Post-war PLMs

[Guest Brian von Etzel]

I think the one on the left looks pretty familiar, I'd venture 1918 on that one

I'm convinced with the hand finishing. As I suggested, so rare was the 'demand', hand finishing was to be expected.

[Tim Tezer]

No doubt there are slight differences in the overall profile of the eagles around the neck and head, as well as the legs and tail feathers. I have attributed these to hand-finishing. Bear in mind that the eagles we're looking at are about the size of your average mosquito, and are hand-finished with a jeweler's file. Different artisans are going to do slightly different things when they finish them, and if the dies were worn out in the post-war pieces, they would have had to do considerably more work to make them look decent.

Tim

[Gordon Williamson]

Has anyone read the latest edition of Patzwall's "Militaria" magazine which has an article on PLMs by Peter Sauerwald including one which is said to be a 1930's Wagner made piece which belonged to General der Infanterie Magnus von Eberhardt (died 1939).

(It is also identical to the piece in the U-Bootarchiv donated by the family of Otto Hersing.)

Both being very much like the "57" type by Steinhauer & L?ck poses the question, if Sauerwald is correct in his assertion, did S&L get hold of Wagner's 1930s tooling after WW2 and use it to make their "57" pieces ??

[Tim Tezer]

Gordon,

Any possibility of getting scans of the pictures frm the article? I don't want to violate any copyrights, of course, but I don't get his magazine.

My wife says I already get too many journals and auction catalogs in the mail. But because I'm a man and she's a woman, naturally I have no idea what she's talkin about.

Tim

[Gordon Williamson]

Tim,

I don't want to breach Patzwall's copyright but if you PM me your e.mail address I'll send you some images.

[Les]

Has anyone read the latest edition of Patzwall's "Militaria" magazine which has an article on PLMs by Peter Sauerwald including one which is said to be a 1930's Wagner made piece which belonged to General der Infanterie Magnus von Eberhardt (died 1939).

(It is also identical to the piece in the U-Bootarchiv donated by the family of Otto Hersing.)

Both being very much like the "57" type by Steinhauer & L?ck poses the question, if Sauerwald is correct in his assertion, did S&L get hold of Wagner's 1930s tooling after WW2 and use it to make their "57" pieces ??

Gordon,

KaptLt. Otto Hersing of U-21 was awarded the PlM on -- 5 June 1915. That was early enough in the war, that his presented example should be hollow gold, possibly with a pie wedge suspension, although there are pre-October 1916 examples made with a baroque loop, and according to Previtera, sometimes in silver-gilt.

I have a couple of S&L 57 PlMs and some detailed photos of wartime Wagners, and have made direct comparisons of a 57 version to a wartime Wagner.

They are close, but not made from the same dies. The post-war S&L copies are very close, but there are some differences that suggest entirely new dies were made for the post-war copies. There are subtle differences on not only the cross, but the eagles are much crisper than the late war production Wagner eagles, and the worn post WWI dies that were used to produce the two between the wars Wagners shown earlier in this thread.

By any chance do you happen to have a detailed photo of the one in the U-Bootarchiv? If it is not hollow gold, and resembles the post-war S&L types more than the pre-October 1916 hollow gold examples, it might not be his presentation piece.....

Regards,

Les

Edited April 11, 2006 by Les

[Gordon Williamson]

Les,

The "Hersing" PLM ( all his awards and many of his personal posessions, to include his favourite armchair were donated by the family to the Archiv and used to furnish the Hersing Room there).

I'm afarid its behind glass so the shots I could get were not the best. I have more shots somewhere and will try to dig them out.

[Gordon Williamson]

I own an identical piece which I bought cheaply as the owner couldn't guarantee it but thought it was either a "1930s" or an early 1957. Either way the price was right. It is not, like the S&Ls I have seen, in bronze, but in silver gilt and has an oval suspension loop rather than the "paperclip" suspensions I have seen on S&Ls.

Interestingly I have shown it to two big names known to all here and who have handled many originals. I was told it was a nice postwar piece and when I queried "post WW1 or Post WW2", I got the answer "post WW1".

Worst case scenario for me was that it was an early 1957, in which case somewhat analogous to the early versus late 57 Knight's Crosses, still far superior to the cruddy later post WW2 pieces.

[Guest Brian von Etzel]

They are close, but not made from the same dies. The post-war S&L copies are very close, but there are some differences that suggest entirely new dies were made for the post-war copies. There are subtle differences on not only the cross, but the eagles are much crisper than the late war production Wagner eagles, and the worn post WWI dies that were used to produce the two between the wars Wagners shown earlier in this thread.

Regards,

Les

...and that's what I believed to be the case.

[Daniel Cole]

[attachmentid=34310]So the connected U-R isn't a solid detail that can pigeon hole it to a 57er piece.

Edited April 12, 2006 by Daniel Cole

[Les]

Gordon,

Thanks for the photo, that helps considerably. I don't think -that- particular medal is a wartime PlM at all.

The 1957 S&L copies have several features that are easy to peg. The connected letters are sometimes seen on a few WWI era PlMs but only very -rarely- seen. The connected letters are a feature on the "57" types. There are at least three other readily identifiable characterisitcs that identify the 57 type. The tail feathers on wartime PlMs come close to forming a square, while the 57 type tail feathers are not as squared as originals. Then there is the "lumpiness" of the legs on the eagles, and poorlly detailed/defined feet that is especially noticeavle when compared to wartime pieces. The S&L copies fall short here. Also, the S&L copies have eagles heads and beaks that are noticeably different (wartime eagles usually have handchased open mouths, not the closed ones seen on S&L copies). I could go on, but in combination, those differences are enough to determine some of the main differences of 1957 S&L copies to original Wagner made pieces.

Many of the early S&L copies were sold with oakleaves, and it's interesting that the "Hersing" example has a three-band ribbon for the oaks. Hersing was never awarded the oakleaves, so that ribbon in your photo was not one he was entitled to wear. Hersing died in 1960, so it's within the realm of possibility that he (or his family) acquired the 1957 S&L copy (with oaks remmoved and replaced by a jump ring, and the three banded ribbon kept) seen above. Hersing continued to serve his country in uniform after WWI, until he retired in 1935 (20 years after he received the PlM). Did Hersing have more than one PlM? I don't know. If he did, it's entirely possible that his family might not have known which was the actual presentation piece, or a medal he acquired later and opted to show the best looking example. (?)

Gordon, S&L sold a small number of silver gilt examples and these are not common or easily found. Based on the three characteristics (and other details) I'd categorize your silver example as one of these. It's much nicer than some of the later production examples sold by S&L. A couple of posts after yours, Dan posted a later S&L copy which shows less attention to detail, etc.

Regards,

Les

[Biro]

Hi Gordon

Many questions in relation to the Sauerwald article.... I don't read German, so I have to grill you instead of reading the article.....

Does Sauerwald give any indication (photographic or text) as to why he feels it to be a piece from Wagner?

Is it Wagner marked?

Did the two big names also indicate whether they thought yours was a Wagner product?

Your example, being silver gilt not bronze, having the correct style of suspension loop, and showing superior eagle detail and finishing compared to S&L's obviously shabby (but essentially identical) '57 examples would indicate someone who new what they were doing had a hand in assembling it - it's not impossible that this could have been the Wagner firm using the fore-runner to the dies S&L used later, but I beleive Sauerwald would have to come up with some pretty conclusive proof!

I haven't the faintest whether Wagner re-tooled for PLM's in the 30's of course, but one would have to ask why.... given that only a couple of years prior (as Tim's 20's version exhibits) their original wartime tooling was still being utilised - albeit with some sort of re-jig with the added chest feather cross hatching - and was by all accounts 'still going strong'....

...give or take the odd flaw... ;-)

regards

Marshall

[Guest Brian von Etzel]

Are you guys absolutely, I mean absolutely sure you can recognize "die flaws" on the PlM's and that these are coincidental similarities?

I have no doubt Wagner sold replacements in the 20's and 30's. I just want to make myself sure that these are indeed Wagner pieces from the same die. Some of the differences have not been totally sold to me.

For example, I can understand enhancing feathers and features, but, enhancements cannot be net additional metal to the eagle, in my mind, it should be net LESS metal to the eagle. You pull a strike off a die and then start whittling on it, you reduce the metal content to the strike or at least reshape parts of it, you aren't adding metal, right?

Are you seeing exact die flaws from the S&L restrikes to prove it's a Wagner die? I can't see it...

[Les]

Are you guys absolutely, I mean absolutely sure you can recognize "die flaws" on the PlM's and that these are coincidental similarities?

..............<snip>...........

Are you seeing exact die flaws from the S&L restrikes to prove it's a Wagner die? I can't see it...

Brian,

The dies Wagner used for the solid silver gilt dies later in the war, appear to have been used during the 1920's to make a -few- PlMs. The die flaw(s) on the wartime pieces could only have turned up on the post-war pieces only if the same dies were used.

The S&L 1957 copies do not appear to have been made from original dies. The "57" eagles have some significant differences compared to an original Wagner, and lack the die flaw(s) mentioned. There are also some subtle differences between the bodies of the crosses.

IMO, the S&L copy is nothing but a post-WWII copy, and not made from dies Wagner made prior to 1918. What happened to Wagner's dies is a good question, but they were not used to make the eagles on the S&L copies.

Les

[Gordon Williamson]

Hi Gordon

Many questions in relation to the Sauerwald article.... I don't read German, so I have to grill you instead of reading the article.....

Does Sauerwald give any indication (photographic or text) as to why he feels it to be a piece from Wagner?

No, I'm afraid not. He simply says the example he shows was made by Wagner but by machine methods and not jeweller produced in the traditional way that older pieces were, this type he identifies as from the 1930s being stamped in one piece and with the excess material "cut" (sawn) away. My German isn't that proficient but he seems quite adamant it is not modern.

Is it Wagner marked?

Nothing stated to suggest that it is marked.

Did the two big names also indicate whether they thought yours was a Wagner product?

No

Your example, being silver gilt not bronze, having the correct style of suspension loop, and showing superior eagle detail and finishing compared to S&L's obviously shabby (but essentially identical) '57 examples would indicate someone who new what they were doing had a hand in assembling it - it's not impossible that this could have been the Wagner firm using the fore-runner to the dies S&L used later, but I beleive Sauerwald would have to come up with some pretty conclusive proof!

I haven't the faintest whether Wagner re-tooled for PLM's in the 30's of course, but one would have to ask why.... given that only a couple of years prior (as Tim's 20's version exhibits) their original wartime tooling was still being utilised - albeit with some sort of re-jig with the added chest feather cross hatching - and was by all accounts 'still going strong'....

...give or take the odd flaw... ;-)

regards

Marshall

Actually, given what I paid for it, I'd be perfectly happy with my piece as a very early post WW2 "57" type in the same way as I'd be happy with a nice very early 57 Knights Cross (especially as that this would probably be harder to find - I've had lots of very earlt 57 Knights Crosses but this would be the first "57" PLM of this quality (assuming that is what it proves to be) I've seen.

I'm just curious as to Sauerwald's identifdication of this type as being by Wagner

[Ed_Haynes]

For example, I can understand enhancing feathers and features, but, enhancements cannot be net additional metal to the eagle, in my mind, it should be net LESS metal to the eagle. You pull a strike off a die and then start whittling on it, you reduce the metal content to the strike or at least reshape parts of it, you aren't adding metal, right?

This is far from my "turf", but, if you recut or enhance a die, you are cutting into the negative image of the die so that it will, in fact, hold more metal when struck. Think about the geometry of what is going on. A reworked die will, in fact, make the image struck from it larger that it was before.

[Gordon Williamson]

Many of the early S&L copies were sold with oakleaves, and it's interesting that the "Hersing" example has a three-band ribbon for the oaks. Hersing was never awarded the oakleaves, so that ribbon in your photo was not one he was entitled to wear. Hersing died in 1960, so it's within the realm of possibility that he (or his family) acquired the 1957 S&L copy (with oaks remmoved and replaced by a jump ring, and the three banded ribbon kept) seen above. Hersing continued to serve his country in uniform after WWI, until he retired in 1935 (20 years after he received the PlM). Did Hersing have more than one PlM? I don't know. If he did, it's entirely possible that his family might not have known which was the actual presentation piece, or a medal he acquired later and opted to show the best looking example. (?)

Les

In fact the example in the Archiv does have Oakleaves. I was aware that as far as records show, Hersing wasn't entitled to them ( though there are precedences for PLM holders seen wearing Oaks who aren't listed as Oakleaves winners).

I knew that it wasn't a WW1 period piece, all I know is that it was donated by the Hersing family (why they would have one with oakleaves if Hersing wasn't entitled is anyone's guess) and I mentioned it simply as it matched the piece that Sauerwald claims in a 1930s Wagner.

In fact since the visit when I took the photo, for security reasons - whether authentic or postwar S&L, the Archiv would value it on the basis of its donation from the Hersing family - it has been removed and replaced with a horrendous cheap modern copy - (after the Archiv suffered from a number of thefts)

All of which of course still leaves unanswered the questions of just why Sauerwald thinks this type is 1930s Wagner.

[Guest Brian von Etzel]

This is far from my "turf", but, if you recut or enhance a die, you are cutting into the negative image of the die so that it will, in fact, hold more metal when struck. Think about the geometry of what is going on. A reworked die will, in fact, make the image struck from it larger that it was before.

Dies are 'hardened' after being cut. I'm not sure about cutting into a hardened completed die.

[Ed_Haynes]

Dies are 'hardened' after being cut. I'm not sure about cutting into a hardened completed die.

OK, could be, maybe German jewlery shops did it differently than the Royal Mint in London, the Indian Mint in Calcutta, and the "by appointment" jewelers like Gerrard and Spink in London. As I said, I only work from the basis of what I know.

[Tim Tezer]

The crosshatching on the two PLMs I posted is chased, or engraved into the eagles, and is part of the finishing process, not part of the die. If the die wore enough that there were no feathers visible (and there were almost none in the wartime issue PLMs) this would have been done to compensate. I don't think they bothered to rework the dies, because they would have made so few of them it would have been just as easy to have someone who hand-finished the eagles add a little touch-up to the detail.

As for the S&L copies, I don't suppose it's possible that S&L actually started making some between the wars? They didn't include it in their 1939 catalog, so it seems unlikely. But is it possible?

Tim

[Guest Brian von Etzel]

The original comments to this thread were that the eagles were HAND FINISHED. NOT die created. I assumed this meant some of the posters had seen enough differences between the eagles to see differences in the various PlMs. OK?

So...

What IF, the die were crudely drilled out to provide EXTRA MATERIAL? Material to provide the finisher product to hand finish? Now that is a combination of events that I could understand.

Are the people who have studied the flaws between the "post-war Wagners" and wartime Wagners absolutely content with the die flaws being completely and utterly the same? I'm talking about the tail feather sections where the flaws occur.

[Stogieman]

Interesting debate gentleman.......

[Gordon Williamson]

I should stress that in the article Sauerwald is not suggesting that what he describes as 1930s Wagner pieces were made with original or reworked original dies. Quite the opposite. He states they were made with different tooling stamped ( or "coined" ) in one piece using up to date factory manufacturing methods rather than traditional jeweller methods.

[Biro]

I should stress that in the article Sauerwald is not suggesting that what he describes as 1930s Wagner pieces were made with original or reworked original dies. Quite the opposite. He states they were made with different tooling stamped ( or "coined" ) in one piece using up to date factory manufacturing methods rather than traditional jeweller methods.

Yes - there appears to be two topics running in tandom in this thread... so to summarise for the latecomer, the questions are...

#1 - Are the 3 PLM's posted at the very bigginig of the thread comparing the eagles of 1 wartime and 2 postwar PLM's from the same original wartime die?

IMO, Yes - totally & undeniably.

#2 - The 2 pieces posted later by Gordon (one belonging to the Hersing estate and one belonging to Gordon himself) have been described by Sauerwald as '1930's Wagners'. Plainly, they are not from the same die as the three PLM's we began discussing originally, so the inference from Sauerwald is that Wagner had COMPLETELY new tooling made in the 30's.

This is a far more momentous claim and one that is apparently not backed up by a maker mark or in fact any hard evidence other than Sauerwalds own speculation. Nonetheless, it is an interesting claim and one well worth discussing. It does appear that this same PLM die was later used by S&L for there product.

That's where we're at so far....

Marshall

[Guest Brian von Etzel]

A PlM made in the thirties and made with oaks for a guy who didn't earn oaks but wore them just 'cause. A Wagner made piece with no maker mark because Wagner no longer cared to identify their pieces with their maker mark.

I have a problem with a decorated solider wearing 'more' than he earned just because he could obtain the piece.

I have a problem that Wagner no longer cared to mark their pieces.

I believe this piece came from the family but that it was a much later replacement.

Miniature ribbon replacements, at least I know, were readily available in the 30's. My grandfather never wore a frayed ribbon. I'm told he was absolutely fastidious about the ribbons in his miniatures. I presume full size were also available so wearing the oaks ribbon is beyond my ability to make sense of this. Need more info...

Edited April 14, 2006 by Brian von Etzel