Juncker Schinkel, different core-finish

[ben bijker]

The Definition is hard but let's at least call it a Schinkel and not a Shinkle.

I fully agree, but in my " other" schinkel post I had a typo in the thread title.
you can edit all you want, but IT DOESN'T WORK FOR THE TITLE..

[Tiger 1]

My definition of a Schinkel is a 1939 EK made with frames/dies that was made before 1918. But then what about the 'One piece Otto Schickle' Schinkel and what about all those frames/dies made between 1918 and before the new Nazi regulations came into place?

The Definition is hard but let's at least call it a Schinkel and not a Shinkle.

OK. It's Schinkel.

Now can anyone show me a 44mm pre-1918 frame that ead also used 1939 onward?

If there are none then maybe we should call them Schicklegrubber perhaps.

Tony

[Wik]

OK. It's Schinkel.

Now can anyone show me a 44mm pre-1918 frame that ead also used 1939 onward?

If there are none then maybe we should call them Schicklegrubber perhaps.

Tony

Tony,

Trev made this thread a while back, discussing the theory. It is rather seamless (in my lowly opinion anyhow) and I applaud Trevor's work. I think this thread, more than anything, has shown most the logical reason(s) why many of us have taken to calling these Junckers "Schinkel".

For those members who only frequent the TR era section though, you can read up and learn a great deal about the "father" and "grand-father" crosses to your TR ones. This is one such example. To really understand a maker, especially one like Godet, Juncker, AWS, etc etc, you must learn and understand all of (or as much as possible) that companies history and products (or at least in regards to the specific items, in this case EKs) to see the potential conclusions.

When I started collecting I thought I could just study TR, because that was my only interest, and I would know all I need to know. After looking into Imperials though it unlocked a whole new world I didn't know about and showed me some very interesting information about certain companies I never would have thought possible.


Ryan

[Montgomery Burns]

no ageing signs off the form that pressed the AWS frame
in 55 years off use ??? no die flaws on the crosses found ????

wow ...

I do not believe in the 1890's connection ...


al do there is 1 spange with on off these aws's ,,to me manufacture and looks,,,, its 1920/ 1930's .,,maybe late ww1







.













.

[Wik]

Sorry, I forgot to provide the link. http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...hlight=Juncker


The great thing about collecting is you can agree with or chose to ignore any theory that pops up on these forums.

The thing is, as I see it, this hobby is always evolving and in this particular case, the research done by Trevor is as solid as any research provided in any of the new era books. It is a fact, that these frames and their respective size and measurements are spot on with the 1870 series, the 1914 series and the 1939 series.


Ryan

[ben bijker]

wow ...

I do not believe in the 1890's connection ...


al do there is 1 spange with on off these aws's ,,to me manufacture and looks,,,, its 1920/ 1930's .,,maybe late ww1







.













.

Wear is caused by being used, not by aging.
Who knows how made frames were made with this die??

Deschler crosses all have the same frame, so the must have had a super-die as well.

[Wik]

Wear is caused by being used, not by aging.
Who knows how made frames were made with this die??

Deschler crosses all have the same frame, so the must have had a super-die as well.

Exactly, Ben. And we all know the 1870 series, specifically the jubilee, which is what most Imperial collectors widely accept the wide-frames to be, are a short run of crosses.

The point being, in the early days of this frame die, the crosses weren't being massed produced. So it would have had a very light amount of wear from the early 1900s-1914 when it would have seen its first mass-produced run (WWI). The beading flattening, the corner die flaws etc (as Trev showed in his article) are all results of this larger amount of use. Still, it was in considerably better shape than many frame dies we see in the TR era, resulting in Juncker going back to them at the start of WWII.

[Montgomery Burns]

I leave the subject to rest ...











.














.

[Montgomery Burns]

one thing to be clear about ...


I do believe the AWS task off Trevor was a wonderful and well researched thread ...in all aspects.

refreshing and renewing ,,I myself put a link to it ,, in the data base AWS
as I was convinced it was a unmissable thread fore anyone collecting AWS crosses ....
.and in general fore eny imperial collector as example off research and collecting and charring it with collectors community..without asking anything back .

so ,,,,only the point off 1890 I am disagreeing...

with reasons ,,,,,, and not to put his achievement in his AWS research down ...

I respect that achievement to much ,,,,as I wood lower myself to do such a thing .








.











.

[streptile]

Hi Kay,

Thanks for your nice words.

I'll stick by c. 1890 as the correct date.

... I think this conversation is now in the wrong subforum, and that many are wondering what the hell we are talking about

[Wik]

Kay,

No worries bud I didn't think you were bashing or being rude at all. I was just simply pointing to the evidence Trev had shown. You were one of the first members to thank Trevor for his work and as I said, no one HAS to believe it. Just simply, some of us feel that his idea/opinion/theory is spot on, some might think it is far off!

Trev,

yes, that maybe! lol I had only wanted to link that thread for anyone interested in Juncker crosses, the potential history and while I figured Tony probably already was aware of it, I wasn't sure so I thought he may be interested in what you had posted on the subject. Just showing that some of us didn't start e-mailing each other one day to create this wild "Schinkel Juncker" theory and just randomly dreamt it up!


Ryan

[Tiger 1]

Wik, Kay, Trevor,

I know that quite a lot of thought and speculation have gone into these theories presented here. I certainly will not denigrate these efforts.

But, with the various exact dating being put forward I have to ask the question that every collector/reasercher must ask .........How do you know these 'facts' presented to be true? What is the proof you have build on?

Speculation, while fine as theory, is not fact anymore than a new concensus as to what some of us may currently call a certain type or form.

The proposal that any frame style originating before 1918 is a Schinkel form is a nondefinition. If we carefully consider that all frame styles have their origin in the early design as put forth by Schinkel, then by extention all Iron Crosses would thereby be Schinkel types. By extention of this logic my modest collection of well over 100 Imperial EKs have all become the previously scarce and desirable Schinkel types. Cool.

Just some thoughts from a long time EK collector.

All the best,

Tony

[Montgomery Burns]

Wik, Kay, Trevor,

I know that quite a lot of thought and speculation have gone into these theories presented here. I certainly will not denigrate these efforts.

But, with the various exact dating being put forward I have to ask the question that every collector/reasercher must ask .........How do you know these 'facts' presented to be true? What is the proof you have build on?

Speculation, while fine as theory, is not fact anymore than a new concensus as to what some of us may currently call a certain type or form.

The proposal that any frame style originating before 1918 is a Schinkel form is a nondefinition. If we carefully consider that all frame styles have their origin in the early design as put forth by Schinkel, then by extention all Iron Crosses would thereby be Schinkel types. By extention of this logic my modest collection of well over 100 Imperial EKs have all become the previously scarce and desirable Schinkel types. Cool.

Just some thoughts from a long time EK collector.

All the best,

Tony

Tony ,



I am fore sure ,,, not yet ready or willing to reveal knowledge or resources to soon .....about some crosses.




but some are surprisingly easy to date do

I know at least Trevor to is working on dating all his crosses by research ..maybe he wants to reveal some off his methods ...


regards kay





.

[streptile]

The proposal that any frame style originating before 1918 is a Schinkel form is a nondefinition.

Hi Tony,

I don't think anyone has ever proposed such a definition.

There is a robust discussion of the subject here. Rather than split the discussion over here, maybe you could revive that thread if you have something to add to it?

...with the various exact dating being put forward...

Also, I feel personally that the evidence for dating this EK (below) to as early as 1890 is very strong, and includes groupings, design evidence, and catalogue photos. I have never personally proposed an "exact date" for it, although it is shown in the 1908 AWS catalogue so we do have an exact "latest possible date." It is fairly well discussed here.


photo + cross: Tiger 1

[Montgomery Burns]

here is what we got

Schinkel design 1813 /1870/1914 to 1942 ( without guarantee's off deviations to that )

Schinkel A design 1939 to 1942 ( without guarantee's off deviations to that )

Schinkel B design 1939 to 1942 ( without guarantee's off deviations to that )

halb Schinkel design 1870/ 1939 to 1942 ( without guarantee's off deviations to that )

LDO design 1942 to 1957 ( without guarantee's off deviations to that )

oversize design 1813 /1870/1914 to 1945 ( guaranteed )

wide frame design 1813 /1870/1914 to 1945 ( without guarantee's off deviations to that )

so far as what I know about the word Schinkel

so it is easy to have a endless discussion ....





.