pour le m?rite

[RAO]

Yes, and here you a blank easy to work with bronze. Perhaps committee of StuL. Check the crown was wrong "aufgel?tet" by the Eagles false arranged. Best regards Mike

[Les]

Yes, and here you a blank easy to work with bronze. Perhaps committee of StuL. Check the crown was wrong "aufgel?tet" by the Eagles false arranged. Best regards Mike

Mike,

Dankbar!

I see I'm not the only one who has a few of these!

Etwas mehr??

Les

[RAO]

Ok, "something more" no problem. Here's a piece in ZINC, the devil knows what it is. :rolleyes:

[RAO]

2

[RAO]

3

[RAO]

4

[RAO]

...and the last, Number 5.

[Steve Russell]

Les,

I'll be happy to discuss the S&L use post war on a different thread. Ancillary discussion here. And yes, there are pics of them in wear and even vended examples.

As to the Johanniter I posted, I readily deferred to those that know more about them in that post, suggesting only that this style of Eagle can be found on them. Komtur seems to agree and so does Ralph. My point is the eagle style can be found on a Johanniter--which they can. I was not talking about the particular merits of that piece. Again, I asked that the cross be focused on more than the eagles earlier in my posts. It is readily conceded that this eagle exists on both the Rothe and the Berlin type, so why argue about those eagles? They are clearly there on both anyway.

Mike, The zinc piece is..well..interesting but also ancillary to our discussion on the Berlin / Linde cross. It might make for an interesting thread in its own right though. Thanks for posting that blank.

Les, I would be a bit surprised if you thought I made any case that was strong. But others see what they see, too. That said, I am waiting for your analysis of why you think Linde's cross is a Rothe and not the Berlin style cross. You've heard from me, now I am waiting to hear something other than only counter points and sidetracks to my case. Let's hear your case on the Rothe. And, by the way, Happy New Year. Steve

[Les]

Les,

I'll be happy to discuss the S&L use post war on a different thread. Ancillary discussion here. And yes, there are pics of them in wear and even vended examples.

As to the Johanniter I posted, I readily deferred to those that know more about them in that post, suggesting only that this style of Eagle can be found on them. Komtur seems to agree and so does Ralph. My point is the eagle style can be found on a Johanniter--which they can. I was not talking about the particular merits of that piece. Again, I asked that the cross be focused on more than the eagles earlier in my posts. It is readily conceded that this eagle exists on both the Rothe and the Berlin type, so why argue about those eagles? They are clearly there on both anyway.

Mike, The zinc piece is..well..interesting but also ancillary to our discussion on the Berlin / Linde cross. It might make for an interesting thread in its own right though. Thanks for posting that blank.

Les, I would be a bit surprised if you thought I made any case that was strong. But others see what they see, too. That said, I am waiting for your analysis of why you think Linde's cross is a Rothe and not the Berlin style cross. You've heard from me, now I am waiting to hear something other than only counter points and sidetracks to my case. Let's hear your case on the Rothe. And, by the way, Happy New Year. Steve

Steve,

Steve,

I read the S&L posts on WAF and am not convinced they were (1) made prior to 1945 as you've attempted to show from wartime photos, or (2) that they were commonly "worn" by PlM-traeger after WWII. Again, you're relying far too much on less than clear photos and drawing inferences that the photos may not support. One of the WAF posts I read commented on your use of Sanke cards (Biro posted a photo that comes to mind that runs counter to a claim made in one of the threads). I've commented here on GMIC more than once on the conclusions drawn from photos can be wrong and have particular misgivings about using digital photos that come from unspecified on-line sources. If the source can't be independent checked and verified, the approach is less than scientific and mostly seat of the pants or gut level feelings.

There is a huge difference between first hand empirical evidence and digital copies of something obtained by second or third hand sources. Use of secondary sources saying someone told me this, or gave me a copy they made of something, in a court room would be called hearsay, and thrown out. In the sciences, data comes first and the integrity of the data should and must be beyond reproach.

I wrote that the medal Epsomgreen posted is a Rothe, and has modified eagles that were made separately and added to the cross. If you got the impression I was calling the Linde example a Rothe, you would be wrong. What you call the Berlin example looks much like the one Epsom/Charles has, but there are differences. The eagles share a very similar outline enough so that in a less than clear photo determining which one could be difficult if not impossible. Without examining the actual photo and never a digital copy of another image) can you be certain the shadow isn't a smudge, dirt spot, something that was on the camera lens, scanner, etc? No.

The next point seems to get ignored time and again. Re-read the comments I posted about how the same exact badge or medal can look differently by changing camera angles, even if all other factors are the same. One badge, one camera, three photos from different angles and the result is what looks like three different badges. When you start comparing images of different medals, taken with different cameras (cameras and camera lens are even though they appear similar may have very different optics which affect the way the camera film "sees" the image through the lens)lighting conditions, camera settings, film speed or the digital equivalent, the precise angles, parallax factors, color-calibration factors in old films, different printing processes, and complicate what is actually showing up in a photo, and what you think you see.

The image of Linde is not clear enough to determine whether the cross is the same as the one Epsom/Charles has or the two you call "Berlin" examples. I'll repeat,despite claims otherwise, the details of the cross itself (let alone the eagles) are clear enough to determine whether the thing is a "Epsom" or "Berlin" looking item. You somehow seem to think that there's enough there to make inferences. You seem to think the shadow effect was caused by the raised crown and sunken enamel on one, and that the shadow in the image was caused by that. That dark spot could have been caused by something else. Those inferences or observations are being made from a secondary digital source, and you've never examined the original, or even another photo of Linde wearing a PlM with the distinctive eagles seen outlined in the image.

Les

[Steve Russell]

Les,

I stated I would be happy to discuss the S&L pieces, just not here.

As I read your comments, you seem to agree somewhat that the Linde cross is not a typical Rothe. I agree.

As to the picture itself, Komtur has it, said it is legit, that it has not been altered and is original--and that is good enough for me. Why should I question his integrity?

I agree that a duck at a certain angle can look like a goose--just not a goat.

I think I've made my case pretty clear as to why I believe how similar the Linde pic cross is with the Grant and Berlin examples. You choose to disagree (constantly) as to why I should believe what I do as I've explained it--as is your prerogative.

To everyone else,

My hope has been that by laying out why I think the Linde PlM in Komtur's pic is the type found in Berlin and in private hands, I could add some small value to the study of the question that opened this thread to begin with. The mystery surrounding an unusual PlM that Linde is wearing no doubt has many possibilities. I've offered one view and attempted to do so with clarity and pictures where possible and to suggest that this cross exists in the form of a surviving example or two. I think that has been accomplished. Steve

[Daniel Cole]

This is sure a heated and lengthy discussion about what are really just copies. They're not award pieces, they are copies, or in harsher words Fakes, regardless of whether or not a recipient wore any of these pieces. Who knows. Is the point here to document all the various copies of the PLM out there?

So von der Linde may have had a second piece, or third piece or pimped a different varient for each day of the week from each medals manufacturer, to me I really only care about the one placed around his neck when awarded. What was it, a Wagner or a Friedlander, pie or baroque, silver gilt or gold? Anything else is a copy.

Happy New Year.

[speedytop]

Hi,

Daniel Cole:

"They're not award pieces, they are copies, or in harsher words Fakes,..."

Daniel, thank you very much

That is the first and most important fact for this subject.

Uwe

[Komtur]

This is sure a heated and lengthy discussion about what are really just copies. They're not award pieces, they are copies, or in harsher words Fakes, regardless of whether or not a recipient wore any of these pieces. Who knows. Is the point here to document all the various copies of the PLM out there?

So von der Linde may have had a second piece, or third piece or pimped a different varient for each day of the week from each medals manufacturer, to me I really only care about the one placed around his neck when awarded. What was it, a Wagner or a Friedlander, pie or baroque, silver gilt or gold? Anything else is a copy.

Happy New Year.

Happy New Year to all too

It may lead this discussion , but as I am the one starting this thread I do not care to much about it

I do not agree with Daniel and Uwe in that point and I try to show you why: this Red Eagle Order breast star of the 2nd class was never official given by the Prussian Generalordenskommission to the recipient. But it is, no doubt about it, a piece made about 1840. In that time all Prussian breast stars were made of cloth. All metall pieces are private purchases. Especially the firm GODET is known for producing these fine jewells of metal work. I have never seen a second piece of that kind, it is one of the favorite orders in my collection and I have no doubt that I could sell it now for twice the money I paid for some years ago (and that was not little).

In a way it is not "off topic", because the discussed type of Plm is a fine piece of metal work too, it looks not like other cheap copies. If there are enough hints, that these were worn by the recipients, I would be happy, to have one in my collection, even if it is not "the real thing".

Best regards, Komtur.

Edited January 1, 2009 by Komtur

[speedytop]

Komtur,

you contradict yourself!

"even if it is not "the real thing". You know, and we all know, that it is not the real thing!

Yes, it could be "a fine piece of metal", but that does not replace the word copy/fake, and that can not transfer a copy to an original, never. Such a transfer is only possible in the head of some collectors, but not in the reality.

A PlM made post 1918 is not an original, but I accept, it could be a fine copy.

Regards

Uwe

Edited January 1, 2009 by speedytop

[Komtur]

Komtur,

you contradict yourself!

"even if it is not "the real thing". You know, and we all know, that it is not the real thing!

Yes, it could be "a fine piece of metal", but that does not replace the word copy/fake, and that can not transfer a copy to an original, never. Such a transfer is only possible in the head of some collectors, but not in the reality.

A PlM made post 1918 is not an original, but I accept, it could be a fine copy.

Regards

Uwe

One point is the definition of copy/fake. I tried to show, this is sometimes more comlicated, than yours and Daniels point of view. Is the breast star above a copy/fake? In my opinion not.

The other point is, when is an order or medal, may we call it copy, fake or something else, worth collecting. Even if some of you would call the breast star above a copy or fake, there will be lots of other collectors nevertheless judging it worth collecting.

Regards, Komtur.

[speedytop]

Komtur,

I think and hope, that we agree in some points for an original.

Originals are awarded decorations and/or authorized produced pieces in the award period.

In the award period.

The award period for a PlM ended in 1918.

It is not helpful, to compare PlM copies with a disputable piece from 1840, produced (authorized?) in the award period.

Kind Regards

Uwe

[dond]

If you hold that only awarded pieces are "real" then there are alot of fake EK1s, IABs, PABs, etc... out there.

[Ed_Haynes]

If you hold that only awarded pieces are "real" then there are alot of fake EK1s, IABs, PABs, etc... out there.

Right! Of course.

As an outsider, I have found this discussion interesting at times, but at other times immensely sad and depressing.

[Komtur]

Komtur,

I think and hope, that we agree in some points for an original.

Originals are awarded decorations and/or authorized produced pieces in the award period.

In the award period.

The award period for a PlM ended in 1918.

It is not helpful, to compare PlM copies with a disputable piece from 1840, produced (authorized?) in the award period.

Kind Regards

Uwe

I am sure, we agree for an original in ALL points. I am also quite sure, there are items we both judge as copies/fakes and will not discuss about. But between black and white there is some grey.

If it is not helpful, to make myself clear with that breast star of 1840, I will try it again: here is a GODET 1st class Red Cross Medal. The official maker was the Berliner M?nze. In an article for Orden und Ehrenzeichen (June 55/2008) I showed by letters from the firm, by advertisements of the time and other hints that the GODET cross was made from may be 1898 (the beginning of awards of the Red Cross Medal) until the production of that firm ended (1945).

In my opinion

1.) the GODET cross is different made, but of higher quality, then the original awarded crosses by the Berliner M?nze,

2.) GODET crosses were worn by the recipients, before and also after 1921 (when the official awards ended)

3.) some of these crosses may directly were sold by the firm or the heirs of the firm to collectors

4.) these crosses are worth collecting

Kind regards, Komtur.

pics:

1. GODET

2. Berliner M?nze

[Schießplatzmeister]

This is sure a heated and lengthy discussion about what are really just copies. They're not award pieces, they are copies, or in harsher words Fakes, regardless of whether or not a recipient wore any of these pieces. Who knows. Is the point here to document all the various copies of the PLM out there?

So von der Linde may have had a second piece, or third piece or pimped a different varient for each day of the week from each medals manufacturer, to me I really only care about the one placed around his neck when awarded. What was it, a Wagner or a Friedlander, pie or baroque, silver gilt or gold? Anything else is a copy.

Happy New Year.

Hello everyone:

I have been on the sidelines on this one, but though that I too had to now comment.

Daniel, I believe that the statement that you made muddies the water a bit. I would like to share my personal opinion (not that it was asked for, or anyone particularly cares regarding this). As a general thought regarding Imperial-era German Orders and medals, I believe that the word "fake" should not encompass genuine "deluxe-grade" pieces that were privately commissioned by recipients and better than awarded pieces in quality. I also believe that the word "fake" should not encompass replacement pieces actually worn by the recipient regardless of when they were made. Such pieces in my opinion are "copies" and are not to be confused with "fakes" which were never worn by recipients and were made to deceive collectors only. So, Komtur's piece is a "copy" and not a "fake" in my opinion.

So, this being said, a "copy" without solid provenance must in MOST (but perhaps not all) cases be regarded as a "fake" when it comes to PLM Order pieces encountered on the market.

This is a great discussion and some excellent points are being made!

A Happy New Year to all!

"SPM"

[Daniel Cole]

SPM,

I concur. My point is there are 2 groups; award pieces, and everything else (the mine field).

Lets assume for discussion that the S&L piece I have was given to me by Ernst Ju"nger during a visit to his home in Willfingen. Let's assume he said he had worn it in his later years on occasion. The piece is clearly not original, it does have providence, it isn't a "Fake" in the sense of "to defraud", it is simply a recipient's other decoration. I would think it would have a collectable value. However, once back home I post on this web site that "gift" was Junger's PLM. The daggers would fly!

This whole debate is really kind of pointless. The non issue pieces is a wide area where I don't think folks will agree.

Another example is "Der Rittmeisters" PLM on his website. I believe he said he got it from the von Schleich family. However I believe it was also mentioned that the piece is unmarked. That is contrary to award pieces of pre 1918, correct? So assumming his PLM is POST 1918 only documented providence is what would set his piece apart from other post 1918 pieces.

Cheers,

Dan

[Harrier]

When the manufacture of a piece is specifically authorized by the government (as in "licensed"), is the piece, even though it may differ from a "brand" actually awarded, still a copy?

Sorry to go "off topic".

[Komtur]

When the manufacture of a piece is specifically authorized by the government (as in "licensed"), is the piece, even though it may differ from a "brand" actually awarded, still a copy?

Sorry to go "off topic".

I?m afraid for going it is to late.

But as I understand you right, it is an interesting point in that discussion. Do you mean for example, an officer, decorated with the Prussian Crown Order 3rd class (before 1916 made of Gold), decided to instruct GODET to produce besides his bar for his uniform with his original orders a second "Frackspange" for his civil cloth and GODET put on this second bar a Crown Order 3rd class in the same kind and style he is officially producing for the Prussian Generalordenskommission? By definition this second and not "awarded" Crown Order for this officer could be seen as a COPY. If we now see this fine GODET tuxedo bar in a collection we will never know that this golden Crown Order is a copy or not, but nobody cares about it!

Another possibility of grey between black and white

Regards, Komtur.

[Harrier]

http://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_01_2009/post-2778-1230830783.jpgThanks!

I was actually thinking of the later period, when the LDO had to license the manufacture of all awards for sale and had to approve a sample before license was granted.

[Komtur]

I was actually thinking of the later period, when the LDO had to license the manufacture of all awards for sale and had to approve a sample before license was granted.

Ah, sorry, but about that period and its regulations I am not informed enough.

But I will try to go back to my initial questions:

1.) Who is the officer on this foto?

Thanks to the information of Glenn J and the pictures for comparison of Christophe and Les, it seems to be Oberst d. R. Otto von der Linde before or in WWII.

He is wearing a Plm of a type unlike the known awarded crosses of Friedl?nder/Wagner or Godet. I got this foto as an original "paper" one from Ebay. I have not manipulated the scan/digital version in any way. If someone before was messing around with different pics of Lindes face and a pic of a Plm producing the image I bought, I do not know. But there is no reason for me to believe in that possibility.

2.) What we know about this type of Plm?

There are at least 2 crosses (Technik-Museum and another one discussed on WAF), wich are quite similar to the cross seen on the picture. We do not know, who was the maker of these 2 crosses and when they were made. Les explained detailed, why he don?t think, that these three crosses are from the same maker or at least there is not enough proof for it. On the other hand Steve desribed, why in his opinion these two orders and the one on the pic of Linde could be one "type".

As far as I can follow the discussion in a foreign language, all arguments of both sides did not lead to a 100% safe conclusion. But this is a fact, we have to deal with often in life. Instead of certainty then we must accept a grade of probability.

IMHO after that discussion there is a probability that the crosses are from one source. If one believe that, and the foto of Linde is not manipulated, the next conclusion can only be, there was a maker of Plm between the wars producing this type of Plm as a second item for the reciepents and may be for collectors too.

If this is probability enough for a collector to pay what ever for such a cross, is a decision, that everyone must make by himself.

I would be glad, if there are new informations on this topic to clear the "mine field". But until then, I am sure we can accept the different points of view.

With kind regards, Komtur.

PS: I regret, that the disussion leds to depressing side tracks Sorry, if I am responsible for that.

Edited January 1, 2009 by Komtur