Screwback EK1

[Robert P.]

Yes, I agree fully. They are drastically overpriced, since you see so many on the shelf for sale today. BUT, are they all true Juncker crosses, or are they just marked with a postwar stamping? This is agin just theory, but I've heard Juncker never marked any of their EKII's. I know that one raised some hackles. This is why everyone calls Junckers 'a mine field'. I'd really like to start at the very beginning of Juncker's first crosses, and carefully work our way up through it's evolution photographically, considering die deterioriation, die conversion. etc., and throwing out the window all the theory surrounding these crosses.

If I may, can I start this discussion by introducing an unmarked, non-magnetic Juncker EKII? It has the cross-hatched frame, the copper jump ring, the straight-topped first pattern date core, the glossy black paint, and the 'scrunched' bead at 2:00 which is dramatically different to the 'scrunched' bead of a W&L (though some may argue. But let's compare photographs!)...

Robert

[Robert P.]

the 'scrunched' bead at 2:00...

[Robert P.]

Henri,

Hang in there with your cross. In time, if everyone will please offer photos once again of their Juncker crosses, yours will find it's place.

I'd like to offer one more cross, a cross-hatched EKI with what is called the 2nd pattern core by some, a first pattern by others. Notice it falls within the guidelines of the top date in the previous thread on page 2, the post with the two dates. It is magnetic and glossy.

Robert

[Robert P.]

Now, here is an early, possibly 1st pattern core, screwback, 'L/12'-stamped...

Belongs to another. Notice the straight-topped date, not the shorter '1' and longer'3', like the EKI above.

Robert

[Robert P.]

L/12...

[Robert P.]

OK, so maybe I should start (3) threads later:

1. EKII JUncker photos only, no opinions,
2. EKI Juncker photos only, no opinions,
3. Pure Juncker discussion......

Robert

[Tiger 1]

Robert,

So at this point we have just 'hearsay' without actual proof.

Respectfully I will have to continue to disagree with you at this point.

I too am a dedicated student of the Iron Cross so I will not close the intellectual door on this supposition. I do not believe in the words "always" and "never" when it comes to collecting. But actual proof goes a lot further.

What I will do is carefully look at the Juncker Eks as well as the W&Ls and S&Ls that I have to compare with what you have proposed.

The first two pictures of the dates you show suggest to me a difference in the thickness of the core finish instead of any real difference in the numbers themselves. Please keep in mind that the cores themselves would not necessarily be exact duplicates of each other even if from the same die or mold. They would indeed share the same charactoristics but as with any manufactured item have a certain, albeit small, range of acceptable deviance. Light strikes versus heavy strikes, thick or thinner finishes, glossy, semi gloss or flat.

I'm fairly sure that when these decorations were finished and inspected that the inspectors did not use magnifying loupes as we collectors are wont to do.

Just some thoughts.

Tony

[LuckyLuudje]

OK, so maybe I should start (3) threads later:

1. EKII JUncker photos only, no opinions,
2. EKI Juncker photos only, no opinions,
3. Pure Juncker discussion......

Robert

Robert,

I think that it will be a very good idea.
Maybe that will solve the Juncker puzzle forever.

I know some people that have some Junckers and opinions about them but doesn't want to burn thier hands due to the endless discussion.
Just too many opinions from too many people.

Starting "only picture" threats will give a lot of pictures and material you and others can work with to found out the thruth.

If you start the threat I will be happy to help you providing pictures and give you my opinion.
Maybe this time the thread won't end as always and leading to nothing.

[Robert P.]

Thank you both for your thoughts. Yes, Tony, I too found this new material very educational. The pictures of the dates gave me something tangible to work with. I found that every Juncker-type cross, as Detlev calls them , fell into one of the two date styles or types. I've compared my many W&L crosses, and found that neither fell into either of these types. This was another 'step' in gaining more knowledge. As you know, paint type, whether glossy or flat, gives us clues to periods of production. So do many other clues. I'm with you in your quest for more knowledge, and in doing so old 'truisms' and personal opinions begin to fall away. There are pillars on this forum who have great contributions in this discussion. There will come a time I hope when we all can come together under a new thread to gather new insight.

Thank you,
Robert

[Tiger 1]

Tony

[Robert P.]

Tony,

To add comment here on the second (bottom) type date in post # 26, I see two different cores in my W&L-marked crosses, one of which is this second type. Perhaps this second type core is actually a W&L, and the first a second pattern Juncker. The one thing that stands out to me the most between both types in that post is the little area between the '1' and the '9'. There is a connecting point between both numbers on the bottom core (W&L), and there is space between both numbers on the top date. Looking at my EKII and I Juncker examples, I see this latter type on nearly every core. I understand this could simply be the depth of impression in which the core was manufactured, but there is one more point I wish to mention also. The area inside the top half of the number '9' on the top date is larger, and rounder overall, where the area is smaller or narrower on the bottom date. The ending or tail of the far right '9' on the bottom date has a really flat top to it, something that is less detailed in the top date. Again, W&L made two cores that I know of, one having a much flatter top on that tail than the other, but both having it. The Juncker examples I have are ended round, except for the one that I have with the W&L core...

Robert

[Robert P.]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not the 1st type Juncker core? The straight-topped date...

Robert

[Douglas 5]

Hi :
The picture in post 41 is one I sent to Robert .
A have been working on this delicate subject and have come across some interesting findings I am posting in a new thread .
Evolution of the Junker dies .
Douglas

[Paratrooper]

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

Hi!

Nobody could find better words for the fraud with this absolutely not rare crosses.
As Stefan said there are much more exctremely harder to find crosses like the Juncker pieces. In the last year minimum 10 Jucker EK 1. Class was offered to me and they was all original. Niemann wrote in his book that Juncker never marked his EK 2nd class but there are pieces without doubt found in save deductions marked L/12. One can see that tey was stamped bevore the last finish.
The quality is not bad but it's not as high as some collectors say.
Last week i buyed a Deschler EK 1. This pieces play in a totally othe leaque than Juncker.
I don't want to say that Juncker crosses are bad, but -IMO- they are the most overestimated crosses of all.
I would never pay the prices like they are asked in the last time.

Regards
Andreas

[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.

I hate to quote myself, but this has been my take since I realized what was being asked for these items. I have seen one for sale on a dealer site that advertises here, I was offred one personally, which later ended up on the estand, and now another one on the estand. This is all in the last say 4 months. And I wasn't even looking. That's not rare. I want one, but I won't be paying that price. I'd rather pick up a truly hard to find Imperial EK1 and still have money left over for other things.