Variations in C.E.JUNCKER maker marks?

[Robert P.]

I'm relatively new to this world of Luftwaffe flight badges and eager to learn. I have a queation for all of you seasoned collectors. How many variations are there to the Juncker firm maker mark? I am aware of their early 'C.E.J.' stamping and the later stamping with the crazy little 'L' ( photo attached ). I avoid any badge with the Juncker stamping that has the 'SW 68'. I have seen a book that is out on the market today dispaying four or five different variations of stampings for this maker. The name of the book is 'Collecting Military Badges of the Third Reich' by Mike Tucker. Are all of these variations to be considered authentic? I have seen many badges with the same type markings that are on Rick's ( Stogieman ) new thread regarding two Juncker Observer Badges. Give me some help if you will. I hate to buy a bad badge thinking the stamping is alright. And at the same time passing up a good badge because of not having the necessary knowledge. Eager to learn. Robert

[Mike Kenny]

Hi Robert,

Regarding the "C.E. Juncker Berlin SW" marking, I'd advise sticking to the marking you've shown an image of - the one with the apparently backward slanting L. Use this image as your reference and you won't go far wrong. The repros Rick posted images of are close in some respects, but definitely different when the whole marking is compared. IMO, there are minor genuine variations (which I will not go into publicly) of this marking but personally I'd avoid anything with a rounded S in the SW for starters. Regarding the "SW 68" variation, it is not a hard and fast rule. I have seen it used ONLY on Juncker's LATE-WAR, ZINC badges with the appropriate hinge/pin/catch assembly. If you see a buntmetal, tombak, nickel-silver or any other early/good quality badge with the "SW 68" marking then it's almost certainly bad.

Regards
Mike K

PS: I should add that the maker's mark is only one guide in determining authenticity! I have seen very well cast/reproduced eagles which included accurately styled but relatively poor detailed maker's marks.

[Robert P.]

Thanks for the tips, Mike. I appreciate the help. I'll remember what you've said here. Robert