Juncker core dates...opinions please

[Robert P.]

This particular 'fingerprint' is a good characteristic of the early 3-flaw Juncker frames...

[streptile]

Excellent thread.

I'm afraid I haven't got much to contribute here except questions, but I've got a few of those.

1.

Douglas, why do you believe that these two cores are struck from the same die? I see a few differences that can't be accounted for by die-wear, such as the shape of the "hump" on the back of the "3" and the wavy side of the "1". I'm not trying to be contrary, I just wonder.



2.

I am very interested in this core:



First, it's gorgeous.

Second, Douglas says:

This core with the wavy top 3 is rare and very unique. This core ... establishes an early work connection with S&L. Notice the 'slit eye' 9 feature that, along with the same 'ball layout', strongly suggests ... the core being made and supplied by Steinhauer and Lück . The same engraver's fingerprints!

If this is known to be Juncker's first core-type, could the "engraver's fingerprints" be extended to these (almost certainly early-war) so-called "Halbschinkels" from an unknown maker with wavy-top 3's? Or is that stretching it too far?


Photo: WAF member grueni1208

Obviously these cores are not the same, but the style of the numbers seems similar in a few ways. I personally don't know of any other wavy-top 3 cores, but perhaps someone else does?

~Trevor

[Roglebk]

Hi Trevor, very interesting question, i've been wondering the same since trying to find a match (amongst the 1914 EKII's) to the frame of the "Halb" or "Intermixed" Schinkel. To me it does not look "Halb" at all actually, the measurements match some of the 1914 frames and if it's true it would be a normal Schinkel. Hope i will find a match to a marked one.

[Douglas 5]

Hi Trevor :
Try to answer your questions befor leaving for work .
1. The length of the flange tells us the height of the numbers , The surface of the numbers over time will distort a bit and yes the paint used will make a big difference as well . Date 1 has a shortier flange than date 4 . On this conical number shape - wear shows up quickly . Sharp ridge on the last 9 cut core 4 exspecialy will dull out as seen in core 1 , so has the first 9 to a lesser exstent . The tip of the 3 has the same hook tip and features that low on the surface are good comparison spots . See the same connection bridge between the tip of the 3 and the first 9 . And the bottom shape of the ball flanges match too . A nice spot to use is the 1st 9 . At the top you see the same - on the surface - fine dark matching rub line ! And the first ball flange on the 9 touches the upper part of the 9 .Its these fine details .... Roberts has both of those crosses .

More later , Douglas

[streptile]

Hi Trevor, very interesting question, i've been wondering the same since trying to find a match (amongst the 1914 EKII's) to the frame of the "Halb" or "Intermixed" Schinkel. To me it does not look "Halb" at all actually, the measurements match some of the 1914 frames and if it's true it would be a normal Schinkel. Hope i will find a match to a marked one.

Hey Carl, let's split this off into another thread, as I think I may have found a good frame match for this Halbschinkel (which, I agree, is actually a true Schinkel... but the term is helpful for identification purposes) amongst my 1914 EK2s. Start up a thread if you like -- or I will when I get home -- and link to it from here.

Douglas-- thank you! I will read through and try to fully understand your explanation when I'm home from work, but I think I get the gist of it. I'll have at least one more question, though.

But thank you for going through it for me, it is most appreciated.

~Trevor

[Roglebk]

Trevor, that is great news indeed! Will open a thread in imperial section.

[Douglas 5]

Trevor : 2. - That wave top 3 being in a Juncker frame is very unique . The die did not last long on that core which confirms why it is difficult to find . Can not help with the Halb-Schinkel or WW1 crosses . Junckers WW2 cross making was a tough and rough start . It develop into real good quality a year or so later . Relying on others for help and parts regarding mostly EK2s and 1s with all these different cores . They out grew their worksite quit quickly after taking on the Luftwaffen Awords etc .... eventualy employing 100s of people on 4 sites .
Now in the preperation and painting of these cores - there were two ways the core dried after painting . Depending on maker >> upright and upside down . The upright drying - exspecialy using early lead laced thick paint- left a lumpy/rough somewhat dull surface .
As on this one exspecialy nice to see - the core dryed first upside down . This creates the nice shiny and smooth even 'domed' tops on the date numbers . All cores then went in for a finishing curing/bake cycle .

Douglas

[Douglas 5]

At first not realy noticeable until magnified - a surface blemish . Core closeup with 2 small deep paint chips showing the depth of the smooth domed paint on top of the surface . In the arm cut outs one can see the left behind lead particles . These being on the surface - over time moisture gets in and the lead oxidizes - which breaks through the surface as little fine 'white dots' !!

Douglas

[Robert P.]

Douglas,

We know that when die deterioration set in the effects were transposed as 'spots/defects' on cores and frames. But, can you please explain how this deterioration caused perfectly flowing transformations of number designs such as you have described in the numbers in post #47? And, which was the original of the two, the first, the '1' or the '4'?

[Douglas 5]

Hi Trevor and Robert :
Both correct in the observation , ... 1 and 4 cores are not from the same die . Not sure why I labeled them as such ? Taken now the complete core picture and it is more obvious . The top of the 3 in picture 1 is positioned higher . Even with wear of course the numbers connot shift . The design is very close which could be from the same maker .

Douglas

[Douglas 5]

The look of a number or design somtimes can play tricks on ones eye . The bare top on the one 3 would normaly indicate more wear . In the case of the 1 and 4 core we have different cores .
Now Swas and number surfaces can change size and appear to change position . All to do with a combination of wear and flange angles . Explained in the diagram below .

Douglas

[streptile]

Douglas! Great explanation with that diagram.

I am exhausted and off to sleep, but I must say, I really enjoy your analysis here.

Thank you.

Trevor

[Robert P.]

Thank you Douglas,

As usual, your diagrams say a lot.

[streptile]

In another thread on another subject, WAF member Leroy posted something quite interesting that I thought could add to this conversation, so I quote it here:

Although we don't yet have all the answers regarding the inter-relationships between makers, as more and more research is done we are finding that many of the major manufacturers worked closely together, shared tooling and techniques and collaborated in ways we were unaware of before. A moderator on another forum (GCA), who has done significant research in Ludenscheid, has concluded that the major companies there shared EVERYTHING and that one of the more interesting aspects of their relationships (beyond just physical proximity) were actual family and social ties which bound them all together. The same was almost certainly true in Berlin and other manufacturing centers. That's why (again, in my OPINION) we see crosses "which look like Juncker (or Godet, or S&L, etc. etc.) but aren't".

[Robert P.]

Very good, and timely, Trevor. In our quest to find true Juncker cores I think it is important to go back as far as we can to the beginnings of the 3rd Reich production period. And, the question remains, did Juncker begin production with their own cores or did they use the cores from another maker until they tooled-up themselves for full production? I have heard it both ways. I say look at the early (1939) hand-frosted framed Juncker EK's for a clue. It is my thinking that if the cores used in these particular early pieces cannot be found in another makers crosses, then we can rest with an 'absolute.' Did Juncker make new core dies, or rework the dies that were already in their use? Once again, if we cannot find these variant cores in use in other maker's crosses when we find them in abundance in Juncker framed crosses, then I think we can conclude that Juncker did rework old dies, or make new dies. Any thoughts on this?