EK2 (Juncker?)

[StefanK.]

the second cross has very junckerish dates, while the numerals of the first cross are more different.

[StefanK.]

a comparison between the frames shows that they are similar but not from the same die imo. The cross below was awarded in september 1940.

[Gew44]

Hi Stefan,
two different die can't make the same defect. That's impossible, the defect are similar to fingerprints.

Good comparison, weel done

Ciao

[streptile]

Hi Stefan,

Extremely interesting comparisons and observations. Thank you!

I know both these types of crosses you show. One we call the "lug" variant, and other is known as a Juncker "long-flaw" variant. It never occurred to me to compare the frames but I do know there is some relationship between the two crosses.

I know both types with the same Juncker core (same core I show in my photo above), and I also know both types with the same odd "Z" mark, always marked into the solder of the ring (see below).

My opinion remains that this "lug variant" cross is probably not by Juncker, but there most certainly is a mystery here to unravel. I have an example of both these crosses in my collection, and I will look at the frames as well. The "long flaw" cross I have (which has no "Z" mark) is hands-down the most beautiful 39EK2 I own.

[StefanK.]

thanks Trevor!

"lug variant" because of the bump on the frame where the ring is soldered?

many greetings,
Stefan

[plaut]

Yes Stefan, that's why it's know as 'Lug'

[StefanK.]

Great thanks!

[fabri-online]

one step more

Hi Stefan
I have got a cross that we can put (maybe) chronologically in the middle of yours !! this core has dates that are a mix
of that ones in your crosses ! I have a thought all comes from the same Berliner manufactuer but looks we have a match
on frames. Or maybe yes on the 1st one ?? maybe we can make a compare next Saturday ?

[streptile]

I love this thread, and this research

The most interesting mystery in the Iron Cross world right now: who the hell made this "Lug" cross?

Fabri, I had one of the same types as yours:





Wish I'd kept it, but I sold it (who owns it now?)

So... is the "Z" mark really a "2" mark? I don't know. I remain skeptical, but open to change my mind. All we really need to see is this same mark on a frame we know for sure is a Juncker frame. We've seen the mark on plenty of crosses with a Juncker core, and on EK2s with the "long flaw" frame, which Stefan demonstrated has a shared lineage (at least) with the "lug" frame. But are these Junckers?

I just don't know...

[fabri-online]

Hi Trevor
yesterday I have maken a little search and I have found the cross you have showed here (that is really beautiful), it has same frame and same 1939 date but in my opinion the 1813 date is different, top of both 1 and the 3.
Please take a look to your email, I have sent you a couple of messages because I have bought a rare set (EKII + packet) that maybe could be a new step in the right direction (in my opinion it is).
I am inclined to think the lug cross is not a Juncker but most probably there was a collaboration between Juncker and another Berliner maker not present in the pk list.

[fabri-online]

I am inclined to think the lug cross is not a Juncker but most probably there was a collaboration between Juncker and another Berliner maker not present in the pk list.

I think so because cross showed in post n. 10 has a 1939 date already seen in Junckers, that in the same time looks the same cross with packet I am waiting for.
I hope it 'll be not just a hope..

[fabri-online]

to be clear, my cross showed below has dates as indicated with red lines

[streptile]

I am inclined to think the lug cross is not a Juncker but most probably there was a collaboration between Juncker and another Berliner maker...

Fabri,

I agree with you. This is my current thinking. But I would love to see more of these... whoever has a "lug," please post it. Let's see what we can see.

Here's another one I just sold (damn, why do I sell my good stuff?).

This one has the Z mark, a Juncker core, and the lug frame. Here I differentiate between the lug frame and the long-flaw frame, because I think they are possible to tell apart, if only by the size of the outer trim die. The long-flaw frame is quite a bit wider, having more flared arms.



.

[streptile]

.

[Wik]

Here is mine for research purposes, if needed/wanted. I had never seen this lug variant until I bought mine, about 2 years or so ago. Now I see them all over! I had made the same assumption initially that many make, it had the lug, looked like a nice cross, might be a Juncker.

Trev and Fabri both had great input back then about it and suggested it was not, in fact, a Juncker but an early war (at least my example?) cross that was of excellent construction and craftsmanship.

As far as the mark that your cross has Trev, mine has a roughed up side that basically makes any hope of seeing or telling if the ring was ever marked impossible. It is right at the joint as well, but it appears almost like some light pitting or rough grinding in that area.