"Light Juncker" Deutsches Kreuz

[Dietrich Maerz]

I got this cross from a collector with the request to from an opinion. I compared it to my Juncker and there are considerable differences.

The collector also conducted a test into the composition of the emaille and the test did show consideralbe deviations form the accepted heavy pieces. The wreath is also different in several spots. The weight is 44.9 grr compared to the 51.9 gr of the early pieces.

[Dietrich Maerz]

The reverse shows a different catch setup but shows the typical 5 rivet arrangement.

[Dietrich Maerz]

The reverse again with pin closed showing the '2'. This "2" also differs from the 'typical 2' as we know it.

[Dietrich Maerz]

At the SOS I did show the cross to several people which can be described as experts in the hobby. The judgement was fast and swift: fake!

This is what I think also!

Unfortunately there a quite a few out there, described as 'late light Juncker' whereas I think the description "late" (as in too late) and light is correct - but not Juncker!

What do you think?

[Larry Lipps]

I agree, it would not be one I'd want in my collection. The color and overall crispness appear below standard.

[Cook]

Hello Dietrich.
I do not like attributes which you have listed. But a wreath I think the original, a wreath of mine Juncker it is possible to see here http://sammler.ru/index.php?showtopic=8858

[heinrich66]

Hi Dietrich,

do you doubt this pin/hook configuration in general or only on this piece.....?

I wouldn't label it to fast as fake yet....

regards

Heinrich

[StefanK.]

Reading your comments really confuses me. What is it what makes this cross a fake???

Stefan

[DavidM]

Hello

I have seen these DKs discussed elsewhere, and the conclusion was that they are fakes - very good fakes, but none the less fakes. Apparently two of the immediate pointers are the groove on the wreath at the twelve o'clock position and the flaw on the leaf at the nine o'clock position. Beyond that there are other pointers, such as those that Dietrich has mentioned.

I have also seen the enamel test results for these DKs and the comparitive results from known originals, (which covered light and heavy versions from different manufacturers), and there are some quite marked differences in compostion, pointing to this style of 'Juncker' not being period pieces.

So yes, I think what Dietrich is saying, which is backed up by hard fact, is that these DKs are fake.

Regards
David

[DavidM]

Hello

Continuing this discussion, the author of the SEM data on these 'Junckers' DKs has given me permission to post his findings here. The initial outcome is as listed below:

For the above piece tested under SEM, there were differences compared to other wartime piece, including juncker.......

For the black enamel

juncker in question- 58 % lead, 5.44% Ba, 5.4% K, 17%Si, 3.4% Na

juncker wartime- 44% lead,1% Ba, 8% K, 30% Si, 6.7 %Na

deschler- 45% lead, 1% Ba, 10.3% K, 28% Si, 4.6%Na

Godet- 46% lead, 1 % Ba, 10%K, 36% Si. 5% Na

zimmerman 41% lead, `1% Ba, 11% K, 31% Si, 6% Na


The red paint on this piece was identical to wartime pieces, however, the gold content was only 20%. On a very worn zimmerman, the weight % was 74%.


So the use of SEM data CAN be used to show differences among pieces. This, coupled with differences in physical characteristics, can help identify fakes. The juncker in question had a higher lead content than any other wartime piece, as well as a higher Ba content and lower Si. Lastly, the gold content on the wreath was very low relative to wartime pieces. As we note with the rounder RK, when the elemental data shows a deviation from wartime piece, it is usually not a good thing, Note that the fake above has a "blob" on outside of one of the leaves at 8 oclock, and a vertical strike line on most examples at 12 oclock. Also note the font of the "2", which differs from other juncker pieces. This piece is a great fake, which fooled Gordon Williamson. I had one of these pieces in my collection and was waiting for SEM data, which I think does not bode well for this piece!

The author added the following to clarify the basis on which the SEM results rest:

Today I analyzed several DKiGs at the SEM lab at ISU. The results are interesting as far as chemical composition, but quite consistent among pieces analyzed. Findings-

1. The red paint on the disc adjacent to the wreath is painted with cadmium red pigment. This was consistent among all makers tested- zimmerman, klein, godet, juncker, and deschler. Pieces tested were light and heavy zimmerman, early and late juncker, godet 21, two 6 rivet deschlers and one four rivet deschler.

The second issue was the gold wreaths. As presumed, these are actually gold plated over brass. Different levels of gold are seen on the wreaths depending on wear. Very worn pieces have much of the gold worn off revealing the brass base metal below.

The third finding was the composition of the black enamel. Unlike the paint (not enamel) on period RKs, the black enamel was high in lead content, which is consistent with period enameling. Below is a spectra of the enamel, showing the high lead content. Again, among all makers, the chemical composition of the enamel was very consistent.

The above graphs are from five samples that are examples of what each showed. I could post the raw quanitative data, but it is over a hundred measurements. Again, the above spectra are examples from five samples that show what all the rest did. There was little, if any variation. A summary of the quant data is above as well. The salient features are-

1. The red paint is Cadmium red
2. All the samples had cadmium red and none had napthol red
3. The wreath is gold plated.
4. The wreath is brass base metal, over which there is gold plate
5. The swaz is leaded enamel with about 45% elemental weight in lead
6. All the samples showed the same enamel on the swaz


A further detailed post was made with the SEM data graphically charted, (hence the reference to graphs in some parts of the text above). If I get time I'll post these later.

What the SEM data does show is that there is a marked deviation in composition between the DK which started this thread and the known wartime orignals. Given some of the other pointers in the manufacture of this type of DK and this data I personally feel there is sufficent to regard them a fakes - very, very good fakes, but fakes all the same.

Regards
David

[Darrell]

.

[DavidM]

Let's look at the data as presented, (I'll post the graphical versions later). The author of the exerts that I've reproduced here are taken from SEM testing quite a few original pieces, and testing of one of the suspect Juncker DKs. Given that the author has in his collection one of these suspect DKs it wouldn't be in his best interests to reveal it to all as a fake - yet that is what he has done, devaluing his collection in the process.

So we have here data that shows an item, and what is to many collectors an expensive item, to be fake. The results show consistency across the wartime originals but with a marked deviation for the suspect DK.

Now you may feel that I am being either to trusting here or that I am being naive. My personal opinion is that this is well presented, empirical evidence and which has been presented with a view to stimulating constructive debate about these DKs, and furthering knowledge within the collecting community. Again only my personal opinion, but I would suggest that the SEM data, combined with the physical observations strongly indicates that the DK shown here, and the others like it, are not wartime original pieces - hence fakes.

My sincere hope and wish here is that we can examine the data presented and scrutinise it without involving 'personalities' or 'past historys', for lack of a better expression.

Kind regards
David

[Dietrich Maerz]

I have looked at the cross in question and - no matter what happened - agree with 'the author' here. A possible fake needs to be exposed, not matter what.

I wish we could start a more detailled discussion. Unfortunately I don't have the time (and 'drive') right now to dive into it with full force.

But there is clearly something 'fishy' going on.

David, it would be good to have the comparison pictures. The SEM graph is not that interesting - nobody doubts the data he collected anyway.

Dietrich

[DavidM]

Hello

As requested, instead of posting the SEM data graphs, here are the comparison photos.

First up are the maker markings. The top picture is from one of the fake DKs, the bottom from an original.

Regards
David

[DavidM]

Next follows a series of comparisions of different sections of the wreath - fake v original. The original is the one that appears to be much more golden in colour in the photos, (hopefully I have got this the right way round).

This is the wreath at the 1 o'clock position.