Ek1
Looks like it is there. Here is another pic.
Looks like it is there. Here is another pic.
-
-
Thanks ... just as I thought - I could see faintly on the other picture .
Now no question .... a trade mark of some W&L crosses .
DouglasComment
-
This is a two disc screwback from W&L, with the large disc missing. Has both W&L core and frame, not easy to find
Comment
-
w&l ek1
Well since it's missing part of the correct backing plate I'll grind off the post and weld on a pin so I can put it on one of my tunics that has award loops.Comment
-
NO!Originally posted by Sayle F View Post
Leave it as it is.
Try to find a disc for it or leave it as it is. Do not in any case destroy this cross!!!
If the cross doesn't fit your collection, sell it and buy an original pinback with the money. As grinding of the SB fixing and replacing it with a homemade pin on it will drop the value close to zero, but as largest concern for me; destroy history.Comment
-
W&l ek1
I was just kidding man
I was Just being a smart ass. I don't collect EKs I picked it up years ago and was going through some stuff and wanted to sell it and wanted to know what maker it was to use in my description. I did search the forums and could not find any like it so I started this thread. Thanks everyone for the help. The cross is safe.
Comment
-
-
This screwback setup is typically Juncker, and a very early one.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe the cross is really a Juncker.
In another thread was wrotten by Streptile (I'll copy and paste...and thank you in advance for using here your words, Trevor):
"Juncker used W&L frames and cores, we know this. The hardware on the reverse is typical Juncker, as is the material (this yellowish neusilber) and construction method (no bright silvering like W&L, rough finish)".
__________________
Streptile
.Comment
-
In my humble opinion, W&L used Juncker frames and cores (not the reverse)...Juncker was one of the very early makers of iron crosses during ww2, but not W&L (you can check the list of EK2 makers on december 6th 1939 that Dietrich published in another thread).
The recorded unmarked W&L screwback examples have the typical TR disc, as you can see in Dietrich's book.
Anyway, all this matter it's an interesting subject to discuss and debate.Comment
-
I know that this cross consists of a Juncker reverse and of material found mainly in Junckers crosses. But basicly the situation is similiar with this one as with the Godet DKIG and the Deumer connection or even a better example are the Godet and Zimmermann iron crosses.Originally posted by Eklipse View Post
But food for thought: the cross has a core and frame that is supposed to have been made from W&L, but materials that are commonly found on Juncker and the reverse is a juncker reverse. But as this cross is an "very" early product and W&L did not make EK that early in the war... who actually made then the frame and core?
But if we go according the things that we (officially) belive in at the moment, the cross consists of mainly W&L parts and a Juncker reverse. Is this a question who assembled it or who produced it? Just By looking at the parts I would say W&L, but looking from material Juncker. Who was it? Or were all parts just made by Juncker?
If you follow the "design" of the frame and cores, they are very similiar between the two makers. Or are they made by the same hand and the other die pair were just sold to the other?
In a bit similiar way that S&L did to many mid/late war producers, sold dies to "new makers".
I can't give the answer to the questions (yet), but I can speculate. As I do not belive anymore at all that "most" makers made own dies and parts. I noticed this with taking a closer look on the S&L and noticed that in most cases the arrow points to a strong S&L relation.Comment
-
I would think Juncker sold back plates with disks to W&L only ... and W&L finished the cross by using their core and front frame .
Team work creates the competitive edge .
DouglasComment
Comment