EK2 Help - Juncker?

[MH184]

Ak,



I'm not sure if Juncker got the molds from W&L (If any as this is theory I take it), the Juncker frame flange width on an L/12 is much wider, and the core bares no relation at all.

The strange thing is, George has an L/12 marked one like me, both are original but both differ and they differ from the example of Robs. Neither, Georges or mine resemble a 100 in my opinion ? But why would someone like Juncker want to purchase molds ?

However, I have seen fakes in so much as to say they are '100' crosses with L/12 maker marks which do not resemble the genuine maker marks on all three of my L/12 examples and others on this forum ?

So who knows ?


Kr

Marcus

[meriksson]

It´s very tempting for a seller to make a Junker off a 100, and it´s very easy.
To me i have not seen that rim before, it can well be a Junker but im not shure.
Wy is there so much die flaws on it? To me that say hevy use on that tool that made the frames, so if that is a real Junker wy are they so rare and hard to find?
The tooling tells me very many was made, well this one is a hard nut to crack.
I know about 5-10 maker 100 W&L for sale most in mint cond, but not a Junker.
I have some pic´s off a L/12 EK1 that was offerd to me but the rim dont match this EK2.
Mikael

[MH184]

I'll have to take some pic's of mine for you Mikael and you guys that know about these things, can compare and see whats what. The EK, and EK's I have all look similar but different........if that makes any sense

Kr

Marcus

[meriksson]

Here is the Junker 1 i did talk about.

[rhudspith]

Thanks for the input guys, I admit it seems an odd one and that the die flaws made me think also. It is definately not a modified 100 EK2, attached a photo of one I have.

Any concensus then?

[George Stimson]

I have a couple of unmarked EK 2s with similar characteristics (hump on top, inner corner cross-hatching) that I have not been able to match to a maker (not even my Juncker). When I get home later today, I'll compare them to the EK that is the subject of this thread.

[rhudspith]

Thought I would resurect this old thread to see what current thinking is as research seems to have moved on quite a bit for this manufacturer

[Robert P.]

Rob,

I thought for a moment that your core was that of a Juncker/AWS wide-flange schinkel, but there are too many differences in the numbers. The top section of the '3' in 1939 resembles that of the schinkel core.

There is an old thread entitled 'crosshatching' where you might find a match to your cross. It resembles that of a 3-flaw Juncker, except for the absence of the flaws and the 'crunch-bead' at 2:00 adjacent the swasi. I don't know what to think of it.

Here is your date to the left, and the Juncker/AWS schinkel to the right. Not a perfect match, IMO...The date sits much lower in the schinkel.

The thread on crosshatching:

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...=crosshatching

Robert

[streptile]

I believe that's the "long flaw" Juncker frame -- with that core, it's pretty interesting. Can we see the 1813 please?

[rhudspith]

Robert, thanks for the link, will check it out

Trevor, best I can do at the moment

[streptile]

Hi Rob,

I find your cross to be very interesting. I've always considered this a Juncker frame (and not just me), and I call it the "long flaw" frame because of the flaw on the 7 o'clock beading strand which you pointed out. However, I had for some time lacked any real proof of a connection between this frame and Juncker. The attribution (for me) was based on the fact that the frame had the three characteristics I look for in a Juncker frame: cross-hatched corners, jumpring lug, and the distinctive Juncker shape. Then, a few months ago, I saw one of these with what I consider to be a Juncker core, and I believe it is the same core as yours. So, in my opinion, your cross is a Juncker.

Here is my Juncker long-flaw, with the "small RK" core, the core most typically found in this frame:



I know a few other members who have one, including Greg (aff96) and Robert P. Both of theirs have this same core, and every other one I have seen does, too... except Bob Hritz's, which has this core:



And here is a thread in which (if you look at the last few posts) you can see a cross that I think matches yours, including the mark (which is controversial):

Juncker

[rhudspith]

Hi Trevor,

Thanks for the link, interesting to see that this cross has the same exact mark and oddly enough marked exactly in the same location on the ring.

Looking closely at the mark it does more resemble a Z rather than a 2 but i do think the mark is period. I think a faker would do a better job than this if he wanted to put a 2 on it. Also if we are in agreement that the cross is OK and not a fantasy fake then it is unlikely that anyone would have found at least two of the same crosses to put this mark on unless they came from some hoard.