L/12 Frank and Reif

[Sammler]

Before I say such a sach religious thing here that has been discussed before on many long threads I was hoping someone may care to explain to me how just 12 years ago it was believed that L/12 marked crosses were post war copies made by Kleitman to replace those lost/stolen or missing to the veterans after the war and pre 57. L/12 was Frank and Reifs number was it not? There seems to be such a flood and ebb tide , with the tide now being and Thank you for all of your work Mr. Williamson an overwelming acceptance to the L/12 crosses because of the now attributed "cross hatching". I am considering buying a grouping with one of these L/12 crosses that are always eagerly accepted here and remember the days when they could not be given away due to that stigma, now they are justified as a wartime issued cross . That is exactly what I wish to have , but still cant help but remeber when the other stigma was attached to them.
What again was the mistake with the numbers that made L/12 CEJ and not Frank and Reif. How many undisputable circumstances are there where the L/12 crosses were the wartime issue pieces , the recepients did not get them post war? Was the crosshatching the key to determine this from the Kleitman made copies? These are some nagging questions for me and am happy if they are for me only, I wish to add one of these pieces to my collection and am not trying to sway the "Flood Ebb tide beliefs " for these just seek clarification how come there was such a big change in acceptance for them.
For any interest thank you.

[Dietrich Maerz]

All this misunderstanding comes from rumors and from at that point in time not understood difference between L/12 and 12, which is Frank & Reif. L/12 and 2 which are the numbers for Juncker are perfectly fine and it is not quite true that only since the beautifull book from Gordon came out that the crosshatching, one of the Juncker identifiers, is known to mankind. Maybe it's more broadly known now, but it was known before.

L/12 resp. 2 was always known as a wartime producer - maybe not by all. Crosses are directly linked back to recipients in more then numerous examples and if you ever want to have a 100% unquestionable cross, you need to buy a Juncker.

The ebb and tide of collectors believe is sure in existence, but not with Juncker.

Dietrich

[Sammler]

Thank you for the reply, I wanted to clarify my first post a little more, I returned from the sandbox this summer and still have not unpacked my things, I found some of my ref material and thought I would clear up were I remember this.

-THE MILITARY ADVISOR, SPRING 1991 The numbers game by G. Douglas.
This was a good article and contained a letter from CEJ dated 11OCT59. In summary the letter from the CEJ company stated,

"Our knightscrossof the iron cross is exactly as our former making with original stampings. You will find this easily sold piece to your customers."
" We regret we do not use our original marks of 2 or our firm name CE JUNCKER because of West Berlin laws use the number L/12 used by a Stuttgart firm but only during the war years. We cannot place our former marks on these orders because of troubles but in every way , our new badges are faultless to you"

Again this was on company letterhead. In The summer 1997 issue Mr. Williamson did a story and noted most of the firms records were destroyed and confirmed by the company themselves, and FRANK and REIF confused the issue with there Prasidialkanzlei Lieferant number 12.

With these articles you must believe I answered my own question? The reason I wished to clarify is not cause discontent but remember the earlier ideas and see the change now.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Would you be able to produce a scan of this article or especially the letter. This sounds to me that Juncker was producing RK's in 1959! Marking them with "L/12".

But no matter what, L/12 was the LDO marking for Juncker during the war years, no if's and but's.

Dietrich

Correction: There was an e-mail from a suspended member to my fellow moderator with the request to him to "set me straight" - which I did herewith. I misread the sentence and made a mistake in stating "2" instead of L/12. I hope I'm now back in good graces with the suspended member!

[tinmantis]

"Our knightscrossof the iron cross is exactly as our former making with original stampings. You will find this easily sold piece to your customers."
" We regret we do not use our original marks of 2 or our firm name CE JUNCKER because of West Berlin laws use the number L/12 used by a Stuttgart firm but only during the war years. We cannot place our former marks on these orders because of troubles but in every way , our new badges are faultless to you"

interesting to see the original letter... Could just be sales talk.

But also confusing that they adhere to law regarding L numbers, but are making 'swastika'RKs?
and also: 'our new BADGES' could mean the whole range! especially because they mention the CEJUNCKER mark...
regards
jon

[Peter Wiking]

*

[Bob Hritz]

That entire letter was a creation using a computer. It was done by a disgruntled person who had an axe to grind over proper markings of Juncker products. I believe this came about when the fake L/12 marked 2nd Class Spanges to the Iron Cross came out in fake Frank and Reif envelopes. The fake Juncker letter was to legitimize the fake spange/envelope combination.b

I wish to thank this unknown person, as well as the lemmings who followed him, as knowledgeable collectors acquired L/12 Knight's Crosses when this furor erupted, and those with little knowledge of the subject of Knight's Crosses jumped on the bandwagon declaring all L/12 Knight's Crosses fake.

Bob Hritz

[AlikN]

I found that article, ... what a bogus, the author simply don't know the difference between LDO codes and Prasidialkanzlei codes.
...I hope it's readable enough

[AlikN]

...

[AlikN]

....

[AlikN]

.....

[AlikN]

......

[AlikN]

.......

[AlikN]

........

[AlikN]

.........