Swaz opinions

[tom hansen]

Here is a close-up of a juncker RK swaz. Any opinons? Thanks

[Hank C.]

I'll have a go. It looks metal-like. Associated with 3rd Reich items. May be genuine WW 2 - but I'd want to look at the rest of the item.

[Dietrich Maerz]

The frist thing that come to my mind is this:

"Because filing to accomodate the swaz on the only other example of this being done- the juncker- results in rounded corners. To have a right angle cut is not how it was done on another known example." (Tom Hansen, 04-11-05)

Nice straight cut on that Juncker corner! This is an interesting cross..

Dietrich

[Dietrich Maerz]

The second thing that comes to mind is this:

Why is the paint of the core very 'rough' and the paint on top of the swastika very 'smooth'?

If this is attributed to wear (the only possible explanation, I guess...), the reverse of the cross should show what you explained to us earlier:

"The worn examples that I have show alot of wear on the BEADING on the reverse , particularly on inferior part of the 6 oclock arm. One would expect wear in this area with the cross dangling and rubbing up against the uniform, particularly in this area." (Tom Hansen, 03-23-05)

Dietrich

[Brian S]

Dietrich, Juncker cut corners to fit the swaz, but why is there a gap wide enough to drive a Panzer through?

Why does this arm start out looking misshapen and what looks like a line?

Swaz replaced postwar?

[tom hansen]

The second thing that comes to mind is this:

Why is the paint of the core very 'rough' and the paint on top of the swastika very 'smooth'?

If this is attributed to wear (the only possible explanation, I guess...), the reverse of the cross should show what you explained to us earlier:

"The worn examples that I have show alot of wear on the BEADING on the reverse , particularly on inferior part of the 6 oclock arm. One would expect wear in this area with the cross dangling and rubbing up against the uniform, particularly in this area." (Tom Hansen, 03-23-05)

Dietrich

It does- the beading is worn on the reverse as well as in the ring.

[tom hansen]

Dietrich, Juncker cut corners to fit the swaz, but why is there a gap wide enough to drive a Panzer through?

Why does this arm start out looking misshapen and what looks like a line?

Swaz replaced postwar?

Good eye!


That was a concern, given what you have pointed out here. However the dimensions of this swaz in all aspects is identical to a another lazy 2 cross. The size of the swaz on the K&Q and S&L is different. This appears to the exact dimensions of a juncker swaz.

I don't know if you guys remember, but about a year ago I posted a juncker cross in which the size of the swaz was a little larger than the other juncker swaz. I think it was Dietrich and Peter that found assymmetry and it was discovered that the swaz was applied to a previously de nazified cross.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Could you please show the reverse!

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

Could you please show the reverse!

Dietrich

I am at work and do not have access to those photos at this time. I will get those later this evening.

[Brian S]

Why is the paint of the core very 'rough' and the paint on top of the swastika very 'smooth'?

"The worn examples that I have show alot of wear on the BEADING on the reverse , particularly on inferior part of the 6 oclock arm. One would expect wear in this area with the cross dangling and rubbing up against the uniform, particularly in this area." (Tom Hansen, 03-23-05)

Dietrich

The look of this cross is troubling. As you point out the paint is nicely specked on the core and the swaz is a smooth look. Not the classic wear we've been told so much about recently. And we know now there is no room for variation.

[Brian S]

Reminds me of this one, the look of having been postwar or during the war, I don't care which, of being overlayed on the cross. And not with great care as that gap shows.

[tom hansen]

The look of this cross is troubling. As you point out the paint is nicely specked on the core and the swaz is a smooth look. Not the classic wear we've been told so much about recently. And we know now there is no room for variation.

Hey- Go at it. If it is altered or a fake, that is what we should be doing is tearing these things apart and asking these questions.

The core is slightly loose on this as well. There may be some slight variability in the gap between the swaz and the beading from that regard. Again, all the dimensions of the swaz itself is identical to another lazy 2.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Since you agreed to post the reverese, I might as well do it now. Very rough paint and not 'worn' on top of the date, like it is on the swastika.

As a side note: I like the cut off "3". Not because it's beautifull, rather because this is a beautifull argument against "They would never do THIS". If that would be a Rounder, people with forks would stand before my house!

It also should be noted that we are talking about a "Lazy 2", presumably late war.

[Brian S]

...tearing these things apart and asking these questions.

Oohhhhhh.

[Brian S]

If that would be a Rounder, people with forks would stand before my house!

With the Internet they don't have to travel to your home with pitch forks and torches, they can tar and feather right here on the forum.