a Johanniter cross, you will find lots of differences. The most important one is, that the Johanniter has always a crowned eagle.

BTW I never thougt, that the picture of Linde would start that interesting and long standing discussion on that type of Plm. My personal opinion is, that this type are private purchases produced in the years between the wars.

I will try to go to the Technik-Museum next time, to find out, who the owner of that Plm there was.

Best regards, Komtur.

[Komtur]

... 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!

Les

I do not think, that Linde certainly got a "pie wedge" style Plm. He was awarded this cross on Sept. 18th 1914. The cross of Mackensen, awarded only some weeks later on Nov. 27th 1914, was a "baroque ribbon eye" style too. It is possible an not unusual, that Linde on one of the WWII era pictures is wearing his original awarded order and on the other a second private purchased one.

Best regards, Komtur.

[gregM]

Steve,

Very convincing and well executed.

Great thread.

[RAO]

Maybe I can help. The PLM in the Technikmuseum Berlin belongs to the group Max Immelmann. I do not believe, that he was taken from him.

Here are other Pics.

Best Regards Mike

[RAO]

Part two

[RAO]

...and the last.

[RAO]

And this one is the Plm from Max Immelmann to the Milit?rmuseum Dresden. Aaaaha

[Daniel Cole]

And Ernst Ju"ngers from his Museum.

[Les]

And this one is the Plm from Max Immelmann to the Milit?rmuseum Dresden. Aaaaha

Immelmann died during the war. The first example which is said to be the one worn by Linde, wasn't made during WWI. The second example from Dreseden looks like an S&L. Based on what we know to be pieces actually made prior to 1918. Both are attributed to him, but neither of those two pieces have real provenance. Neither of these are reliable examples and shouldn't be casually included in this discussion or to draw important conclusions that the "Linde" cross is real.

That leaves us with the so-called Linde example.

Steve, taking photos and placing them side by side isn't reliable. Some time ago, I posted a jpg of an Austrian pilot's badge on this forum along with the photo of the pilot wearing it. Stogie disagreed with it being real, and said it the placement of the wings was wrong, etc, etc. He said the image and photos couldn't be the same. Check this out: http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=5741&st=40 I took three different photos of the badge, with the same camera, but intentionally shifted the angles slightly each time. The resulting images each had a slightly different perspective on the way the same badge was seen, and each photo looked like a different badge. The placement of the wings on the wreath could be made to look higher or lower when the camera angle was shifted slightly along one plane only. Move it sideways in addition to "up/down" and things would take on an entirely different dimension.

The photos you are comparing might appear to be centered, and flat on, but unless they are taken in carefully aligned positions, you can't rule out "camera(man) bias."

I'll repeat this once more. There simply isn't enough detail in the Linde image to draw the conclusions you're making. Llight/shadow can be caused by more than the surface of an item. Reflected light from another source on to the surface of the cross, if it was not evenly reflected could create the illusion of something other than a flat surface on a medal.

The military routinely uses "skilled" photo interpretation specialists to look at aerial and satellite photographs. There is a lot of training, skill, and more than a little bit of looking for specific hints or clues that will allow you to see or claim what you want to find. More than a few people in the military were wrong about what they said they could "see" in aerial and satellite photos back in 2003....

The PlM Charles/Epsom posted -IS- a Rothe. If you look carefully at the edges of the eagles in other photos posted on the same thread at WAF, not all of the eagle's feet don't touch the sides of the cross. Also, the tail feathers aren't evenly touching in places. If you've handled actual Rothe's with the same chasing marks on the letters, etc, you'd see the eagles were made separate from the cross and applied later. Epsom's example is a Rothe with separately applied eagles.

Enamel color is far easier to change than most people suspect. Superheat the medal and then drop it into ice-water. The enamel will shatter and come off the piece very easily. Art school jewelry classes teach students how to enamel and it would be easy for them to redo the piece. A professional jewelry maker that could make and replace eagles, would regard replacing the enamel with an entirely new surface as close to child's play.

Where's the actual medal in the Linde photo? Is it in the family or does anyone know where it is? Without a firmly documented example, there's far too much speculation being based on a photo we don't know much about, and with not enough real detail regarding the center of the cross, crown, lettering, etc to be sure about.

Speculation is fine, provided it is clearly stated as such. Speculation should never be allowed to create a focus that leads us to see "facts" that may not be real at all. Without a specific medal that has real and solid provenance or documentation, the "evidence" is not good enough that you'd find many people willing to shell out 5000 Euros or more for one of these...at this time.

It might be, but the evidence is on the shaky side. IMO, the jury is still out on this one and likely to be for quite some time.

Les

Les

[Les]

Thank you for that interesting study. I can follow you in every step you take, except one: I would not call the eagle of the discussed Plm a "Johanniter type". This eagle is a type of its own. As one can see comparing it with the eagles on a Johanniter cross, you will find lots of differences. The most important one is, that the Johanniter has always a crowned eagle.

...........

I will try to go to the Technik-Museum next time, to find out, who the owner of that Plm there was.

Komtur,

Thank you for going to the Museum, taking the photos and posting them! A couple of years ago, Peter Kilduff gave me the curator's name, telephone and fax numbers. I have them...somewhere, if that would help you.

I agree with you about the eagles. They are not Johanniters. The heads, oval- elongated chests and much of the tail feathers are very close to Rothe eagles. The wings and legs are different, but nothing that a trained jeweler couldn't make from a Rothe eagle.

Regards and thanks again,

Les

[Steve Russell]

Thank you for that interesting study. I can follow you in every step you take, except one: I would not call the eagle of the discussed Plm a "Johanniter type". This eagle is a type of its own. As one can see comparing it with the eagles on a Johanniter cross, you will find lots of differences. The most important one is, that the Johanniter has always a crowned eagle....

Thanks Komtur. I agree that Johanniters usually have crowned heads and are of the style as encountered on other types of orders. But not always. And the eagles heads can have the crowns filed. See below this interesting example of a Johanniter with gold eagles.

They are exactly the fishbone tail style seen on the PlM in question. Note the top left eagle. Notice the absence of crown in this odd and imperfect example?

I believe Ralph may shed even more light on these eagles. He is the one that astutely noticed the Johanniter style. Perhaps others can show examples as well on this type of eagle on a Johanniter. I am somewhat out of my league on Johanniters.

Greg - thanks.

Daniel & RAO - those are S&Ls. While Ju"nger did wear his, Immelman could not have worn that one in Dresden unless there is something we all do not know. The Dresden piece could likely be a museum display space filler. RAO, thanks for providing the larger pics of the Berlin PlM.

Les, I am not asking anyone to shell out anything. I am laying out a fair case that this duck looks like the same duck in Linde's photo. I understand angles well. But I think I have made a strong case that the cross in the Linde photo is not the type of Rothe that we have all come to know. And unless someone can counter that the type is something else, I think it safe to say that as the study continues on these, that the type separates itself from the post war fake variety because of a known recipient wearing one in a pre-1945 photo. And that deserves a careful look into the possibility of a limited and new type.

I agree with Komtur that these could be a private jeweler variant after 1920 but prior to 1945. That could make them along the lines of a Werner or Schickle type variant, but given the major differences of this type to a known cross, it makes them in a special category. Werners were a Wagner variant. Schickles were of a Godet variant. These seem to be something stand alone with a raised crown type never before encountered, which is why they are deserving of study and in my opinion ought to be taken seriously. Steve

Edited December 31, 2008 by Steve Russell

[jaba1914]

And this one is the Plm from Max Immelmann to the Milit?rmuseum Dresden. Aaaaha

Not realy Immelmanns PLM, a S&L PLM bought for presentation. The medalbar shown there are also wrong.

Regards Alex

[Les]

I agree with Komtur that these could be a private jeweler variant after 1920 but prior to 1945. That could make them along the lines of a Werner or Schickle type variant, but given the major differences of this type to a known cross, it makes them in a special category. Werners were a Wagner variant. Schickles were of a Godet variant. These seem to be something stand alone with a raised crown type never before encountered, which is why they are deserving of study and in my opinion ought to be taken seriously. Steve

Steve,

What, if any, provenance does that Johanniter have?

I disagree the case is "strong." It's based on a photo with an unknown history, and no provenance. There's not enough detail to determine the medal in the photo is one medal or another, which means you can -not- rule out the possibility it's a modified Rothe. Daniel has pointed out that photos can be posed, with fake medals, etc. Until that possibility can be completely ruled out, far too much of the "evidence" is nothing more than circumstantial and conjecture. The case needs more work, and more facts, not conjecture.

The methods to make medals changed over time. New solder types, changes in the types of enamel and materials used, all can be examined in labs and there were many changes in ways things were made not only after WWII, but between the wars as well. Many of these details have to be seen (item in hand) because they do not show up in photos. Did you know that most if not all glass compounds, and many metals made since 1944 have radioactive trace elements in the glass or metal, while materials manufacture before the first nuclear tests do not? that's one of the little lab secrets that makes first hand examination CRITICAL and one of many reasons photos as a primary source of "information" are flawed.

Your statement that E.J. wore his S&L PlM. Last night I went through some of the WAF posts and read several of your comments that "veterans bought and wore S&L's" after WWII. Do you have documentation for that? By documentation, I specifically refer to actual photographs of veterans taken after 1957 when German laws permitted military decorations to be worn publicly. There were PlM recipient reunions after WWII. Any photos of the events, or are you relying on having read it somewhere?

I ask that last question because it illustrates an important point. Often someone says something and no one at the time thinks anything about asking for background or more information. Later someone hears or reads what was said, and then repeats it. Eventually statements start sounding like facts and before long "everyone knows it." So, when I ask what the basis for a statement is, I'm trying to determine where it came from, and how a person "knows" whatever it is.

Les

[RAO]

Gents, I know of course that the Plm not from Immelmann were worn. Neither Dresdner and also not in Berlin and we also all know that the majority of the exhibits by Neal O `Connor himself was gathered and most Exsample stands. I thought I would have expressed.

Best Regards Mike

[Komtur]

... I agree that Johanniters usually have crowned heads and are of the style as encountered on other types of orders. But not always. And the eagles heads can have the crowns filed. ... They are exactly the fishbone tail style seen on the PlM in question. ...

You are right! I focussed only on the "Ehrenritter" of the Johanniter, mostly with eagles in the style I showed. Searching my archive, I must admit the cross of the "Rechtsritter" (with crown over the cross)and of the "Kommendatoren" (bigger and also with crown) show often the eagle of the Linde-type Plm.

Best regards, Komtur.

[Les]

You are right! I focussed only on the "Ehrenritter" of the Johanniter, mostly with eagles in the style I showed. Searching my archive, I must admit the cross of the "Rechtsritter" (with crown over the cross)and of the "Kommendatoren" (bigger and also with crown) show often the eagle of the Linde-type Plm.

Best regards, Komtur.

I'm not on my computer. The one I'm using doesn't have photo-editing capabilities. For the moment, check out posts #35-37 here:

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/sho...9755&page=3

The images posted there are stamped and unfinished copper blanks to make 2 types of PlM fakes, and a Johanniter. The Johanniter fake has exactly the same eagles the example Steve posted here shows. One of the PlM copper blanks and the Johanniter blank were both made by the same faker. That helps track down some of the people making these things!

Steve, I hate to break it to you, but I doubt that "Johanniter" you provided a photo of is real. One more reason why handling real ones helps sort the sheep and the goats from each other.

If no one is able to download and change the photo size, I'll do it later this evening when I can do it from my home computer. The photo size needs to be changed from 189k to about half for posting here.

Les