Junker RK for Review

[Tony T-S]

It means that I suspect the 800 mark was added after construction

[DougO]

It means that I suspect the 800 mark was added after construction

Do we know when in the construction process the stamps were 'normally' added? Were they not all added after construction? From reviewing other crosses, it does appear that the placement of the stamping varies a bit on each example. Does a low stamping somehow indicate something special?

[Dave Wyatt]

Maybe I should of clarified my comment. As it’s not a “Junker” as claimed, or maybe it is. I said it appears to be a S&L micro 800, what I should of said was it’s trying to appear as a micro 800 as Juncker did not mark their RK’s with a micro 800 stamp. Maybe it was added to the frame by someone after the fact, but it could be one of the “high end” fakes. I don’t know these new fakes that well. Not sure on this one but the micro 800 stamp is wrong on a Juncker, and it does appear micro to me. I would be curious to hear others opinions.

Now I understand where you were getting the S&L thing from. I’ll be honest, I didn’t even pick up on the small “800” stamp until it was mentioned. From the first set of photos, it looked to me as though the stamp was just placed very close to the beading ledge.

[DougO]

I think this RK is likely an early Junker with non-magnetic core and neusilber frame. The 800 is likely collector added post-war.

[Dave Wyatt]

Looking at this thing again, and now knowing the core is non-magnetic, I think this is a very early Juncker with non-silver frame that someone mucked up later by adding a fake “800” stamp to it.

[Tony T-S]

That was my thought to hence the stamp comment. It looks very much like the first RK listed in the Juncker section of our RK database.

[Tom B]

Looking at this thing again, and now knowing the core is non-magnetic, I think this is a very early Juncker with non-silver frame that someone mucked up later by adding a fake “800” stamp to it.

If the 800 was "added", it was not recent that's for sure.