I dont have the slightest problems with Williams Sprungring being original to the cross. Anyway, why someone would change all the Sprungringe? Are there collectors out there who only are searching for pieces of wire? I dont think so.
-
-
Stef,
you would not believe how many (unquestionalbe real) single loops I have seen and handled. I do not know why, but it is a fact. Also, for whatever reason, dealers change loops since decades. Maybe one reason is to please some "theory" that this and that loop only goes with this and that Knights Cross ...
The pool is in certainly tainted in some areas and that is reason for caution!
Dietrich
PS: Don't get me wrong - there are loop types which are clearly attributable to certain cross types and even a certain period! But that is NOT the case for ALL loops!
It is so easy to say "Loop wrong" but it seems immensly more tougher to explain why!Comment
-
Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post
I think that there was some information presented a while ago about the specific dimensions of known original RK loops, relative to each maker. I may be wrong, but I think you have information about the proper loops in your text on RKs as well.
Given that, it is a little easier to reproduce a decent loop, as compared to an RK itself, that has so many subtle die flaws and nuances that make them very, very difficult to replicate.Comment
-
Yes, there is some information in my book, even about the general appearance of the Juncker loops related to the types. As I said, with certain types the loops can be paired, the "65" or "L/12" marked loops being the most prominent examples. Or the typical "Imperial style" loops of C.F. Zimmermann. But that whole topic is far from being safe, it is only empirical.
It is always the same problem in our hobby: it is fairly easy to say what is 100% good or 100% bad, it is far tougher to judge the in betweens. Especially when no dimensional data are accompanied and the item is hand-made (compared to die struck).
DietrichComment
-
I agree 100% with Mr Maerz on this. And why would it be necessary to change the loop in the first place. Except to replace it with the oakleaves. All these comments about "wrong loops" is just crazy.Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post
KeconComment
-
The loop is the weakest part of the Knight's Cross. I could easily believe that this became bent or damaged from wear and combat use. I am sure replacement loops were available. There is more than one example of Oak Leaves and Oak Leaves and Swords with damaged wire from wear and tear.
Bob HritzIn the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.
Duct tape can't fix stupid, but it can muffle the sound.Comment
-
I would not doubt that both new ribbons/new ribbons with new loops were commercially available for purchase for those wanting them.Comment
-
I have read some time ago Galland used a paper clip for his Knights cross
Comment
-
Galland relates that story in connection with Goering taking away his Brilliants award (after he looked at it and said the stones were inferior and that the "Fuehrer had been swindled"). He had nothing else to attach the cross back to the ribbon except a paper clip. Later, according to the story, Goering gave him back the original piece together with a new set of the Brilliants which Goering had had commissioned, with finer stones. (So now he had two sets. Hitler heard about this and later gave Galland a third set, saying the the first set had been meant to be "only temporary". Later in the war, after Galland and Goring "fell out" over the conduct of aerial operations, and Galland stopped wearing his decoration, Galland says he hung the cross with Brilliants around the neck of a stuffed bird he had in his office. The office was destroyed by bomb damage and the "bird's set" was lost. Galland says he then received a fourth set. Whether you believe all this or not, photos clearly show Galland, at the time of his surrender, wearing a Klein - 2nd pattern - piece and not the 1st pattern award he had initially received in 1941.)
Regarding the current cross in this thread, the loop is simply not the customary loop associated with Juncker for this kind of cross and seen on mint and still cellophaned sets from Klessheim. How and when this loop (and ribbon) came to be there is anyone's guess and it can be argued forever. Did Juncker occasionally use a different loop from the one customarily seen? Did the owner replace it during the war? Did someone else replace it after the war? How you prove any of that is beyond me. I cannot tell you how many crosses I have seen in their "virgin state", just directly from U.S. vets, which were missing the loops and ribbon completely, but it has been a lot. I wouldn't want to bet that the original recipient was always an Oakleaves (or higher) recipient, too.
The cross itself is a fine original.Comment
-
Let's switch the question. How many % of the lazy 2 cross family are known with this kind of loop?
What is the sense that the Juncker company using two diferrent loop (maker mark font style) It would be ridiculous, if only the end cut would be. Just for fun from the 500, how many pieces did you see with this "not good" loop? In 2007 if You accepted why did you not published it then? I think it can be found in the USA...Why it should legalize that loop made by Juncker, whose interests is this?
PS: Luckily there are dissidents, but I note silently I didn't read about that "not good" loop why be good.
Comment
-
You don't seem to understand the question nor the the topic itself. At no point in this thread or anywhere else did I say that the loop is good or bad. This is just an assumption by you, as so often.Originally posted by kraut72 View PostLet's switch the question. How many % of the lazy 2 cross family are known with this kind of loop?
What is the sense that the Juncker company using two diferrent loop (maker mark font style) It would be ridiculous, if only the end cut would be. Just for fun from the 500, how many pieces did you see with this "not good" loop? In 2007 if You accepted why did you not published it then? I think it can be found in the USA...Why it should legalize that loop made by Juncker, whose interests is this?
PS: Luckily there are dissidents, but I note silently I didn't read about that "not good" loop why be good.
Here is the question again for you and maybe this time you will answer it:
- what is the diameter of the wire? (or better, how can you judge a loop without knowing any dimensions?)
- why is this loop in your opinion not a Juncker made loop resp. a fake as you say?
- nobody is asking you to "legalize" this or any other loop. If you imply that somebody is trying to "legalize" a fake loop, say so and say it with facts.
This is a serious forum and when you make a statement it is under intelligent people usual to explain why. You owe it to the owner of the cross, too.
If you don't "like" the stamp, than say so, but don't say "no good". Because you have no knowledge whatsoever whether that loop is good or not (like quite a few of the experienced collectors here have stated). The only thing you can say is that this stamp is (maybe) not the same as the 5 or 6 others you have seen on photos of Juncker crosses.
You know, being or trying to be a "dissident" takes more than just say "no good". Educate us all and let us learn from you: Why is this loop and nearly all the others you saw here "no good"? If you can't then please use different wording in the future.Comment
-
Yes these are the typical prestige comments that going nowhere, whose read it then he knows it....Comment
-
Dear Mr. Rich
The only fact I can tell you is:
The loop is not the regular loop for a lazy2 - micro2 - upright2.
None of the cellophaned sets I have seen in collections in Europe or the USA had a different sprungring.
None of the pieces in my collection have a different type of sprungring.
From the crosses I have I can only say they have the same font, with slight variation because of the pressure during application.
----) concerning the loop, the two reasons I don't like it is
a. The tip finish
b. The position of the stamp ( for a Juncker sprungring)
I hope this anwers your question in why I believe the sprungring is not a correct Juncker sprungring and replaced.
Sincerely
KevinComment
-
Instead of giving non-sensical answers you should admitt that you don't know any of the answers of any of the questions. It is very easy to give "one liners" as an answer, but it is a complete different thing to answer intelligently when challenged.Originally posted by kraut72 View Post
You should take Kevin's answer as an example of an intelligent answer - trying to insult me will not provide you with any "prestige."Comment
-
Kevin,
regarding to what you say about the tip you also must stae that the loop of this cross is a replacement or even a fake! Or not?
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=839919
Or would you say that you now have seen a genuine Juncker late loop with different tips and your knowledge horizon has been expanded?
DietrichComment
Comment