Ritterkreuz @ Weitze's

[Ralph A]

full reverse:

The nearly-perfect paint job on the back doesn't really go with the ragged job on the obverse. I know the backside is supposed to be the "protected" side, but there is a big variation here.

It's very smooth, except for the area around the 1813.

[Ralph A]

Bellwether Juncker crosshatching,

though. Can't dispute that.

By the way, I want to mention that the gouges were what attracted me to the piece in the first place. I think of them as "character" and "heavy patina". Call me eccentric.

However, without provenance, and I am told there is none, these gouges are a severe detraction, as they could have occured at any point in time.

[George Stimson]

On the first pic of the maker's mark there appears to be a paint chip out of the right upper corner of the arm. I can't see that chip in the second, full pic of the reverse.

[Gordon Williamson]

The Lazy 2 juncker always in my experience has a very coarse matt painted surface, compared with the smooth eggshell finish on most L/12s. Juncker were far from being the best made RK and it is quite common to find them with quite a bit of hand finishing to get the core to fit in the frames.

Yes, the obverse has been repainted as I can't imagine these gouges being there when it was initially struck. I just don't see that that makes a genuine Lazy 2 rubbish, not to be bought on any account. Unless Chris knows something he isn't telling us ?

The die characteristics of the frame are 100% textbook Juncker as far as I can see.

[George Stimson]

Chris? We're here to learn....

[FrankS]

I think the whole core is repainted.

You should also check the soldering seam on this RK. It might have been taken apart and soldered back together.

Either the extra paint or soldering material is responsible for the higher weight.

For the price it is offered for, you should expect a very good condition RK.

Even if the repainted core is the only problem with this RK it is way overpriced. Even the original price (7.500 Euro) was too expensive for this condition.

[Ralph A]

The case of the suddenly appearing

boo boo. George has a good point about the paint missing in the upper right corner:

[Ralph A]

Hmmmm....

Note the loop - is it just rotated 180 degrees (you can see the end in one pic; not in the other)? odd.. Is there a chance that these two pics are not of the same cross?
=======================
Later, after some reflection: They're the same cross.

[kennethc]

what a world ... sigh!

[George Stimson]

"Is there a chance that these two pics are not of the same cross?"

The tarnish (patina, whatever....) around the silver and maker's marks looks the same on both.

The loop could easily have been turned around or replaced. And, if we assume that the uneveness of the ring is due to the cross being worn, the ribbon offered with it is probably not the original, because the ribbon looks unworn.

[Gordon Williamson]

On several Juncker "2" pieces I have seen the paint has had a tendency to flake. Possibly a problem with the adhesion of that coarse matt black paint onto the core.
Last one I bought had a chunk flaked off on the swastika just like that. Perfect when I bought it. Carried it around in my luggage (not losse, - in its original case) a few days and when I got home there was a chip out of the paint on the swastika, so that chip at top right on a Lazy 2 wouldn't concern me at all.
The price may be high, but thats not what we are after here, its a definition of why this piece is "rubbish" to be avoided at all costs.

People buy all sorts of heavily worn, well used pieces, something as tasty was a Lazy2 would have to be really bad before it got to the "rubbish" category.

[ChrisJ]

RK

Just to clarify the position.....(Please note Gordon)
I was asked to comment on this RK by private e-mail some time ago... at least it looks like the cross I was sent pictures of. The weight was (as stated) 37g which is unusually heavy, and there were definite signs that the frame had been apart.
The core had also been crudely adjusted to fit the frame... there clearly has been a repaint job done... how else can you account for the gouged areas being black ?.... and (I'm sorry), but I am not too convinced by the quality of the cross hatching either.
On the whole... at best it has been a "messed with" piece.. and certainly not one that I would consider.... and one that would always be questioned at subsequent resale.
However, this is only my opinion... asked for on a private e-mail, and honestly given.
As with all of these pieces, pictures are of no substitute for judging them in your hand. The guy in question was in danger of spending a large wad of his hard earned cash on this piece, and did not (at that time) have first hand experience of RK's.
I do not retract my comments made to him in good faith, or my own personal feeling regarding this piece.

[Pascal H.]

As you probably already gathered it was me who asked Chris and Gordon for their expert opinion on this RK. I am still thankful that they gave me their honest advice on this RK. Because of the advice I received from Chris I passed on this RK and ended up with a beautiful honest early Juncker with proven provenance.

I think Chris only wanted to make clear to novice like me that he didn’t like this RK. Within my private e-mail conversation I had with him he had some harsh words against this RK but I suppose he only wanted to save me from spending this amount of money on a RK like this. The best advice he could give me and I am still in his debts for that advice.

As for the chip on the reserve of this RK I think Gordon is right that some chip flaked off. I will post a close-up on the corner from which you can see that there was already a little chip missing. So we are definitely talking about the same RK.

Pascal

[ChrisJ]

Thanks

Thanks Langemarck....

[Ralph A]

I have a communication from Herr Weitze.

He describes the "gouges" as "weak spots in the lacquer".

He offered more information; sent more pictures. I've also learned some things from other sources about this cross that are interesting. Before I divulge any more information, however, there are a few questions to which I await satisfactory answers. At the time of said satisfaction I will post what I have ascertained.

I am called away unavoidably. I will take up this matter when I return on Friday.

I believe this RK, at this price and in this "condition" (opinions vary widely as to its shape - all of which I find valid; "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"; "one man's trash is another man's treasure"... ), will still be there when I get back. If not, then all is moot.

Thanks for all the input so far. Now that I have expressed a desire to obtain an RK, others have contacted me. The price range on Weitze's RK is within my budget, but I am becoming convinced that this sort of investment would be more wisely made on another piece. Furthermore, if a suitable silver PLM (WW1) shows itself first, then I would go for it.

I intend to acquire both eventually and it does not matter in what order.

I once again extend my appreciation to my friends in the forum.

Best regards,

Ralph Abercrombie