"Light Juncker" Deutsches Kreuz

[Jørgen E]

Ship them to me and I'll post them! PM sent!

[DavidM]

Hello

Here's another bit for this discussiion. The dates on the Junckers DKs are, as far as I am aware, generally agreed to have started out flawless, but as time progressed the flaw on the '9' became evident. This same flaw can be seen on some cloth DKs as well, and it is assumed that Junckers either made cloth DKs or at least supplied the cloth makers with wreaths.

I have put together some comparative photos below, (Cook, I have used the date from your DK in this. I hope you don't mind, and if you do I'll remove it immediately.). The question I am posing is that if the early Junckers didn't exhibit the flaw on the '9', and the flaw gradually appears over time; and if the light Junckers are of late war manufacture, why don't they show the flaw on the '9' ? The cloth DK is shown because, as mentioned above, some show the same flaw on the '9' and are pressumed to be from Junckers. I think I'm correct in saying that cloth DKs started to appear at some point in 1943 and were produced until the end of the war. Again the same question arises. If Junckers was making wreaths which showed the flawed '9', and these wreaths are on the heavy and cloth versions, why don't the light DKs have the same flaw? The weight difference is purely due to the materials used in manufacture, e.g. tombak for the main, silver star burst on the heavy versions and cupal for the light. There would be, in my opinion, no need to go the expense of re-tooling or cutting new dies, (and late in the war would they have the time, inclination or money to bother doing that ?), as other than the flaw on the '9' there appears to have been nothing wrong with the tools / stamps / dies.

The pictures below, from top left going clockwise are Cooks DK, the light Juncker that started this thread, cloth DK and a heavy Junckers DK.

Cook, could you please say if yours is a heavy or light version ?

Regards
David

[DavidM]

Hello

No one have any opinions or ideas about these light Junckers and the data shown here ?

Regards
David

[IVAN]

Hi to all,

as some of you know, my opinion about Dietrich's showed piece is not original and is another type of fake then Detlev's cross.


My thoughts are:

fakers has tried to copy in all parts and flaws a original later one, casting one original, but:
flaws in wreath are differents ( note in fakes there isn't the "9" flaw)
they have tried to do with the same wreath ( good done) minimum 2 variants ( first cross showed here and Detlev's )
they have tried to do same rivets but is nearly impossible
they have used different material ( and can see it), impossible for them to have war time material ( as was possible for LDO firms for some decorations, just the end of war).

finally , exist DKiG juncker made late type.

About mm, we cannot to compare with mm from early heavy types , because they are not the same.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Ivan,

do you have a detailled picture of a late Juncker you consider genuine?

Dietrich

[IVAN]

Ivan,

do you have a detailled picture of a late Juncker you consider genuine?

Dietrich

of course....your cross for example ...

[Dietrich Maerz]

I think mine is not a (very) late one due to the lack of the PKZ number. And as you know, mine is considered a fake also by the original starter of the topic.

[IVAN]

I think mine is not a (very) late one due to the lack of the PKZ number. And as you know, mine is considered a fake also by the original starter of the topic.

original starter of the topic considere NOT original all light DK Juncker....

if you don't want again your cross...well, tell me ..

[DavidM]

Hello

Ivan, I agree with what you say about these Junckers being fakes. It is my understanding is that the details being discussed relate only to the light Junckers, hence why my comments are directed into a sort of heavy verse light structure. So that said why do I agree with you.

Well, having examined the data as presented I personally feel that the light Junckers are highly suspect and are indeed fakes. Take the SEM data. The composition of the enamel is pretty well consistent across the different manufacturers DKs examined, including Junckers. The only one bucking the trend is the light Junckers. This, to me anyway, suggests one of two things. Either there was an extremely tightly, regulated standard for the production of this enamel which actively tested and monitored the enamel composition, or that there was a common source for it - and I feel it is more likely that there was a common source given the consistency of the enamel.

If the light versions are indeed wartime originals then they would, in my opinion, have to be of early production, otherwise where is the flaw on the '9' numeral in the '1941' date ? This can be seen developing over time on the heavy Junckers and is evident on the cloth DKs using the Junckers wreath. Some believe that the light Junckers are very late war production items. If this is so, where is the flaw on the '9' numeral, and why doesn't the heavy version show the flaw on the leaf at the 9 o'clock position ?

I don't feel that the theory of the light versions being either very early or very late production flies. Given the that the DK was only introduced in September 1941, I find it hard to accept that the light version developed a die flaw bad enough to warrant a new one being made - with all the attendant costs involved and in the middle of a wartime economy - and that the heavy version then had time to develop the flaw on the '9' numeral, all in the space of four years. The reverse applies if you take the light as being late war produced. Again this doesn't fly for if the die for the wreaths on the heavy version was replaced, (hence how the flaw at the 9 o'clock point on the light wreath comes into being), why is the heavy wreath, complete with the flawed '9' numeral in the date so frequently encountered on the cloth DKs, which didn't come into circulation until 1943 ?

There is of course the possibilitiy that Junckers had two very slightly different dies involved in making these wreaths, one which developed the flaw at the 9 o'clock position on the wreath and the other the flawed '9' numeral. How likely is this ? Not very in my opinion as Junckers, and others, appeared to manage, in the main, with just one die for each award or component part of an award.

So, only my opinion, but based on the evidence at this point I feel that the light Junckers DKs are fakes and to be avoided.

Regards
David

[Dietrich Maerz]

Just to keep this thread going - here is the date of my Juncker

[Dietrich Maerz]

9 o'clock

[Dietrich Maerz]

12 o'clock

[Dietrich Maerz]

Here's the date of the fake in question

[Dietrich Maerz]

9 o'clock

[Dietrich Maerz]

12 o'clock