Spanish Cross Silver "CEJ" with Swords

[Neil Howes]

I think it is a combination of the hand finishing & a hard life!!
The arms on the swaz's are all over the place!!

Reverse:

[Brian S]

Good thread Joe, does anyone you know of have an example of an accepted Juncker made SC other than the examples from the same die I posted and Neil posted?

[jacques]

I just found this cross on another site .

It seems that this die was used by other manufacturers than juncker, here by steinhauer & luck. except the hook and attach system, the rest looks quite identical.
jacques

[stogieman]

If the point of the research is.....

.... to find an example of a Silver Cross, bearing a CEJ logo & silver mark, why post a bronze cross at all?? We (supposedly) are not looking at the die charachteristics of fake Spanish Crosses. We are trying to find examples of real silver ones.

Of course it's interesting that:
A) You feel that this example is quite the same as your Silver fake
B) That Jaques does not like this bronze cross either
C) That the dealer who supplied pictures of this cross wishes to remain anonymous!

[Brian S]

I think Joe is trying to show that another example, albeit bronze, matches the silver example he posted. Proves that, if fake, more than just silver examples were struck, if real, the same die was also struck to create these. I don't find it unusual that a dealer won't post an example of a socially unacceptable badge until proof positive emerges. And, I think it's to Joe's credit that people trust him with their information.

[stogieman]

Gee, I was under the impression...

.... that we had already accepted that the Silver cross that started this thread is a fake. What did I miss?

[Brian S]

.... that we had already accepted that the Silver cross that started this thread is a fake. What did I miss?

I'm not sure what is fake and what is not accepted as a genuine wartime example. I am sure the one I posted is an accepted wartime example. I am NOT sure the bronze and the silver are wartime examples. Fake? I don't know.

Even Detlev's exact words in describing items of unknown origin are;

"The below described and pictured item is from my point of view a modern reproduction,that was not made during the time of official award:"


I personally much prefer this distinction than embarassing myself by categorically declaring an item as a fake, unless I see it for sale on a reproduction site as such.

[stogieman]

Thanks Brian!

I will try in the future to continue to not embarass myself by selling anything other than an award that was only made "during the official time of award".
I'd really hate to get into a debate concerning WW2 pieces, that "were not made during the official time of award". So basicly, I will only deal with ww2 items made between 1935 and 1945, and Imperial items made prior to 1918 (with perhaps a gray area between 1918 and 1945 for Imperial).
I am curious though, if a WW2 award "was not made during the official time of award", what exactly is it then?
I am unaware that any collector of WW2 Badges & crosses, accepts items made after 1945 as originals. Yet again, it appears I have missed some significant development in the collecting marketplace!
So, help me out here, now, as collectors and dealers, we will have to contend with the following categories:
A) Original, War-Time production of Official Awards, made prior to the end of the War in 1945.
B) Fakes of category (A)
C) Items "not made during the official time of award". That is to say, items NOT made prior to the end of the war in 1945.
D) Fakes of category (C)??
<p>
Yet again, a thread wanders away from the original purpose. Perhaps we should just get back to what Joe was trying to determine.
<p>
Does anyone have any examples of a Spanish Cross in Silver, maker marked CEJ (boxed) that DOES NOT have a silver content mark?

Not Bronze crosses
Not Gold crosses
Not L-12 Crosses

[Joseph D'Errico]

Hello Gentlmen,

The reason for posting pics of the bronze cross I thought to be obvious, BUT, futhur clarification seems to be needed.

- The first cross I posted was and is excepted as a non period example for various reasons pertaining to what is excepted to be original. Simply put by the members that own at least one example or have a high degree of background on the award.

- The reason for posting the Bronze example is to show that this type of example was not just limited to the Silver grade. Now if a different die was used and showed the same design, that is an interesting point I think and would mean something to me. Also I would find it interesting that if a different die was used and the maker marks were different ,say one not accepted and the other of the more excepted mark, even more interesting.

@Rick, it does not matter whether the dealer wishes to be know or not and is irrelivant. What is most important is the research into the award and the examination of what is proposed for futhur clarification as well as a better understanding of construction changes from the first examples to the latter ones. Did you not learn anything new from Jacques posting of the differnt CEJ marks or the examples posted by Neil and Brian in reference to the Swaz , in addition the bronze example appears to have come from the same die, but has a more accepted maker mark.I must confess that I learned somethings that I was not aware of. I would find it hard to accept that this thread has not produced some beneficial information for some.

- I very am clear on my position when I say this a research project. It may or not interest some, but that is the way it is with all sujects discussed on the forum.

I hope that this has helped clarify my thread as well as it's objectives.

Best,
JD

[Joseph D'Errico]

Hi Rick,

Just read your response after I posted mine.

You raise some interesting questions , but confusing. This is a multi - million dollar cash busisiness where the fake to real ratio is something like three original to every ten depending on the piece. So, it is very time consuming to really reaserch new thoughts as well as re-think old ones. Some find this process to be very frustrating and overwhelming. I caqn understand this, happens to me all the time when dealing with Soldbuchs and Wehrpass's. ( Thank god for Ian Jewson)

But, some find passion in the research speculation where other find frustration, it is simple and difficult at the same time. In the end it should always remain fun and thier will always be differences of opinions. But the key is to keep if fun and interesting.

Best,
JD

[Brian S]

You're missing my point Rick.

I'll try to speak more clearly.

Detlev does not call an item a fake.

He calls them IN HIS OPINION as NOT having been manufactured during the periods you describe.

We have SO many experts on this site who call items FAKE??? I can readily understand IMHO but categorically FAKE. I'm not that impressed by anyone's ability in that regard unless they were stamping badges at CEJ.

I am NOT arguing the pieces Joe posted are period pieces, I would tend to use Detlev's phrase in describing them.

My point was to say I WOULD NOT EMBARRASS MYSELF BY CALLING AN ITEM A FAKE. That has NOTHING to do with selling an item.

No fight intended here but I'm confused why my post was taken out of context.

[stogieman]

No, Joe that doesn't help me at all

If the example originally posted is "non period example", what on earth is the point of exploring other "non period examples", whether it's the maker mark, the die characteristics, or whatever? If it's not an original, what is the point?

The reason for posting pics of the bronze cross I thought to be obvious, BUT, futhur clarification seems to be needed.

- The first cross I posted was and is excepted as a non period example for various reasons pertaining to what is excepted to be original. Simply put by the members that own at least one example or have a high degree of background on the award.

- The reason for posting the Bronze example is to show that this type of example was not just limited to the Silver grade. Now if a different die was used and showed the same design, that is an interesting point I think and would mean something to me. Also I would find it interesting that if a different die was used and the maker marks were different ,say one not accepted and the other of the more excepted mark, even more interesting.

"@Rick, it does not matter whether the dealer wishes to be know or not and is irrelivant. What is most important is the research into the award and the examination of what is proposed for futhur clarification as well as a better understanding of construction changes from the first examples to the latter ones."
Again Joe, are you researching a "non period award"?? I don't understand this at all.

"Did you not learn anything new from Jacques posting of the differnt CEJ marks or the examples posted by Neil and Brian in reference to the Swaz , in addition the bronze example appears to have come from the same die, but has a more accepted maker mark.I must confess that I learned somethings that I was not aware of. I would find it hard to accept that this thread has not produced some beneficial information for some."

Yes Joe, what I learned was that an experienced collector has a number of examples of the CEJ logo (boxed) and they all have a silver content mark.
I believe this was the original premise and point of the thread.

"- I very am clear on my position when I say this a research project. It may or not interest some, but that is the way it is with all sujects discussed on the forum.

I hope that this has helped clarify my thread as well as it's objectives.

Best,
JD"

Well, it would seem I have totally missed the boat here! I've gone back and read your opening posts, regarding the existance and/or lack of existance of Silver Spanish Crosses, with a CEJ logo (boxed) and a silver content mark, repeatedly.
My guess is I am just not sophisticated enough to reralize that the true intent of the posting and initial discussion really did not have anything to do with this.
I thought we were discussing maker marks and silver content marks.
I thought we were discussing maker marks and the lack of silver content marks.

I apologize deeply for not comprehending that we were actually exploring the die characteristics, maker marks, etc. of "non period awards".

Please, continue your research unencumbered.

[Brian S]

...just toss in a grenade, Rick.

[Joseph D'Errico]

Hi Rick,

Your correct in the direction the thread started , then it evolved, and exspaned in topic. That is what makes it interesting.

PS IMHO , I think it makes good sense to devote as much time studing the fakes as well as the originals.

Best,
Joe

[Lorenzo Brown]

Hi Rick,

Your correct in the direction the thread started , then it evolved, and exspaned in topic. That is what makes it interesting.

Best,
Joe

Interesting, indeed!

We have 5 pages of very lively discussion on the Silver Spanish Cross. As an objective observer, I would summarize it as follows:

1) The Cross first shown by Joe at the beginning of this thread is not an original, war-time piece.

2) The bronze Cross shown by Joe is appears to be of the same manufacture a his Siver, so collectors are well advised that the same "post-war" pieces are made in bronze.

3) We have yet to see an original Juncker Spanish cross without BOTH the maker mark and the silver stamp. This does not rule out the possibility that one exists...however, we haven't seen one yet. So, collectors should be wary if they encounter such a Cross and examine it closely and get opinions before assuming it is authentic.

4) original "CEJ-in-the-box" marks do not have the top cross on the "J".

Have I summarized this thread correctly?