Screwback EK1

[Douglas 5]

A question to this Robert :
These 3 makers supplied both EK1, and EK2's ?
W&L seams to have been the main supplier .
How does one distinquish regular 4 and 65 Crosses and the ones made for and supplied to Juncker ?
This craze for Juncker crosses has brought on a recent flood of probable postwar '2' stamped fakes( different styles 2's used) . This week quite a few W&L 100 EK2's with polished out 100's and 'stamped 2' are on the market suddenly !!
The center depressions of the Zeros is still visualble and to the fight is now the 2 .

Douglas

[Douglas 5]

I see now that some of the questions are covered by another recent thread " Juncker postwar marked Crosses ,...." !
Douglas

[Robert P.]

A question to this Robert :
These 3 makers supplied both EK1, and EK2's ?
W&L seams to have been the main supplier .
How does one distinquish regular 4 and 65 Crosses and the ones made for and supplied to Juncker ?
This craze for Juncker crosses has brought on a recent flood of probable postwar '2' stamped fakes( different styles 2's used) . This week quite a few W&L 100 EK2's with polished out 100's and 'stamped 2' are on the market suddenly !!
The center depressions of the Zeros is still visualble and to the fight is now the 2 .

Douglas

Douglas,

I see a lot of Juncker-marked (L/12) EK's with K&Q and S&L frames, and with either Juncker or W&L cores. I agree, a lot of W&L parts were either furnished to Juncker, or either produced for Juncker by W&L. Did the other companies have 'L/12' stamps? I don't know. Did Juncker have a number of different stamps? I don't know. BUT, there are a number of stamped 'L/12' and '2' EKI"s and II's on the market recently. There are a lot of 'unknowns' regarding Juncker brand EK's.

Regarding the 'rubbed-out' '100' stamp, and restamped '2', I'd like to see a link to that.

Regarding discerning the W&L cores, I look at the date in particular. The '1' is short on top and bottom, and the '3' is long on top and bottom. The Juncker date is low, and straight, all the numbers are the same height. Look at the S&L, W&L and K&Q frames - then start looking at all the L/12-marked EKI's. I look at the cores also on every L/12, and then look to the (3) mentioned makers to judge. In the batch I find some with true Juncker cores, even though they have the other maker's frames. Were these made by Juncker becuse they have Juncker's cores? I'm guessing, yes. But I'm only one voice on the subject. I hope this helps a little. Keeping things simple is the way. Having these maker's crosses' in-hand is the only way to study. Photos, as good as they can be, still leave you guessing.

Robert

[Robert P.]

I see now that some of the questions are covered by another recent thread " Juncker postwar marked Crosses ,...." !
Douglas

Yes, we've got a few going.

Robert

[Henri S]

What are your comments on this one?

[Henri S]

The mark

[Tiger 1]

Some crosses were made for Juncker, and sold by Juncker.
And stamped for Juncker.

As far as I know there were three companies who made EK's for Juncker. Juncker's factory was bombed-out:
1. K&Q '65'
2. S&L '4'
3. W&L '100'

Robert

Robert,

Respectfully, I'm not so sure I agree with your statement.

Juncker was a quality manufacturor of various decorations both during the Imperial and TR eras.

You mentioned correctly that Juncker marked EKs are rare and desirable which they are. But yet you mention that you see 'lots' of them. Are you sure they are all legit original wartime Junckers?

Secondly, we know that the Juncker factory was indeed bombed out during an Allied raid on Berlin in November 1944 if my memory is correct. Why then at such a late stage of the war (less than 6 months left) would Juncker contract with three other companies for COMMERCIALLY (L/12) marked EKs? Where was their private market at this late date? It doesn't make sense to me.

Seeing the scarcity of genuine Juncker marked EKs that conform to known Juncker charactoristics, these 'other' manufacture EKs stamped with the desirable L/12 or 2 marks are at the very least suspect of being 'enhanced' at a later time IMO.

Tony

[Steve Campbell]

I have seen a few Junker marked pieces for sale in the last little while. They don't seem that rare really. If they were fakes nobody said anything. I would love to have one in my collection, but lets be honest folks, they are over priced. In terms of quality, are they really any better than the majority of other maker"s crosses? What makes them a more quality piece? They just aren't that much diffrent from other crosses to justify the price in my mind.

[Robert P.]

Like the rest of you EK collectors, I place myself with you in learning which are the genuine Juncker crosses. From what I have learned so far through study I see two genuine Juncker cores, cores that came from their own design. It is a comprehensive study, with still much to discover, as with any EK maker. I confess, I have seen too many 'L/12' or '2' marked crosses recently with cores and frames that just don't stand up to what I have learned to be a Juncker-made product. There are differing stamps - this bothers me. Which is the true Juncker stamp(s)? I have a few unmarked EKII's and one EKI that show Juncker characteristics. Detlev has always called them the 'Juncker-type'. This week he had a cased unmarked EKI for $500.00, a respectible price, yet the pin was really in bad shape. I've asked an individual who has been doing considerable research on the Juncker crosses to start a thread to share his discoveries. I'm hoping for the sake of the EK collectors that he shares his knowledge with all of us, for I believe he's on the right track. I know that when, and if, he does start this study, we'll all benefit tremendously from it. I'll add, everyone has always fallen back to "Junckers are a mine field". Starting from their origin, and moving forward in time, their progressive evolution of crosses CAN be revealed.

Robert

[Tiger 1]

Robert,

But you still haven't answered the question.

How do you know that there were three companies who made EKs for Juncker?

I'm not trying to be a dick, but you stated that as a fact we should accept.

Where did you find this info? I am very curious as a dedicated EK collector I have never heard of this before.

Tony

[Robert P.]

Robert,

But you still haven't answered the question.

How do you know that there were three companies who made EKs for Juncker?

I'm not trying to be a dick, but you stated that as a fact we should accept.

Where did you find this info? I am very curious as a dedicated EK collector I have never heard of this before.

Tony

Tony,

Someone whose name I would rather leave anonymous made this statement to me. I asked the same question, Tony. In his 'teaching' he said he had collected many S&L EKII's years ago that were stamped with '2' on the frame. The three manufacturers names were given to me as they were from me to you. I had wondered myself if the S&L frames or cores were supplied to Juncker to keep Juncker's demand met during peak production contract periods. Moving on, after speaking with the above-mentioned collector whom I'm wanting to see start the thread on the Juncker evolution, I don't see this theory any longer. But rather, I see through photographic evidence that Juncker was supplied components to meet their production demands. And this holds water, because there are many examples found today with the W&L cores within Juncker frames. And Juncker cores within K&Q frames. Like I say, I am trying to encourage this other member to start this thread and bring out these points of interest regarding the Juncker EK's. Please forgive my statement, which may have been in error. But it was new news tgo me from avery seasoned collector with extensive experience in collecting Juncker EKs. Like I say, we're all standing together on this subject of Juncker EKs, all learning, some at different stages than others.
Let me post this one photo, showing Juncker's two cores, their own cores. If you look very closely you will see striking differences in these two dates. The top date is Juncker's first type. The lower date is almost a W&L date, but not so. W&L's are different. I don't want to intrude into the research the other member has strived so hard to learn, but I'll stop with this. This one photo really opened my understanding. I rushed back to my (5) Juncker-type crosses, and found these date types on my crosses. And my (8) W&L EKs had a different style date.

Robert

[Robert P.]

Here is a date from an unmarked Juncker EKI, my own collection. It stands with the (first) example above...

Robert

[Robert P.]

Another example of a Juncker EK date, this one sworn to be the first type by Juncker...all too confusing. Notice the cross-hatched frame...

The top of the date is straight across, not with the shorter '1' and longer '3' as the two examples above...?

Robert

[StefanK.]

.....original Juncker EKI's are worth much more than other maker's because of rarity......

Robert

Justifying the - to me perversely - high prices for Juncker crosses because of the rarity is total nonsense. No serious EK1 1939 collector would declare a L/12 cross extremely rare since there are a lot of mm'd crosses that are ten times rarer but are sold for a normal EK1 prices.

However, you can easily tell an unexperienced collector these crosses are rare and therefore charge a high price. Why shouldn't he believe you?
This is exactly the way how collectors and dealers proceed in order to get a nice sum for their Juncker- medals. And it works as several examples show. Last friday i nearly fell off my chair when i went through a dealer's update and saw the unmarked EK1, that were sold as "unmarked" Juncker for fairly high prices.
Who can blame the dealer for offering these crosses for moster-prices as long as some "poor idiots" buy these crosses within minutes.

I don't want offend anyone. I only want to point out that the prices are not formed due to rarity, but only because of pure arbitrariness. Thanks god that the really ultrare crosses are sold for more or less proper prices...




Greeting from a passionate EK1 collector,

Stefan

[Ludwig]

Very nice crosses – both of them!