Unusual EK2 ???

[Thomas E Hansen]

[QUOTE=Thomas E Hansen;3567900]

1

2

[Robert P.]

IMO, a W&L, Thomas.

[streptile]

NOW I GOT A QUESTION......JUNCKER OR NOT???? YES OR NO..........

POSSIBLY.

If it was as easy as "yes" or "no," we wouldn't have had this discussion. Clearly you've got some folks here who say "yes," and others who say "no." Personally I haven't seen much convincing evidence to put any maker to this one yet although I believe it's more likely to be Juncker than W&L, but equally likely to be any other maker who we know was in business manufacturing and selling military decorations during WWI. I say this because I believe the frame is from the same die, but a later strike, as the 1914-series and 1870-series EK2s shown upthread, and I believe those crosses were made prior to and/or during WWI. Admittedly I have not had the time to lay out all the evidence that leads me to this conclusion in this (or any) thread, and -- crucially -- I have not had the time to examine the cross in-hand. But the most I can say personally is that it might be a Juncker.

By the way, measurements to a tenth of a mm (44.2mm, for example) would be more helpful if you can manage it, but they will not answer the maker question.

Hope this is of some help.

[Roglebk]

Will add more confusion to an already highly confusing thread.

Had 2 100-marked and one unmarked W&L with the "scrunched beading" frame and they were all very thin, around 3.8-3.9mm thick. More facts in this thread: http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=358662

Are the "W&L reworked die" framed crosses the same thickness as the "W&L scrunched bead" frames?

How thick are the "3 flawed frame" Juncker crosses?

Trevor, how thick are the 1870 and 1914? Can not remember.

Thomas, how thick are yours, measured with a caliper. Mine felt thin but now it's packed up and ready to ship so can not get the measurements.

Could anyone post a good, in focus, close up of the "webbed outside" of inner corners? All i see when looking at the webbing is a crack in the die that evolved with time. Perhaps i'm looking at the wrong flaw?

[streptile]

Are the "W&L reworked die" framed crosses the same thickness as the "W&L scrunched bead" frames?
How thick are the "3 flawed frame" Juncker crosses?
Trevor, how thick are the 1870 and 1914? Can not remember.

All good questions, Carl.

Here's some info to add to the discussion:

1870 = 4.15mm
1914 = 4.14mm
"3-flaw" 1939 Juncker = 4.13mm

All i see when looking at the webbing is a crack in the die that evolved with time.

I totally agree... and I would add that such a crack could occur on the die from any maker, and should not in my personal opinion be used as evidence of a die being from a particular maker unless other non-flaw evidence like measurements and bead-counts are taken into account.

[Robert P.]

All good questions, Carl.

Here's some info to add to the discussion:

1870 = 4.15mm
1914 = 4.14mm
"3-flaw" 1939 Juncker = 4.13mm



I totally agree... and I would add that such a crack could occur on the die from any maker, and should not in my personal opinion be used as evidence of a die being from a particular maker unless other non-flaw evidence like measurements and bead-counts are taken into account.

But this 'flaw' is dominant on W&L's ONLY. Please show me any other maker which has all four corners webbed. We're missing something here as well; The webbed corners are a 'signature' on W&L's, not a flaw. The way I see this is, as the dies broke down over time and needed reworking, this webbing grew in size. Look at the size of the webbing on your W&L EKI's or II's and then look at Thomas's cross again. The webbing is more pronounced. I've got to make a montage to illustrate this point.

[Robert P.]

Here is a montage illustrating the webbing in two corners on an earlier W&L EKII (top). Below is Thomas's cross showing how the webbing has grown with the reworking of the same dies. This carrying over of this webbing is consistant with all W&L crosses. We can see the beading widen and the step narrow as the dies are reworked, still the same W&L dies.

[streptile]

What I see are two separate dies that seem to be entirely unrelated, both with some deterioration on the outer beading corners that results in a similar kind of flaw: webbed corners. The beading pattern looks entirely different to me from one die to the next. If the theory is that the beading is different because the die was reworked, then I would say: why weren't the "webbed corners" fixed during the reworking, and, why didn't the webbed corner flaw actually get smaller when the crown was widened?

If the bottom frame was struck from a die that was reworked sometime after striking the top frame, where are the other similarities? What about bead-count? If the entire beading crown was redone and widened, then I wouldn't expect any flaws to have carried over.

Moreover, the die that struck the bottom frame has also struck other frames that have no "webbed corners" at all, presumably earlier in its life. This, to me, is the most persuasive evidence that this die is not a reworked W&L.



These, in short, are the reasons I don't yet believe that the die that struck the bottom frame has anything to do with the die that struck the upper frame.

[streptile]

To me, these three frames match. Not seen here is bead-count, identical on every arm.

L: 1870-series - unflawed, sharply defined beads.
C: 1914-series - beginnings of corner webbing and beading flaws, beading slightly soft.
R: 1939-series - flawed beading rims and advanced webbed corners.

I plan to add more detail photos later.

[Robert P.]

I've done my best throughout this thread to illustrate what I believe to be the evolution of the W&L line of frames. If this is not enough, and I see that it is not, then perhaps having the complete line of W&L crosses in-hand to compare may be more persuasive. You bring up good sound points which can all be addressed when you see them up close and personal. When Carl's cross comes in I plan on starting a new thread with his cross, and my collection of W&L EKI's and II's. Until then, we're at a stalemate.

[Robert P.]

What I see are two separate dies that seem to be entirely unrelated, both with some deterioration on the outer beading corners that results in a similar kind of flaw: webbed corners. The beading pattern looks entirely different to me from one die to the next. If the theory is that the beading is different because the die was reworked, then I would say: why weren't the "webbed corners" fixed during the reworking, and, why didn't the webbed corner flaw actually get smaller when the crown was widened?

If the bottom frame was struck from a die that was reworked sometime after striking the top frame, where are the other similarities? What about bead-count? If the entire beading crown was redone and widened, then I wouldn't expect any flaws to have carried over.

Moreover, the die that struck the bottom frame has also struck other frames that have no "webbed corners" at all, presumably earlier in its life. This, to me, is the most persuasive evidence that this die is not a reworked W&L.



These, in short, are the reasons I don't yet believe that the die that struck the bottom frame has anything to do with the die that struck the upper frame.

Here is another example of what reworking dies can do to the appearance of frames. In this case we see a 3-flaw Juncker frame on the left, and on the right the new frame from the same dies, only reworked...

[streptile]

I've done my best throughout this thread to illustrate what I believe to be the evolution of the W&L line of frames. If this is not enough, and I see that it is not, then perhaps having the complete line of W&L crosses in-hand to compare may be more persuasive. You bring up good sound points which can all be addressed when you see them up close and personal. When Carl's cross comes in I plan on starting a new thread with his cross, and my collection of W&L EKI's and II's. Until then, we're at a stalemate.

It would be nice to reach a consensus here, but I believe that you are correct to say that we're at a friendly stalemate . I do hope more will be revealed when I am able to examine the 1939-series in-hand.

Thanks for the lively debate!

[Robert P.]

It would be nice to reach a consensus here, but I believe that you are correct to say that we're at a friendly stalemate . I do hope more will be revealed when I am able to examine the 1939-series in-hand.

Thanks for the lively debate!

Yes, and I think it only fair to let others know that the (2) crosses you used in your montage (1870 and 1914) along with Thomas's are from the same period in history, all being TR-period produced pieces. The frames don't date back to, say, 1914 or earlier. This will be helpful in this study.

[streptile]

Yes, and I think it only fair to let others know that the (2) crosses you used in your montage (1870 and 1914) along with Thomas's are from the same period in history, all being TR-period produced pieces. The frames don't date back to, say, 1914 or earlier. This will be helpful in this study.

Well, that is unknown, and the evidence is contradictory. It's true that they measure the same as TR pieces, and were sold and described as such by Detlev Niemann. But I'm not sure about that, either, to be honest. Rather than get into it here, interested parties can read THIS THREAD about the 1870 and 1914 pieces.

Assuming the 1914-series and 1870-series EK2s were made during the Third Reich is a perfectly defensible position.

[Robert P.]

I humbly ask the forum to forgive my error in falsely identifying a cross Trevor patiently identified in this particular thread, which belongs to Thomas Hansen. In this thread...

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=392833

Trevor very painstakingly and professionally points to it's origin in both an 1870 and 1914 cross. The frame is identical on all of these crosses. I finally recognized this point, and my hat is off to this excellent work he has put together for this forum's benefit. In it's '39-cored cross the frame has picked up some excessive die flaws, which Trevor suggests was the reason Juncker turned to their new traditional 3-flaw frame. Once again, I want to ask the forum's apologies for misleading everyone into believing this cross in question had a W&L frame. I was absolutely wrong in thinking along this line of reasoning. It is suggested in the link above that we now have a 'Juncker wide-frame Schinkel'. Very fine work, Trevor!