Odd EK2 for discussion and opinions.

[Adrian]

I think Robert is correct, I can't see clearly on Dions pic but there doesn't seem to be such a pronounced 'hump'. On the cross I own and on Ben's example only one half of the frame has the 'hump'. Bens cross is assembled with the 'hump' half on the front and mine on the back.

[münster]

I think Robert is correct, I can't see clearly on Dions pic but there doesn't seem to be such a pronounced 'hump'. On the cross I own and on Ben's example only one half of the frame has the 'hump'. Bens cross is assembled with the 'hump' half on the front and mine on the back.

I seen that Adrian and actually thought it was snapped or the camera angle was strange.

[Robert P.]

Adrian,

The frame on this example looks like a Juncker due to the uniform cross-hatching. W&L-assembled EKII's with Juncker frames had misaligned humps, front and rear, yet they were still assembled this way. The halves just didn't align properly. When this cross was assembled is a mystery. I wonder if every cross like this example has just one hump remaining. It would be prudent to say then that some other maker besides W&L assembled them, using of course a different core. The date is still a mystery. I'm really searching to find one of mine with this style, but it is new to me.

Who else solders their crosses on just one side? I'm forgetting just now. Is it '24'?

Robert

[Robert P.]

But upon closer examination the frame is not that of Juncker. Back to square one...

Robert

[Adrian]

Who else solders their crosses on just one side? I'm forgetting just now. Is it '24'?

Robert

Hi Robert,
I think it's Franz Petzl '120'?

[Robert P.]

Yes, Adrian, and it is '24' also. But, not always - 2 out of 3 of my own. Just checking my collection.

Well, by reading the old thread we know more than one cross like this exists. To say they were made postwar without sure evidence is going out on a limb, as it would be to say they were made before the war's end. This is one more mystery in the never-ending study.... This is what makes the crosses forum so controversial and interesting.

Robert

[Adrian]

Thank you Robert,
I didn't know '24' had this feature as well, I only have the one example and the ring is soldered front and back.
I had doubts over my cross being period made as it is rather new looking and shiny and from the inconclusive (IMO) original thread but when Ben sent me the pics of his cross with the patina and the overall look of the cross I thought it may warrant another discussion to see if any newer members could help shed light on it.

[Robert P.]

Thank you Robert,
I didn't know '24' had this feature as well, I only have the one example and the ring is soldered front and back.
I had doubts over my cross being period made as it is rather new looking and shiny and from the inconclusive (IMO) original thread but when Ben sent me the pics of his cross with the patina and the overall look of the cross I thought it may warrant another discussion to see if any newer members could help shed light on it.

I had the same situation happen to me as well, Adrian. I had a chance to buy a F. Zimmermann variant awhile back. In fact, I did buy it. When it came I was perplexed at it's 'new' condition. I posted it as a fake, a Zimmermann copy, not knwoing I was holding a genuine period cross that had it's frame die reworked. I think you might recall the thread on this. Since returning it for a refund I've seen many other examples with their full-dress patina on the frames. It was a mint example I had - now lost now to another. I've changed my thinking since then regarding keeping an open mind on these EK's. I'll say this in respect to the member who discovered the reworking of the dies - Douglas5 did a wonderful job in this study. This area of collecting is so deep, so much yet to find out. The reworking of period dies by period manufacturers has opened up so many possibilities. Just to name another case - the EKII '22' just posted on the forum this last week. The same stamp on another totally different cross, even a hump on the variant's frame. This should lead us to one of the other many makers who had the hump for answers...1,2,3,4,7,40,109,116,100,122,140.

Robert

[FW 200]

I have a Souval, and a Round 3, that the ring is only soldered on one side.

[Gew44]

Hi Adrian,
the cross on pics are a Juncker. No dubt.
Tipical # on the inner edge of the frame an tipical //\\ on the frame edge, also the "upper" on the welding little rings, this "upper" is common to Deschler, Deumer, W&L, Berg & Nolte, Juncker, JJ Sthal. ( My comparison is not ended)
I saw this tipical caracteristic on a marked L/12, and also is visible on a Junckers KC, nott all the same points.
Is possible to find a Juncker ring with "mono side" welding.
Is' possible a early Juncker Type, the number 3 is very different to the my Pics DB.
Is only my opinion created by comparing photos and marked crosses.
I hope someone can help
Cheers

[Adrian]

They certainly are an interesting EK, so far they only appear to be found in the EK2 version, strange dates, unusual frame that has certain features of a Junker but I'm not yet convinced that they made this type of EK. This is one of the anomolies that keep us all interested. Hopefully the mystery will be explained in time........

[Gew44]

Hi Adrian,
it was a personal idea, but my friend on Italy is a owner of 5 type of IC 2nd class made by Deschler, different core but same frame.
IMHO I think ia a early Juncker Type, with a very strange 3, on 1939.
The similarity for the number 3 of 1813 date on back with this on WAF data base is impressive.
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/iron.../L_12/l_12.htm
I apologize if it seems that the words I want at all costs be right.
Thanks for your patience and attention that you gave to me.
Regards

[Bob Hritz]

Here is my example. It has the hump on both sides of the frame and the ring is only soldered to the front hump.

Bob Hritz

[Bob Hritz]

Verso

[Bob Hritz]

Hump detail