unusual Juncker U-Boat

[Norm F]

Hi Guys,

I just noticed what appears to be an unusual Juncker U-Boat badge posted on a Russian language forum. I think on that forum they thought it was a fake but I'm not so sure...

The main pin is bizarre but in other respects it looks like a Juncker Type 1.1.2 in the timeline thread with the same simple tube hinge and a lot of hand-finishing of the cutouts.

Any thoughts on these photos?

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

.

[Norm F]

..

[Hans Kondor]

IMO the badge is original for sure. I think the cut outs weren't made by the manufacturer and maybe when he made them he broke the pin and had to replace it.

Norm, I read your thread. I just want to ask that are there any other kriegsmarine Juncker badge with the early set-up, you posted in the 3th and 11th posts?

[AndyC]

Well the first thing i think of is the cut out swastika, thats not normal on a Juncker Uboot IMO


Andy

[Norm F]

IMO the badge is original for sure. I think the cut outs weren't made by the manufacturer and maybe when he made them he broke the pin and had to replace it.

Norm, I read your thread. I just want to ask that are there any other kriegsmarine Juncker badge with the early set-up, you posted in the 3th and 11th posts?

Hi Hans,

I assume you're talking about the straight wide pin of the Type 1.1 U-Boat. No, that pin doesn't appear on any other Juncker KM badges (that I know of). However, it is seen on the Juncker EK1 Spangen. The U-Boat was introduced in October, 1939 and the other KM badges didn't follow until much later, so the theory is that by that time Juncker had evolved to the other setups that we see on the later U-Boats and other KM badges (although the round-wire catch persisted in the later KM badges).

Regarding the cutouts, certainly Juncker did hand cut out the swastika and margins on their early production as we see in the Type 1.2.2 (as did the neighbouring firms of Schwerin and Meybauer) but later abandoned that labour-intensive step.

But the cutouts on these 1.1.2 variants are more drastic than those on the 1.2.1.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Hans Kondor]

Hello Norm,

yes the EKI spange is the only other variant used by Juncker I know so far. I just asked it because Deumer also used this set-up and we know the connection between Juncker and Deumer in the Luftwaffe badges, thats why I asked it.

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Norm,

I will go out on a limb here and say the badge is suspect for me. The obverse indeed looks very good, detail wise. But the reverse just has a "fake" look to it. The weird hinge and pin ofcourse, but also the look of the base metal or finish, something about it makes me sceptical. The catch also looks very amateurish IMO, just reminds me of fake badges.

Tom

[BubbaZ]

Hi Norm,
I am with Tom - at least a big suspect. Except of what Tom has said, the hinge looks too narrow and the badge is significantly hand vaulted but I do not see any traces of this process, no scratches or anything...?
Cheers,
Hubert

[Norm F]

Hi Norm,

I will go out on a limb here and say the badge is suspect for me. The obverse indeed looks very good, detail wise. But the reverse just has a "fake" look to it. The weird hinge and pin ofcourse, but also the look of the base metal or finish, something about it makes me sceptical. The catch also looks very amateurish IMO, just reminds me of fake badges.

Tom

Hi Tom,

It's interesting you would say that. Chuck (vonStubben) in the other thread questioned whether the 1.1.2 were originals because he had such badges posted as reproductions.

To my mind if the badge with the weird pin at the top of this thread is bad, then so too are all the "1.1.2" badges like the other two I just posted. To me they all show the same production features.

But I'm not yet quite ready to write them off. This needs some further study. It's certainly worrisome since we've not yet seen any identified reproductions of Juncker's U-Boat that I can recall. But if Deumer's rare Tombak version could be ripped off (which it has) then nothing is sacred.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Thomas Durante]

Hi Norm,

Not sure I follow. If I think the first badge is fake, that doesn't mean the 1.1.2s you show are also fakes. Quite the contrary, I especially like the first 1.1.2. you show, the catch is very characteristic of Juncker catches IMO. I can't see the catch of the 2nd 1.1.2. you show so I am not sure.

Regardless, the catch on the badge that started this thread is NOT a Juncker type of catch IMO. The material is thicker, and also the shape of it and how it is cut is different than other Juncker productions (to my eye).

Tom

[John T]

I think the first badge posted is a mickey, the reverse reminds me of fittings found on other fake badges, just my opinion, but definately not one for me-

[Norm F]

Hi Norm,

Not sure I follow. If I think the first badge is fake, that doesn't mean the 1.1.2s you show are also fakes. Quite the contrary, I especially like the first 1.1.2. you show, the catch is very characteristic of Juncker catches IMO. I can't see the catch of the 2nd 1.1.2. you show so I am not sure.

Regardless, the catch on the badge that started this thread is NOT a Juncker type of catch IMO. The material is thicker, and also the shape of it and how it is cut is different than other Juncker productions (to my eye).

Tom

Hi Tom,

Perhaps this comparison shows better what I'm trying to say. Although the catch views aren't the same, the wire thickness is identical and they both seem slightly atypical (I tossed in a Juncker Minesweeper catch for comparison.)

The style of the variable hand trimming of the cutouts and the widely cutout swastika is the same. There's remarkable similarity in the cutout under the cannon where they both have a slight "notch" possible from drilling a sentinal hole?

To me, if one of these badges is bad they're probably both bad. (Or conversely, both good -- just not sure yet.) Put another way, if you removed that overlong hinge pin and that funky pin from the top badge and replaced it with a straight tapered pin like the 1.1.2 you'd have a badge that we probably wouldn't even be discussing right now?

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

Another comparison. If you ignore the pin, aren't both these badges from the same shop?

[Mike Kenny]

Hi Norm,

An interesting badge for sure. From the front, I see no major differences or issues, with the possible exception of the conning tower masts.

As has already been stated, the reverse is an entirely different matter. There appear to be no repairs to the hinge or the catch. The colour and tone of the hinge pin also matches the hinge, so, although the hinge pin is messy, I am not sure if I would classify it as a replacement.

The general texture/"patina" of the finish on the reverse is something I normally associate with fairly recent good quality reproductions.

My biggest problems with the reverse are hardware related. Main pin aside, which could be termed a replacement IF you believe the hinge pin is replaced, is the apparently unrepaired hinge. This does not look in line with other Juncker (or similar Godet/Zimmermann) hinges. Originals appear to have "flattened" sides whereas the barrel segments on this hinge are fully rounded. Further, the outer barrel segments of the hinge on this example appear to be 2 halves joined together with a distinct offset (see attached pic). This feature is, imo, NOT a genuine TR feature.

So either this example is totally bogus or the reverse has been totally pprofessionally reworked.

Regards
Mike