Swaz opinions

[tom hansen]

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.

It is a date, not the corners of the beading. There are many examples of this type of cut on the dates on other RKs as well as EK2s. The wacthler and lange comes to mind.


If you have access and can post those other photos, please do so, as I cannot do that from here. There is wear on the beading which may or may not be that clear from those photos.


See guys, I actually enjoy this piece being dissceted and scrutinized in great detail, as we should do that on every piece. I really do not see that as a witch hunt, it is detailed analysis. Every authentic piece should be able to hold up to that scrutiny. Tee off on the thing as I am interested in opinions, whether they are positive or negative. The fact that this is my cross is irrelevant to me. Your comments are not attacks, they are critcial (not in the negative sense) evaluations of a piece at hand. Those comments are very welcome and healthy.

[George Stimson]

"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."

But not on this ("Crosses") Forum, gentlemen....

[Dietrich Maerz]

It is a date, not the corners of the beading. There are many examples of this type of cut on the dates on other RKs as well as EK2s. The wacthler and lange comes to mind.

I know that! I never disputed that! I just think that we as a collector community should not measure with two different yard sticks..... and thanks for finally agreeing to that. So no more "any other cross doesn't have that"????

Here is the obverse:

[Brian S]

I know that! I never disputed that! I just think that we as a collector community should not measure with two different yard sticks..... and thanks for finally agreeing to that. So no more "any other cross doesn't have that"????

Here is the obverse:

You wish...

[Dietrich Maerz]

Here's the obverse date. Again very rough paint on the date and the core.

It also should be mentioned that the cross did come with an early case and most likely with a added loop.

There is no harm in discussing this. You just got it from Winkler and you could give it back if something would be wrong or not consistent (which it is in my mind: It's puzzled together, the loop and the case, at least)

[Dietrich Maerz]

What I find interesting is the missing paint chip on the "9". It shows the thickness of the paint (which is correct) but does not expose the iron. If one looks back again to the paint of the swastika, one can see that the paint thickness is a lot thinner and -where worn off - exposes the blank iron!!??

The black underneath the paint could be if the core was 'primed' with black. But that should show on the swastika also.

But it could also be a sign of repaint.

Have a look at the reverse. What are the two white strips? Could be anything, but maybe you can have a better look this evening.

This cross for sure shatters the common believe up to to date that Lazy 2's are late war and mostly pristine and unworn. This cross sure shows some signs of wear and use.

[tom hansen]

What I find interesting is the missing paint chip on the "9". It shows the thickness of the paint (which is correct) but does not expose the iron. If one looks back again to the paint of the swastika, one can see that the paint thickness is a lot thinner and -where worn off - exposes the blank iron!!??

The black underneath the paint could be if the core was 'primed' with black. But that should show on the swastika also.

But it could also be a sign of repaint.



This cross for sure shatters the common believe up to to date that Lazy 2's are late war and mostly pristine and unworn. This cross sure shows some signs of wear and use.

The white lines are from movement of the core. There is evidence of wear here on the beading as well as the ring. The chip was noted as well, however, there is no evidence of paint on any part of the beading to suggest a repaint. One would expect exposed metal at the chip unless threre was a layering or primer. However, this does not appear to be the case in the area where there is some core movement.

If you guys want to slam me, go ahead and do it, as that seems the focus here. What I have posted is a piece that is interesting from more than one aspect that I thought would be good to discuss. It has been reviewed privately already.

From the photos on the site, this cross does appear to question the late juncker lazy 2. Does it now? Again, I did not have to post this for anyone, this is to discuss the issue. I see that the interest has turned more to a focus on me than the topic itself, which is unfortunate.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tom,

why are you saying I'm slamming you? As I said earlier already, you can always give this cross back if you would feel it's not okay. I don't see any connection between you personally and this cross, and neither should you.

Fact is that this is a Juncker cross. There cannot be any doubt about it. The beading, the marking, all is as it has to be.

There are however certain points that raise questions and they might be stupid and completley unfounded. You did post the swastika for yourself.

If you don't want to discuss the wear, the thin and smooth paint on the swastika and the thin layer of paint were core movement exposed the iron contrary to the thick and rough paint on the date, so be it. The line indicated by Brian might be a freak thing, who knows?

Maybe this thread can show us something new about early Lazy 2? We are definetely seeing something that's different to other lazy 2 examples. That's all!

Dietrich

[tom hansen]

Here are some additional photos. One concern over this cross was the apparent "hump" on the initial photo of the swaz. It is just a shadow and is eliminated by a different view.

[tom hansen]

Another concern is repaint. Here is the areas that appear white on the core adjacent to the beading in previous photos. There is black under the thicker layer of paint, as there is in two defects on the reverse core.

[tom hansen]

other area

[tom hansen]

also of concern is the difference in appearance of the finish of the paint on the swaz and the core. Here is a view of the side of the swaz with the same texture paint as the core.

[Brian S]

If you are happy with it that's all that matters.

[Dietrich Maerz]

Tom,

thanks for posting the pictures which are basically answering all the questions I had. Thank you! Especially the side view of the swastika is very good, as well as the paint flake spots. It looks more or less exactly like the attached picture and is a clear sign of "not repainted".
So this is a very nice and genuine aged Lazy 2! If you could provide us with some more pictures of the beading. This all might come back to the question I raised earlier about the introduction of the PKZ number. Maybe lazy 2 are 'older' than assumed.

Dietrich

[Andy Mac]

Another Juncker centre,Andy