Spanish Cross Silver "CEJ" with Swords

[stogieman]

OK, now I'm confused!

Joe, you opened this thread with the firm statement:
Quote: "One important point worth reference is that all of the dealers/advanced collectors agreed that Juncker marked pieces bearing the CEJ maker mark were not limited to silver content marked pieces, meaning that CEJ marked pieces were produced and marked with the CEJ mark and were alloy base medals as well high silver content pieces. Therefore, to use as a rule of thumb that all CEJ marked pieces must contain high silver content as well as silver mark to be original is incorrect. It is correct however, to say that pieces marked CEJ were produced early on using both alloys which were silver plated as well as high silver content pieces (high silver content pieces being stamped with the silver content)" End Quote
So, are you now abandoning this position?

[François SAEZ]

No Rick, it was done on purpose, like a joke, no Kermit?

[Joseph D'Errico]

No Rick,

Just turning to the forum members for some furthur clarification or examples.

I also stated that this was a gathering of information, but did not express my thoughts entirely.

Best,
JD

[Brian S]

Do you really expect one?

I've never seen one.

[jacques]

Hi

I don't have in my files such a mark for a silver cross. I just know CEJ 900, 900, L/12, L/12 900, CEJ (bronze cross). Whatever the marking, all the crosses show the same construction.
jacques

[Joseph D'Errico]

Thank you Jacques,

For taking the time to check through your files.

Best,
JD

[jacques]

Josef

Your cross does not show the recurent details or construction that I encountered on the Juncker SC. In my opinion this is not an original one.

Rick
Could you post better pics, close up of your one ? On the reverse pic, the swords grip looks more to the Steinhauer construction, but may be it's just the pic.
jacques

[Joseph D'Errico]

Dear Jacques,


In the first part of the thread I posted that the badge was not original. What we are looking for is a Spanish Cross that is marked CEJ in the box, but does not have a silver content stamping. That is if such an original piece exist. That is what we are trying to determine.

So, far the only pictured proof has been that all CEJ marked pieces in silver grade did possess a silver content mark.

Best,
JD

[Frank Heukemes]

There are Junkcer silver crosses that might be original and are not made or silver, but they are not marked CEJ but L/12.

[mott5ranch]

Is there any chance that this cross may be original, but not a Juncker? Perhaps it was an unmarked piece and someone along the way tried to make it a CEJ?
This is not unusual, Gordon mentioned that someone doctored an original Knight's Cross in an attempt to make it a Juncker. Could this be the case here?

[Joseph D'Errico]

Hi Gary,

I would say that their is no chance the cross is original, but does open the question of did Juncker produce a CEJ marked SP cross without a silver content mark. Since the standard is the silver content mark being present, so far that appears to be the excepted standard.


Clarification: Thus far the CEJ examples are silver content marked, but I been told that non-silver content pieces do exist with the CEJ maker mark. Unfortunately, no pics as of yet to prove or disprove this. But, the thread is just started and I would not close the book on it yet as we all have seen some surprising new evidence on other pieces arise in the past year. At this stage, no one can say they did not exist or exist for that matter.

In addition, can anyone post some nice close ups of the CEJ mark itself from the SCs. Just curious of how consistent the mark was.

Best,
JD

PS Isn't it funny how some members post pics of something that has never been seen before and have such an open mind because the badge belongs to them. However, when something new and different whether a theory or pic of something new is presented falls outside the box of orthodox, a much more cynical approach is taken. This thread is a theory that I was hoping to get some research information on, after all that is what we do here is research, correct.

In addition, I really find it non-serving when members post one-liners such as this is a repo. bad badge ect.. With no further explanation, am I the only non-expert here that does not need a concise explanation. Geese

@ Rick, in reference to trusted dealers that helped me along with this theory, well they belong to the forum, don't see them sticking their necks out. It is not my interest to name names but research the theories and pieces. Do you think our dealer members watch what is being discussed in this forum? Of course they do and will typically only interject when it is self-serving. They have the pics and the information as well, not to mention a thought. I do not see them posting anything? I know too busy. Well, I am kind of busy guy myself with a restaurant, family, web site etc. and still have time to interact on the forum. I think a little input from them as you say would be very helpful.<O</O
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[jacques]

Hi Gary,

In addition, can anyone post some nice close ups of the CEJ mark itself from the SCs. Just curious of how consistent the mark was.



PS Isn't it funny how some members post pics of something that has never been seen before and have such an open mind because the badge belongs to them. However, when something new and different whether a theory or pic of something new is presented falls outside the box of orthodox, a much more cynical approach is taken. This thread is a theory that I was hoping to get some research information on, after all that is what we do here is research, correct.

In addition, I really find it non-serving when members post one-liners such as this is a repo. bad badge ect.. With no further explanation, am I the only non-expert here that does not need a concise explanation. Geese

@ Rick, in reference to trusted dealers that helped me along with this theory, well they belong to the forum, don't see them sticking their necks out. It is not my interest to name names but research the theories and pieces. Do you think our dealer members watch what is being discussed in this forum? Of course they do and will typically only interject when it is self-serving. They have the pics and the information as well, not to mention a thought. I do not see them posting anything? I know too busy. Well, I am kind of busy guy myself with a restaurant, family, web site etc. and still have time to interact on the forum. I think a little input from them as you say would be very helpful.<O</O
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

May be you know or may be not that we are working (slowly) together François & me on an article on that topic. Not many doc exists on that cross, so we are trying to compilate all what we have and in addition to take help from all the kind collectors who share their treasures and knowledge. but this work just stay a documented opinion, as the DK article at a time. I'm always ready to learn something about this cross; for exemple I was sure that one of the cross (variant) shown some times ago on that forum was a copie; a clear family provinience of the same construction one + a better translation of some texts made me change my mind. All of that to say that it will be difficult to prove indiscutably that a silver wash bronze cross marked CEJ isn't genuine, but I'm open minded to get this proof; at the moment I not believe it, but my opinion just engage me and it's based on the construction comparisons.
If I find some good close up I'll post them

jacques

[jacques]

In addition, can anyone post some nice close ups of the CEJ mark itself from the SCs. Just curious of how consistent the mark was.

here are some close ups. I encountered too variants of this mark, centered on the size of the "900".
jacques

[Joseph D'Errico]

Dear Jacques,

Thank you kindly for the response as well as posting the maker marks, very helpful to my research. I noticed in all the examples that you posted of the MM the "J" does not have the horizontial stroke or is that jus look that way because it is close to the box ?

Best,
JD

[Mike H]

Detlev

Detlev has listed the following item this morning in his Friday Update:

Spanish cross silver with swords in case of issue [859] State II+
Silver "900" and CEJ", very good condition, in blue case of issue
Price:1900 Eur 2375$ 1311 £

Mike