Juncker U-Boat Timeline

[Norm F]

Hi Norm,

Is one version considered 'more rare' than the other?

Thanks,
Mark

Hi Mark,

Impressions may vary depending on whether you frequent the internet vs militaria shows, but in general my impression is that for Tombak versions the variably hand finished Type 1 badges are more rare than the standardly stamped Types 2 and 3.

Among the zincers, the unflawed Type 4 from the later die lacking the laurel leaf tip is actually much more common than the earlier types, although the reverse setup on the 4.2 is also rare.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

In this photo of Andy's badge am I seeing a die flaw at the stern as well? It would appear that this die is starting to have some serious issues, is that why we get a new die for the type 4?

JAndrew

Hi JAndrew,

Thanks for the kind comments. It's my pleasure to give something positive back to this great hobby. The power of the internet is such that, without this great community of collectors and contributors on the forum, this work wouldn't be possible, and I'm grateful for the wealth of posted material and the opportunity to contribute.

Regarding Andy's badge, that's a typical (albeit stunning) Type 2.1, and I think that small stern flaw is a "one-off" rather than a die flaw. It's not present on any other examples of this type that I've seen, so probably either from some debris in the die during production or a defect in that particular blank planchet.

Best regards,
---Norm

[BubbaZ]

Norm,
Thank you very much for your great work and for sharing of the results with our community!
I enclose image of my two Juncker tombak U-boats.
First is 1.2.1 variation.
Cheers,
Hubert

[BubbaZ]

close up of an eagle on 1.2.1.

[BubbaZ]

and now my 3.1 variant.

[BubbaZ]

My 3.1 reverse with pin up and the closeup of the eagle.

[BubbaZ]

Hinge and catch on my 3.1 variation.
Cheers,
Hubert

BTW, this thread should be pinned for reference and Norm, do not forget about S&Ls

[Robert P.]

Nice work Norm!

The Juncker U-Boat collector has a real job on his hands now collecting every variety.

Here's a shot I like. It shows the vast difference in thickness between the Juncker badge with the round wire catch (left), and the Juncker badge with the flat wire catch (right). I wish I still had these badges to study them further in leau of your research.

My best,
Robert

[Norm F]

Here's a shot I like. It shows the vast difference in thickness between the Juncker badge with the round wire catch (left), and the Juncker badge with the flat wire catch (right). I wish I still had these badges to study them further in leau of your research.

My best,
Robert

Hi Robert,

Your two badges show a nice side-by-side comparison of a Type 1 and a Type 2. Your earlier one (Type 1) is the very thick one with the hand cutouts and round-wire catch while the later one (Type 2) is thinner with standardized cutouts and has a flat-wire catch.

The Type 1 badges with the straight pin (1.1) are far less common than those with the coke bottle-shaped pin (1.2), but I think now they may actually be later than the commoner setup, and just before the transition to the standard 2.1.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Robert P.]

Well done, Norm

Robert

[Mike Kenny]

Hi Norm,

Yet another excellent contribution to make life easier for collectors!

Great job. Well Done and Thanks!!

Regards
Mike

[Martin W]

Hi Norm,

Yet another excellent contribution to make life easier for collectors!

Great job. Well Done and Thanks!!

Regards
Mike

I'll second that Mike.

Indeed thanks Norm.

Regards,Martin.

[mmiller]

Norm,

Excellent article and reference work. Here are the three original images I posted some years ago, which made me think that the unmarked UBOOT badge I had was indeed, an unmarked Juncker. I still remember, at the time, Gordon thought this to be substantial evidence supporting the Juncker maker theory. The exact hardware on the Spanges was utilized on the Sub Badge.

However, it is worth noting that the earlier First Style Spange used a FLAT WIRE Catch, while the later Second Style Spange used the ROUND WIRE Catch. Not sure if, or how, that fits in with your UBOOT 'catch' timeline.

Regards,
Mark

[Norm F]

Norm,

Excellent article and reference work. Here are the three original images I posted some years ago, which made me think that the unmarked UBOOT badge I had was indeed, an unmarked Juncker. I still remember, at the time, Gordon thought this to be substantial evidence supporting the Juncker maker theory. The exact hardware on the Spanges was utilized on the Sub Badge.

However, it is worth noting that the earlier First Style Spange used a FLAT WIRE Catch, while the later Second Style Spange used the ROUND WIRE Catch. Not sure if, or how, that fits in with your UBOOT 'catch' timeline.

Regards,
Mark

Hi Mark,

Yes, you were one of the original pioneers in the Juncker U-Boat attribution and spot on.

The Juncker Spange timeline is certainly confusing. You can see both the flat-wire catch and the round-wire catch used in the 1st pattern while it seems mostly round-wire in the second pattern. Also we see a variety of main pins, and it's not clear if they represent a timeline or just simultaneous usage. I agree that Juncker seems to have adopted the flat-wire catch early on in Spange manufacture.

But I don't think that affects the U-Boat timeline. The 4 major categories seem to fit nicely into a loose timeline, whereas the chronology of the subtypes is much less clear. Having said that there must have been overlap in production lines since we see Types 2 and 3 occur in both Tombak and zinc before the exclusively zinc Type 4. So maybe while one station was still producing Type 1 badges a new station was starting to churn out Type 2 badges?

The same applies to the Schwerin "timeline". Really these are classification systems to cover all the subtypes and facilitate further study and communication. They function only loosely as timelines, no doubt with overlap and variability in practise.

As an added wrinkle, despite all our interesting classifications and attributions to a single firm, there still remains the possibility of a consortium of firms sharing resources, contributing to a final product under one main proponent. I'm not saying this is the case, but we could theorize for example that Juncker produces a design and master die and farms out subsequent production steps to others, perhaps all having to pass a quality check and adjustments back at Juncker in the end to satisfy the LDO? There are several other examples of "Juncker-like" products that have mystified collectors and which could potentially be explained by such a business model.

Best regards,
---Norm

[RichardT]

Outstanding work Norm!!!

Richard