Thin Style Junker

[Craig Gottlieb]

I wanted to submit this badge for peer review. I have sold it, but the buyer had some questions regarding the piece. I had advertised it as an early unmarked Junker, as I was only aware of Junker producting the thin style badges in the early period, both in aluminum and tombak. This is not the aluminum type (I have never seen an aluminum observer, only the thin style pilot, and pilot/observer).

[Craig Gottlieb]

Here is another photo.

[Craig Gottlieb]

Third picture.

[Craig Gottlieb]

Final picture. I have no problems with this piece, and neither have a couple of other people I know and respect, who have held it in-hand.

[skip]

Its not a Juncker. Most likely an early Deumer.

Skip

[Craig Gottlieb]

Very interesting . . . I have never seen a thin style Deumer. I know the badge is real, but had simply assumed it was a Junker because I've only seen thin style Junkers before. Looking forward to a good thread here - a good chance to learn about these pieces.

[Frank Heukemes]

Hi Craig,

I will echo what Skip already said, it is an early Deumer. Just as desirable as thin Juncker.

I have never seen an aluminum observer

There is one, by the "unknown maker" (probably FLL), but only the eagle is Aluminium, while the wreath is Tombak.

There are also observer badge fakes, made entirely from aluminium. These are quite convincing.

[Craig Gottlieb]

Thanks, guys.

[Scott C.]

That's one beautiful cased bird. For what it's worth, the style of case (outer material is the rougher, pebbley type) and style of lettering on the top matches that of my Deumer RO/AG badge.

Scott

[Craig Gottlieb]

Thanks, Herc. It is truly magnificent. It's the best I have seen. I'm sure there are others out there as nice, but I haven't owned one. The thin style is my favorite, and the early box is also hard to come by.

[Jos L C]

Great badge..
Do you've a straight shot for us ?

Jos.

[Craig Gottlieb]

I don't - I'm sorry. If the badge comes back to me (I had sold it, and advertised it as an unmarked Junker - my mistake now I see), I'll gladly shoot another frontal shot for you. I doubt it'll come back, though, unless the buyer ONLY wants a Junker.

[Tim Hart]

Early Juncker Observer Badge

I prepared the following thread for posting earlier in the week, however, Craig offered to submit some photos for discussion until such time as I could take front on images of the badge in question. Although there is some feeling that the badge may be an early Deumer I still have my doubts. In any event I wanted to submit the thread as I had prepared it, notwithstanding that everybody thus far seems to be of the general consensus that the badge is not a Juncker. So here goes:
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o></o>
Some of the Forum members may recently have seen on Craig Gottlieb’s site an early unmarked Juncker Observer badge for sale. The badge was described as mint and came cased. From the photos on Craig’s site I purchased the badge, as it certainly seemed to be an attractive piece and appeared to look right. However, having now received the badge I’m not convinced that it is an original item. With the permission of Craig, I am posting pictures and would invite opinions from fellow Luftwaffe specialists. Regrettably, I have only a modest camera at present and am therefore not able to post really close up shots of the catch, hinge and rivets and I will therefore try and describe these three particular aspects as best as I can. I’m not at all concerned by the piece being non maker marked since I have three other unmarked original Juncker badges in my collection already. Dimensions and weight of the badge are very similar to dimensions and weight of a marked example in my collection; purchased from Neil Howes (I’m posting pictures of this particular badge as well by way of comparison).
<o></o>
The areas of concern for me are the following: The general shape of the wreath, it appears to be misshaped, particularly the lower half around the 4 and 5 o’clock area, as though it were adopting the egg shape which was typical of early Deumer badges. The general finish to detail is much softer than one would expect from Juncker badges. The catch, although close to the Juncker “c” style is just not convincing enough for me. The hinge too is pretty agricultural in manufacture and does not have the usual quality hand finishing one attributes to other contemporary Juncker pieces. The rivets are pretty small and do not have the usual flat top that is characteristic to Juncker rivets. The pin itself has a flattened area near the hinge which I know was raised on a previous thread of mine (CEJ Pilot Badge dated 3<SUP>rd</SUP> December 2005), by Lorenzo Brown as being an area of concern. The swastika on this example seems to be less solid and robust as compared against the marked version. In addition to all that, the badge does not have the usual hand finishing to the wreath. There are too many questionable areas to this badge to convince me that it is a minty 1936 piece, the overall look when compared to an undoubted piece is that it is just off in all dimensional aspects and the fine quality detail. Having said that, as opposed to going the aged look, the mint finish and in particular the frosting on the wreath is damn good. My feeling is that this badge is a repro but a bloody good one, not only that probably the same fakers as the CEJ badge I mentioned earlier; I would however invite comment from fellow collectors.

[Tim Hart]

Early Juncker Observer Badge

Reverse

[Tim Hart]

Early Juncker Observer Badge

Juncker Obverse