The Surprising "Wideframe" EK Family

[Robert P.]

a reverse view for the purpose of seeing the date detail...

[Robert P.]

and a close-up of the inner beading to confirm that it has the same frame as the '39 EKII you posted in the previous page...

[streptile]

Fine work indeed Trevor... I couldn't resist posting my '39 EKII which has the same frame as the many crosses you've posted here for the research/study after seeing this thread... Once again, a very fine presentation.

Thank you Robert, your comments mean a lot to me. And, as you know, I am terribly envious of your beautiful cross -- the finest Juncker Wideframe Schinkel () I've ever seen.

In response to a PM request, I am posting large photos of the Wideframes I used for the thread:

[Mike Kenny]

...Yes, I jumped the gun a bit by implying that the unmarked EK1 was an AWS. Thanks for the correction; I don't know too much about core identification when it comes to the Imperial crosses, and I believe I typed it as an AWS based on the reverse, which I thought I had seen on AWS EK1s before (which might also be an error).....

....Could you venture to guess a maker for this cross?.....

No worries. Other screwback crosses use similar hardware. The only way to be sure is to either find one with the screwnut actually stamped AWS or to know your cores. Unfortunately the core on the example you showed can be found with many maker marks, many of them by well known manufacturers (including Godet, Meybauer, WS, etc).

About your 1870 EK2: I'd say it looks like the frames have been filed down.....

....Could you please show a photo of the reverse of both crosses?

Re the 1870EK2, like almost all EK2s, it shows file marks on the edges. Given that the outer flange is even on all sides, and the upper flange is "constrained" by the lug, I believe this example was produced this way - ie with smaller frames.

A pic of the reverse is attached as requested. Not possible to make out, but it is marked with the textbook RAISED AWS marking. Combined with the less common 2nd core type, this is a very uncommon combination.

Regards
Mike

PS: PM me if you want bigger scans of the 1870EK2.

[Roglebk]

Fine work indeed Trevor,

New to the Imperial forum, I couldn't resist posting my '39 EKII

Welcome to the best subforum in the world Robert! Well, maybe only 2nd best

Sometimes i wish we had a separate Iron Cross subforum for all the periods. There is so much to learn and many makers made crosses under a long time. Especially Imperial crosses never seem to stop surprising me. Sometimes find the Tr-era ones a bit boring actually, they were so standardized.

[Roglebk]

Re the 1870EK2, like almost all EK2s, it shows file marks on the edges. Given that the outer flange is even on all sides, and the upper flange is "constrained" by the lug, I believe this example was produced this way - ie with smaller frames.

Regards
Mike

Hi Mike

Looks like your 1870, seen in post 12 & 19, has the same frame as the wideframe ones. Maybe they had a 2nd tool for cutting out the frames after they stamped them, to better fit the "standard 1870"? Look at the 1939 EK flow chart borrowed from a forum member. The "ausschneiden" part is what i'm talking about.

[streptile]

Looks like your 1870, seen in post 12 & 19, has the same frame as the wideframe ones. Maybe they had a 2nd tool for cutting out the frames after they stamped them, to better fit the "standard 1870"?

Yes, Carl's idea seems the most likely to me, too. I do like the look of that "narrow-frame wideframe" you've got, Mike.

[Roglebk]

Yes, Carl's idea seems the most likely to me, too. I do like the look of that "narrow-frame wideframe" you've got, Mike.

Me too Mike, it looks very esthetic. Never been a big fan of wideframe crosses, shame on me Wouldn't mind any of the 1870 seen here though...

[streptile]

Outstanding research and presentation, Trevor!!
Imagine, down the road, when the collectors will be scrambling for the "Juncker Schinkel". This hobby keeps evolving with great work like yours.

Thanks, Brian. Glad you read it . With unmarked Juncker EK2s selling for €200+, and Schinkels for €250+, who knows what a Juncker Schinkel might bring? If, that is, people accept them for what they are... a big if. One of these sold two weeks ago for €220 just as a plain ol' Juncker:

[Montgomery Burns]

here some thoughts and questions

wy ,wood Juncker use AWS and other frames from 1939 to 1944.?

if they had they're own tools and frames until they're bomb out in 1944 ?

was the schinkel form allowed fore 1914 ek's by the LDO regulations ?
(maybe ?)



Juncker knight crosses had right from the beginning also already the LDO form ,,if aim not mistaken. so every ek2 and ek1 from juncker
or did they just produced them after 1942


so can it be after the bombing that they used the AWS like wide frames ?
and also made other factury connections with other firms fore spare parts

but then again ,,, LDO norm was effective ,,,so it was ,,,,,emergency measures ?

I did read somewhere that juncker was active on making rewards long after ww2 .
with tools bought from other factory's

aim no expert on juncker or aws ,,,but these questions came up ..

maybe I make mistakes in thinking or reading about this thread ..
forgive me if I did .

regards kay

[streptile]

here some thoughts and questions

Hi Kay.

wy ,wood Juncker use AWS and other frames from 1939 to 1944.?

I've not suggested that Juncker used AWS frames. It's a possibility, of course, but I suspect rather that AWS used Juncker frames before 1918.

However, even were the reverse true, I don't see a conflict. A possible scenario is as follows (NB: this is pure speculation): Juncker sources frames from AWS for their 1870s and 1914 Wideframes. When it becomes clear that AWS will not be awarded a contract for 1939 crosses (maybe they went out of business, I don't know), Juncker uses up their remaining stocks of AWS frames early in the war. As AWS is no longer making frames, Juncker then makes their own set of dies and adopts their well-known "3-flaw/crunch bead" frame.

Alternatively, Juncker could have bought the dies from AWS before World War II to make these Wideframe Schinkels, but abandoned the frame in favor of a new one when the flaws grew too large.

These two scenarios, as well as others I've probably not thought of, are possible given what we now as of this moment. But I think it more likely that AWS bought their frames from Juncker during World War I.

was the schinkel form allowed fore 1914 ek's by the LDO regulations ?

I think you mean: Were 1914-series crosses made after the institution of the LDO allowed to be made in "Imperial" size and shape? The answer is "yes." C.F. Zimmermann made such crosses after the institution of the LDO, evidenced by the L/52 mark on the back of this cross (and others like it):


© WAF member franki

can it be after the bombing that [Juncker] used the AWS like wide frames ?

I doubt this, as 1914-series EK2s made by Juncker later in the war (marked with 'L/12') use the typical Juncker "3-flaw/crunch bead" EK2 frame. Since the institution of the 'L/12' mark predates the bombing of the factory, I highly doubt that Juncker used the Wideframes after the bombing.

But again, I don't think the Wideframe dies were property of AWS. I think this is an incorrect assumption on your part that may be causing some confusion. I don't know, of course, but it makes more sense that the Wideframe dies were owned (and abandoned early in World War II) by Juncker.

Hope this clarifies a bit. Thanks for the questions .

[Montgomery Burns]

hi Streptile

thank you fore you're answer .

my questions are not meant because aim doubting you're findings .
I just want to get to the bottom off things.

I love you're way off opening this thread .

its the only way off finding more info from history lost

[streptile]

my questions are not meant because aim doubting you're findings .
I just want to get to the bottom off things.

I love you're way off opening this thread .

Oh, I didn't think that, Kay. Thank you for the nice words

[Robert P.]

Trevor,

I have read this thread over and over again, and I feel compelled (through your evidence) to also believe that the remaining stock of 1914 wide-frames were used up during the early months of WWII by Juncker. It makes perfect sense that Juncker could no longer continue using these dies due to increased die flaws (as seen in the '39 wide-frame crosses), thus the origin of the 3-flaw/crunched bead Juncker frame. I keep using the name 'Juncker', primarily because I see (as I have said previously) the same core used in both the '39 wide-frame and the Juncker 3-flaw crosses. Here is a montage to illustrate (the wide-frame on top, and the 3-flaw Juncker on the bottom)...

Circled in red is (1) of (3) flaws found in the 3-flaw '39 Juncker frame.

[Steve P]

Fantastic thread...Excellent Research Trevor!