Did Juncker make a Schinkel Iron Cross?

[Wik]

5tefan,

Not everyone wants Schinkels I've never had one and the only type I would ever want to have is the Juncker Wide Frame Schinkel that was researched and shown here by Trev and supported since by folks like Robert, Ben and several others!

What Trev points out is that the term "Schinkel" has changed definitions over the years. Being someone who has learned a ton about both Imperial and TR era crosses here, I think it's painfully obvious that when researching EKs, the person must do his/her best to investigate crosses across all eras. Trev did this, initially in the Imperial section, while many of us here who ONLY collect or research 1939 era crosses never would have had any knowledge. Just as you say, EK DNA is key, not just DNA of WWII but of the entire history of each cross/maker.

The Orth you show is not a schinkel because it does not use stock left over from WWI. That is the crux of Trev's argument, in a sense. The readjusting of the term schinkel. As he says, some may never recognize it, so may never accept it, but these early crosses, which used WWI stock are the truest use of the original definition of schinkels.

So, to answer your question, the Juncker is a schinkel and the Orth is not, not because of the size of the arms, the flair or straight arms, but rather because of the time period that the pieces used to make the crosses were made.


Ryan

[5tefan]

Hi Ryan,

a good point for you. But did we have an evidence when this crosses were produced, even the 1914 Variant? Or even did Juncker produced this crosses?
Could it be that Juncker was only a trader?

[Wik]

Hi Ryan,

a good point for you. But did we have an evidence when this crosses were produced, even the 1914 Variant? Or even did Juncker produced this crosses?
Could it be that Juncker was only a trader?

Hi 5tefan,

Trevor goes through all of these questions in his original post!

But to answer your questions, the evidence used to research this was based off of both an 1870 "wideframe" and a 1914 "wideframe", whose frames and cores match and verify each other.

Trev also took painstaking time to give very detailed and precise measurements of the 1870 "wide frame", the 1914 "wideframe" and the early Juncker crosses. The beading also matches and progressively goes more flat, the die flaws grow as each series of EK is produced from the same dies, the inner beading is a dead spot on match to each other etc etc.

Basically, the research, info and proof is pretty overwhelming as long as your willing to listen with an open mind and not just think that something that goes against the grain of collecting the past couple years should be dismissed out of hand without any extra thought.

I think your site is excellent and I have it saved and reference it pretty regularly. I would think with a great source like that you would be someone who would take anyone's hard work and research into consideration and at least consider the great info provided!

Ryan


P.S. forgot to mention about the Juncker question. There is a company with direct contact and relationship to Juncker known in the Imperial community as AWS. Trev or Ben or someone may want to weigh in, in case I get this wrong, but I think the working theory (with obvious support provided) is that AWS made the 1870 Wide frames and the 1914. Juncker borrowed parts from them for their 1914 series and then had left over stock for WWII, thus the matching frames on Juncker crosses in the early TR period of crosses.

Someone also mentioned a theory that perhaps Juncker didn't make ANY 1914 crosses but after research we find that AWS went out of business between WWI and WWII and so Juncker bought up all of AWS's left over stock in preparation of making these awards in WWII.

[streptile]

Hi Ben,

Very nice Juncker Schinkels. Congratulations on some of the finest examples I've ever seen

Sorry, but the 1939 EK1 have imo not the Schinkel form!

5tefan,

Please read this article. Everything will be explained to you here. If you still have a different definition of Schinkels, then you are entitled to it. But I personally think it is unsustainable to define a Schinkel by its shape.

This article appeared in International Medal Collector Magazine, the premiere English-language magazine for our hobby. The website to order is here and I highly recommend a subscription, personally

[streptile]

.

[streptile]

..

[streptile]

...

[streptile]

....

[5tefan]

Hi Trevor,

I know the modern definition of a Schinkel!

I have the same understanding like you showed us from the magazine!
"Iron Cross made with frame tooling left over from 1914 - series crosses and a new swastika core"

You know, I collect all WW2 EK1! And I have found a lot of EK1 1914 LDO marked or w/o maker mark!

Back to your exemples! What evidence you have that the compared EK1 1914 or 1870 were made 1914 or 1870?
The 1870 are on my knowlege a small edition hand made EK1! Not what we know as 1914 or the shown 1870!

If you see all EK2 1914 you will not find any with the WW2 frame or Juncker Wide Frame Schinkel! And most of the maker use the same frame for EK2 and EK1!

What would you say, if you only compare EK1 1914 made after 1930?

Where is the needed confidance level?

[streptile]

What evidence you have that the compared EK1 1914 or 1870 were made 1914 or 1870?

Hi 5tefan,

Thank you for your reply.

There is no question that this frame was used since 1908 at the latest.

There has been much research on the subject. Here is one single example among thousands -- perhaps tens of thousands -- that predates WWII with the same frame as the Juncker Schinkel:

[streptile]

Here is the AWS cross with its first wartime core next to a photo from 1915, again the Juncker Schinkel frame:

[streptile]

And here is the 1870 AWS next to the 1908 AWS catalogue, also with the same frame as the Juncker Schinkel:

[Wik]

Great article, Trev. Thanks for sharing and glad you could chime in on the subject.


Ryan

[ben bijker]

I read already everythink! Maybe it must be the 1st of April joke

Ok, did Orth marked 15 made Schinkel EK1 ?

See picture comparison! Of an wide frame Juncker and Orth marked 15 - the same cross like in the "The Iron Cross 1. Class" book from Dietrich März & George Stimson page 102!!!

1st Picture: Juncker "Wide-Frame Schinkel" vs. common Orth marked 15!

2nd Picture: Juncker "Wide-Frame Schinkel" vs. Paul Meybauer (Schinkel)

I can understand that every one want a Schinkel

Stefan,
one of the definitions of a Schinkel is : a 1939 core in pre- '39 frames (left-over stock)
Trevor proved very well that these frames are pre-45, so it is a Schinkel per definition.

The ek2 "half-schinkels" we have seen so far have all been upgraded to schinkels because the frames could be traced back to 1914, so it is not just about the shape of the cross.
Schinkel B has absolutely NOTHING in common with a meybauer or Deumer Schinkel.

I agree the shape of the Juncker Schinkel has more in common with an average 1939 ek then a Meybauer, or a Deumer.
Nonetheless, the frames go way back before 1939 as Trevor has proved very clear.
I can also understand that everyone wants a Schinkel, I thought my collection had finshed at 13 different crosses...

Best regards,
Ben

Trevor: I just noticed you posted a lot, thanks for the additional "evidence".
You have made it very clear, these frames go way back in time.

[5tefan]

OK, good points for you both Ben and Trevor

Ok but let me ask two more question.

EK2 B-Schinkel and Half-Schinkel is clear! B-Schinkel and Half-Schinkel has nothing to do with WW2 frame form!

And AWS has use the WW2 frame form for EK2 1870 and EK1 1914 pre 1918.

It's seems that AWS was the only maker who use the 1939 frame form before1918!

But what has AWS to do with Juncker?

Maybe my question will give us more details about the Juncker Wide Frame 1939 Version!

Can someone show us a 1914er Juncker WW2 Edition and 1914er WW1 Edition with Juncker Wide Frame to compare it with the Juncker Wide Frame 1939?

Trevor, no doubt it is a very good and very interesting thread and I like to get the needed evidence to it and maybe all of us can benefit from my annoying statements or questions