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
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
Comment