I was able to pick this piece up again recently and I was quite surprised to find an example that was upgrade material to my current piece (which was fantastic until I saw this one.) I am fully documenting comparisons of the two pieces in order to try and track different moulds made by Goetz for certain pieces that are known to be personally cast by him. It isn't often anyone gets the chance to do comparative analysis on these rare ones. I just looked back in my database and see that these particular pieces in Europe are going for six times what I paid three years ago...and three times what I paid for this one in the US.... Anyway, this is the keeper and I already have a bidding war going for other...I may just hang onto it for a while

K-510 KARL GOETZ SELF PORTRAIT, at the age of 60, 1935 Cast Bronze, 115.5mm, 497.7g. Edge-punched “KGoeTz”, Gussfrisch (as cast), RRR

Obverse: Bust left wearing collared artists smock.

Reverse: Depicts Goetz’ stations and study areas in life. Nude holds the symbol for the city of Augsburg, Goetz’ birthplace, the pine cone (Zirbelnuss) on his shoulder. Inscription reads, "To my esteemed friends and patrons."

Very nice.

I can understand why you would be pleased. Is that an artifact of the casting at 1 o'clock on the obverse? On the reverse, are same lines design elements (mountain or cloud textures) or costing artifacts? I've not noticed those on other Goetz cast pieces you've shared.

It is an 'artifact' or flaw if you wish and not part of the design. Bill, I have gone through all three of my metal casting reference books and cannot find a reference to the term "costing". Could you tell me more about this term? Would it be along the same lines as the 'cope' and 'drag' terms?

Uh, no. My apologies. It is a typo. I was just repeating casting artifacts! I would feel worse if I didn't enjoy an excuse to go back to the books. That said, I can't remember ever seeing a Goetz piece with such obvious casting flaws. You've probably seen more than maybe a handful of other advanced collectors. Do you encounter it often?

Well that would explain why I wouldn't find the term....

I had someone in Germany saying they thought this was a guido recast and I can assure you that it is not. These 'flaws' are barely noticable when looking at the piece in hand. Macrophotography can be a two-edged sword sometimes.

Here is a Guido recast that was in the Moeller 44 auction...it didn't sell either, for obvious reasons. Guido's 'work' could never hold a candle to his fathers even when Guido was using original models. The softness and particularly the patina, or lack of patina, are usually the sig marks of a Guido piece.

Two comments:

First: The photography and lighting can make a big difference in how one would evaluate the two medals.

Second: Given the limitations of the first, it seems that one could tell the difference between the two if they were in hand. Look and feel is difficult to define, but in hand..... That amkes the casting flaws in the first all th emore interesting. Why did the piece survive? Goetz could just as easily recast the piece if he didn't like the outcome. Time and energy costs may be siginificant, but I would not think as significant as his eye for quality given the quality of his work.

Interesting to speculate about.

I see "1899 Le Locle" there. Goetz was in his youth employee at Huguenin Freres Mint in Le Locle, Switzerland?
Superb medal...

Yes, he worked there as an apprentice for approximately 9 months before leaving for Paris in the Autumn of 1899.