ghibertivsgies@lycos.com  This site was constructed Sept 2005 & last updated  May 2008 (Please turn up your speakers...) I welcome feedback from anyone who wishes to offer an opinion or any 'additional information or perspective'  on this web site. Thank you, Jennifer

(Updates are listed at bottom of page)

"Ghiberti vs Gies"

Was the 1915 medallion known as 'The Fort' actually sculpted by the German medallist Ludwig Gies (1887-1966); or was this the actual work of the Florentine goldsmith, sculptor and writer Lorenzo Ghiberti (1378-1455) between May 29th 1453 and December 1st 1455?

History in itself is a craft of telling stories. If there is no counter story, then, what we are told must be true. However, is this what really makes history? Many times we need to explore what something isn't to arrive at what it really is and correct history. 

'The Fort' (bronze) 6.9 cm medallion that I own: 

A colour photo of the medallion I took in September of 2005.

This is the same medallion in a black and white photo taken in 1959.

Is this the work of Ludwig Gies and he has hidden a historical event within the generic title of 'The Fort'? Is this scene depicting April 24th 1915 as the moon was in a waning crescent that hundreds of christian Armenian leaders were slaughtered by the muslim Turks in the outlying villages of Istanbul? History tells us that most of the genocide occurred in the outlying regions but excluded Constantinople where there was a huge foreign presence.  Was this Gies' way of commemorating the genocide of 1915 and he honoured the sacrifice/murders by showing a defence/assault on the most recognizable Turkish Symbol - Constantinople?

This could be the scene except for some interesting facts. The walls of Constantinople would have been dilapidated and in ruin long before 1915. The circumference and architectural design of the top dome of St. Sophia is not shown in the medal as it was in 1915. The residential houses depicted between the walls would not have been there in 1915 and the soldiers do not appear to be in the same type of uniforms or garb as 1915 Armenian, Turks or Kurds. The weapons used in 1915 were howitzers (long thin barrelled cannons -with spoked and not solid wheel carriages) and in addition to 1915 machine guns, and not 1453 lances. The pillars in 1915 had the pointed (Muslim) pointed minarets that were altered immediately after the 1453 seige of Constantinople - unlike the 'flat topped' pillars shown on the medal that were a depiction of Christian pillars prior to 1453.

The three unblemished fortress walls, the more primitive dome, the houses, the soliders, the cannon, the long lances and the flat pillars on the medal are all synonymous with 1453 Constantinople and not 1915. 

Perahps Gies was echoing the seige of 1453? But why would he characterize everything differently from 1915 in favour of a century four hundred years prior; and unlike any of his other work which was current, competitive, and made statements of the day rather than the 'telling of a four-hundred year old story'.

If this is fact Gies' work, why, like his others works, would he fail to include words, or dates on this piece? His other medals show him being a very competetive artist demonstrating allegiance to Germany and mocking the U.S. and one who seems so bold and vocal about the stuggles of men and war.  For someone so outspoken, why would he excluded advertising any recognition of any time, event or place with just this one piece. Why would he do this?

The Fort medal may well have been copied by Gies' German foundry; but perhaps prior to the foundry, the original medal originated else where, by someone else, in another time?

Professor Bernd Ernsting Ludwig Gies (Sept 3 1987 Munich - Jan 27 1966 Cologne), was a German painter, sculptor and medailleur.

Gies was a pupil of Heinrich Wadere and F. Miller. Starting from 1912 he worked freelance in Munich and in 1918 received an appointment to Berlin as a teacher at the Museum of Arts and Crafts. After the seizure of power of the national socialists he was excluded in 1937 from the teaching profession and dismissed from the Berlin Academy of the Arts.

After the end of the second world war he freelanced. In 1950 he worked on the Cologne Werkschulen and in 1953 became an honourary member of the Munich Acadamy of the Arts. In 1962 he terminated his training activity.

Between 1959 and 1962 Gies sketched the windows of the choir of the Essener Munster and in 1953 he created the new German Eagle. (It was dubbed the 'fat hen' as it was unlike the former thinner version.) In 1957 he received the distinguished Service Cross of the Federal Republic of Germany by the Federal President Theodor Heuss.

Ludwig Gies' works included medals, coins, and watercolours. 'The Dance of Death' Medallic Art of the First World War' by Mark Jones depicts many of Gies' medals and his outlook of war, reflecting his expressionist, abstract, surreal caricature style. His few pieces showing a background are quite linear and filled with angles, exaggerated curves, and his figures animated. He often advertised words, slogans and dates on the face of his pieces. Like many other German medallists Gies utilizes sensationalism to make his statements.

Prior to becoming a teacher in 1918 he was a student. Whose work had he studied?

Gies' 'America in the World War' 1917

Gies' 'The German Auxiliary Service' 1917

Gies, unlike Ghiberti, appears to focus on only full and half relief, whereas Ghiberti used full, half and bas-relief to show height, width and depth (dimensions) and succeeded at mastering distance. Examples of Ghiberti's technique draw the eye into the piece such as the Fort medal with the soldiers in the foreground, the walls, and far in the distance St. Sophia. When confronted with backgrounds Gies, uses repetitive straight lines for structures in the background to show his interpretation of distance by height rather than staging with different reliefs to show distance. Gies' works lack the depth perception reflecting distance that is synonomous with Ghiberti works; and shown in 'The Fort' medal. How is this explained?

Some of Gies' medals:

'Dance of Death' 1917 (iron)  'Refugees' 1915 (iron) 'Casualty Station' (iron) 

'To Arms' 1914 (bronze) 

                                        'The Russian Bear' (iron) 

                                                                           'Reminder of the World War' (iron)

I am sure there are many students who have studied Ghiberti's style over the centuries endeavoring to emulate him, but Masters portray their own signature, (like a fingerprint) in their works. With each of Gies' renditions of his 1914-1917 medals his work is unlike Ghiberti's. However, the Fort medallion is not an embellishment as the rest of Gies' medals but rather realism, crafting of a story of an event through soft arches, curves, accuracy, symmetry and the use of a unique style showing distance.  

In April 2004 a U.S.A. coin dealer advertised a Fort medal, like mine, and described it as 'depicting a mosque-like citadel with pike men combined with 20th century cannon'. I concluded the seller/buyer had a replica as it was confirmed this was a cast copy and there were no edge inscriptions on this piece.

This is the 2004 Internet picture of the coin dealer's cast copy of The Fort.

The dealer's belief this copy was done by Ludwig Gies is merely an example substantiating that others recognize Gies' was a medalist and known by his 'L.G.' Therefore the mixing of time periods of a mosque-like citadel and pikemen combined with a 20th century cannon might be Gies' style. However, all the attributes of the Fort medal correlate by not only one time period, but also the year, and the day.  Are these Italian (perhaps Giovanni Giustiniani's Genoese and Venetian military) soldiers, standing with a trunnion cannon (small solid wheels), in defence of the triple walled Byzantium city of Constantinople May 29th 1453?

2005 medal on left compared to  2004 coin dealer copy on the right.

Both are 6.9 cm. The copy on the right seems to lack the patina of my medal to the left; and theas such the soldiers, cannon, and pillars appear thinner than those on the left.

Studying a piece such as the Fort makes one realize that we see more than just a bronze picture, as we are first drawn and then absorbed by this scene. The more we gaze the more we can experience the flavour of the past and come to appreciate the way life was hundreds of years ago.

In 1453 Constantinople was the Eastern Roman Empire. The population was 100,000. If one were to ascend the staircases of the sets of walls you may have seen some of the wealthier, scholars, artisans and thousands of common folk. Glancing around you would stand the many churches dotted between the houses, and grand palaces. As you climbed the stairs further you may have noticed the scent of spices in the breeze as your eyes catch the rainbow of silks being bartered in the markets below, near peasants tending to their caged geese. And upon reaching the pinnacle of the highest point of the city, there before you would stand the majestic church of St. Sophia, the sparkling jewel of Constantinople. And glimpsing around at the fourteen miles of perimeter wall, you would see far beneath you, the shepherds tending their cattle and sheep on the mint green pastures, and beyond the walls, the white caps of the Golden Horn and blue Sea of Marmara.

This Christian city was alive with multi-culturalism, commerce, the humanities and prosperity. This was how it had been for eleven and a half centuries, until the sky lit up in April and May of 1453 and the sounds of cannon shattered the harmony, bringing to it the end of an era.  

The Hagia Sophia (St. Sophia) as it looks today.

St. Romanus Gate circled on the long land wall. St. Sophia is located behind the innermost wall, in the center of the end of the landmass (beside the rectangular building). 

The Fort medal appears to show the St. Romanus Gate on the land wall where the Ottoman Sultan, Mehmet II breached the first set of walls and Constantine XI Paleologus lost his life (the defenders were made up of 5,000 Greek soldiers/volunteers along with 2,000 foreigners against about 200,000 Ottoman Turks).

I have studied the Fort medal's characteristics; the patina, soldiers, cannon, the tools required to create a miniature relief edge inscription, the architecture of the pillars, the three sets of walls set apart by three staircases, the Muslim crescent moon, the chiseled L.G. on the face, and the story behind the weathered Italian edge inscription.

The 'patina' of a copper penny turns it brown. Some bronzes are lacquered in a gold coloured gilt that in time becomes buried beneath the patina. The raised (full relief) parts of the medal such as the soldiers, cannon, corner of the walls, and pillars still show the glimpses of gilt today, opposed to the recessed lines that have been filled by patina, except for the chiseled L.G. In the 1959 photo, the L.G. has gilt shining though the patina unlike all the rest of the recessed lines of the piece. When magnified, the G. initial has one trailing scratch mark beneath it, and another trailing scratch mark under the period behind the G, where an engraving tool may have unfortunately slipped; twice. Any artist defacing a finished piece twice would be rare unless a novice etched it in haste.Was a different tool used to sculpt the L.G. than the rest of the medal? By 2005 the brown patina has now turned the recessed L.G. brown and concealed the scratch marks.

It would be logical that the L.G. would be chiseled the same time the piece was created which we are told was 1915. How then, does the brown patina grow to cover the medal by 1959 but  patina does not grow at the same rate to include the L.G. and the trailing scratch marks in? Perhaps the piece was sculpted earlier and the L.G. etched into it later?

1959 photo of  'The Fort' showing the gilt and scratch marks and the 'L.G.' magnified.

2005 photo of  'The Fort'  (gray scale) showing further aging and the 'L.G.' concealed by the advancement of patina.

2005 photo (colour).

2004 Internet picture of the dealer's copy of The Fort medal.

The trailing scratch mark below the 'G' on the 1959 photo is not visible at all on the dealer's copy of the medal where it appears the patina has been cleaned. However, before casting numerous copies, the artist would have undoubtedly masked any flaws on the face, edge or back of the original so these would not be transferred and visible on any of the copies.  

Let us now focus in on the anatomy of Gies' soldiers. When compared to the soldiers in The Fort medallion we see some similarities along with differences.   

Gies' medallion (iron) 1914 'Bayonet Charge'

Gies' medallion (bronze) 1915 'Prisoners of War'

Gies' medallion (bronze) 1915 'Theater of War'

When the limbs of the soldiers in these three pieces are compared to each other an interesting aspect is revealed; they are all very similar; thin, fluid and rubbery. However, the physical characteristics of the soldiers in The Fort medal exhibit realistic body features such as muscle action compared to the Gies works. Gies' medals fail to portray real people in proper proportion. Was it Ghiberti who studied Gies in the 1400's or did Gies Study Ghiberti in the 1900's? Ghiberti was a Master of small and large bronze reliefs. From what Master did Gies study?

The solid wheeled trunnion cannon was invented in the 14th century. Cannons played a huge part in the assault and defence of Constantinople. The Ottoman cannons were far more numerous and efficient as they included 50 cannons firing 200 lb balls, 70 great cannons, a matched set of 11 cannon firing 500 lb balls, and the largest of cannon of all the 'Basilica' weighing in excess of 19 tons and firing 800 lb balls firing 3 times a day.

The pillars had flat tops for eleven and a half centuries, as these were Christian. The Muslim pointed minarets were not added until the year following the siege of May 29th 1453.

The Fort shows three brick walls set apart by staircases: The three main walls of Constantinople were actually made up of three 'sets' of walls of different heights and thickness. A 60-foot terrace, ending in a 6-foot high parapet extended from the outer wall. Both the public and the military gates (like St. Romanus) shared a common overall design. These had arches and were doubled gateways. The walls' principal composition was mortared rubble, faced with blocks of fitted limestone and reinforced by courses of layered red brick.

Ghiberti's large 61 X 61 cm (2' X 2') Queen of Sheba panel from the lower right Baptistery door in Florence - an example of Ghiberti's symmetry, distance and dimensions. (The surface shines of gilt where the patina has been removed.)

The clothing is dated in the 61 x 61 cm (2 x 2 foot) Queen of Sheba scene which is a very large in comparison to the miniature 6.9 cm ( 2.716 inch) Fort medal, however, notice the similarity of the legs, feet and lifelike action of the figures in the larger piece (reduced) and compare them to the legs, feet and lifelike action of the soldiers in the tiny Fort medal.

Magnification was used centuries prior to the 1400's. Bifocals for example, were invented in Florence Italy and used by the affluent a hundred years before the birth of Ghiberti.

Ghiberti was fascinated by his theories on art and wrote about this in his 'Commentari'. Not only was he interested in creating 3-dimensions to his work but challenged himself by crafting three, 1.5 times larger than life-size statues of Saints, in addition to his smaller and 2' X 2' panels. His passion extended from large to small and within those, distance. The Fort medal is small and shows distance and depth, however the challenge of applying his skills in creating the miniature relief lettering on the edge, must have been just as gratifying by the use of tiny tools beneath magnification.  

2005 magnification of the relief edge inscription

It would appear there may have been more than two inscriptions on the edge of this medal. There is a vertical cut mark immediately following the black letters showing something has been scratched off... What were all these hidden letters and why were they scratched out?

Using 'solarized' (PSP) shows a letter, following the vertical cut...

           (Crown)DELLAIX   JGHRObb  ANd 

or......... PP DELLAIX  JGHRObb ANd

(What may be a weathered crown could also be the letters PP  in which case could be the letters for the  'Prince of Piedmont' and either would be connected  to Amadeus IX during this time.)

(Some examples of crowns...) 

(The 'Crown' (or PP) symbol has an apparent underscore showing it to be one unit. The extent of the deterioration of the lettering is too eroded for being 90 years old, but it would be consistent with a piece 552 years old.)

DELLA in Italian means 'of the', IX is Roman numeral for 9

('crown' or PP)DELLAIX could be a marking identifying the medal was sculpted for the Sovereign, Amadeus IX whilst he was still the Prince (Piedmont - Royalty of the 9th). Later he became the Duke of Savoy. He was known as the happy duke, a humanist, giving to the poor and supporting literature and the arts. He erected a site that housed the Shroud of Turin, which had been given to his father.

Amadeus the IX became the Duke of Savoy but died in 1472 at the age of 37. He was declared a Saint in 1677.

The J is leaning a few degrees slightly to the left and could be a Guild or Master mark. The letter 'J' came about in Rome in the fourteen hundreds and evolved into the last letter to be added to the English 26 letter alphabet. Before the letter J, the letter ' I ' was used and sometimes pronounced 'Y'. For a period, the J and I were interchangeable.

GH = Ghiberti    RObb = Robbia    ANd = Andrea    

 (The first two letters of each name was capitalized, followed by smaller, lower case letters, which could be a trademark of Ghiberti or his workshop.)

RObb ANd In 1448 Marco, Andrea della Robbia's father died and he was adopted by his famous Uncle Luca della Robbia. (Luca had studied the bronze relief of Ghiberti.) Two years later, Andrea was Lorenzo Ghiberti's student from 1450 to 1455. Luca did not do as well with bronze relief as his nephew, butt did excel in terra-cottas.

Andrea would have been 15 years old when he entered Ghiberti's workshop as his apprentice; quite a prestigious position with one of the great Masters. Young della Robbia would have worked alongside his mentor, teaching the boy all his techniques and skills over the ensuing five years, until his death on December 1st 1455. Andrea demonstrated many talents and not only out shone his Uncle as successful sculptor of bronze, but became well known in his own rite, for numerous works including his blue and white terra-cotta medallions.

Amadeus IX and Andrea della Robbia were both born in 1435 and since the artisans, politicians and religious leaders would have associated with each other in the upper class, it is logical the two boys knew each other and were quite possibly very well acquainted.

Lorenzo Ghibert b1378........................................................dDec 1st 1455

Luca della Robbia   b1400..........................................................................................d1478

Andrea della Robbia    b1435.........................................................................................................d1525

Amadeus IX               b1435......................................................................d1472

Siege of Constantinople......................................May 29th 1453  

Ghiberti quote: "I tried as far as possible to imitate nature with all her varied qualities and to enrich my compositions with many figures. In some of the reliefs I have put as many as a hundred figures, in some more, in others less. I executed the work with diligence and enthusiasm. In the ten subject treated, I have represented the buildings in such proportions as they appear to the eye, and in such a manner that from a distance they seem to be detached from the background. They have little relief and, as in nature, the nearer figures are larger and the remoter smaller. With similar sense of proportion have I carried out the entire work."

Ghiberti was a humanist, and writer, finished his Commentari in 1447-1448. He was an accomplished goldsmith and sculptor and aside from producing the panels on the two sets of Baptistery doors (three dimensional masterpieces) he also produced statues, smaller bronzes, figurines and medallions. It has been said however, that none of his smaller pieces have ever been found, but perhaps there is one that was never lost.

Was 'The Fort' medallion an abstract statement created by a German medallist named Ludwig Gies in 1915? Or was this the story of Constantinople narrated through a bronze medallion by the Florentine sculptor Lorenzo Ghiberti? Was it he who used a small bronze circle to teach Andrea della Robbia, how to transform history into art and tiny letters that would speak to us across the centuries? Unbeknownst to these two artisans at the time; this medal would ultimately be created by two Masters, who years earlier had sat as teacher and pupil at Ghiberti's bench in his dusty workshop sculpting by clerestory light?

Gies' medals may have made statements, but the evidence leads one to believe it may have been the aged Ghiberti and young della Robbia who created 'Constantinople' into a bronze medallion between May 29th 1453 and December 1st 1455. And in doing so created a legacy of a time, a people, a significant military and religious event, and through the art of bronze relief, crafted history.

UPDATES...

           ghibertivsgies@lycos.com