Spain Cross in Gold CEJ

[Matthew]

You can clearly see the swirl on the L/12 silver. Again, this "sanded" look which is the unfinished direct from the die look has been brushed down.

I would think that in this case what we're looking at is the impression left by the bottom part of the die. On most-if not all awards- the center of those marks for most part seem to be the center of the award (or very close) as well and although they will vary to some degree as the award was placed by hand under the stamp they do follow the same pattern.

cheers
Matt

[Brian S]

Let's stay on the Juncker SC 900 crosses. Another award, another die, another manufacturer, another process.

I am simply saying the early CEJ's exhibit the sanded look, the later finished awards SC 900 have that swirl. Same die. Entirely possible they have a different reverse side die but it would surprise me when those swirls don't seem to match across different crosses.

Other features on the later Juncker SC 900's, non-CEJ, suggest it is finishing.

Why wouldn't the CEJ crosses have that swirl if it's from the die?

[Matthew]

Let's stay on the Juncker SC 900 crosses. Another award, another die, another manufacturer, another process.

Why wouldn't the CEJ crosses have that swirl if it's from the die?

You're right- sorry to disturb.

My last word on this subject would be an answer to your question above- it is not a die per se but a flat surface upon which the blank was stamped. as such it was more disposable than the actual die as it was used for many one-sided awards.

[Brian S]

You're right- sorry to disturb.

My last word on this subject would be an answer to your question above- it is not a die per se but a flat surface upon which the blank was stamped. as such it was more disposable than the actual die as it was used for many one-sided awards.

OK, you're not "disturbing" anything.... That's a great opinion that if easily switched out would explain the later crosses reverse. I didn't mean to be short about other awards just want to stay focused on Juncker to get to the reverse on these particular awards...

My only thoughts here were to Stan's concern that if the SC did NOT have that sanded look, it might somehow have been messed with by postwar manipulators. That is not the case and I was simply showing that a difference does exist and your contributions to the theory of why are very helpful, thank you.

[Stan]

I have been looking into Juncker Gold grade SC's again recently trying to work out why the CEJ-marked 900 crosses have the sanded appearance on the reverse and the "900" unmarked crosses have the swirl.

Brian states that the unmarked 900/swirl pieces are of a later production which would suggest that the CEJ-marked crosses are the official award and the un-marked crosses are private purchase.

I think that this is the wrong way round.

IMO the reason why so few CEJ marked pieces are encountered is because they were the privately purchased type whereas the 900/swirl were the type which was awarded in 1939.

Another possibility is that the 900/ swirl versions were made by another maker (Godet). This is claimed by Nimmergut although I realise that his opinion isn't necessarily gospel.

Stan

[Brian S]

As for Nimmergut, the 900 swirl and CEJ are from the exact same obverse die. I tend to think not Godet.

The only reason I tend to think CEJ were awarded is because of the dateline of the CEJ stamp which is generally accepted by the illustration below.

Also remember Stan Juncker was not the only firm supplying the award. They had a portion of it. 1,126 awarded. No idea exactly what Juncker's part in the total was but if 250-500 and losses during the years it would make the CEJ very rare. I tend to believe fewer rather than more given the hand finishing of these early gold crosses. As for the 900's they are also extremely well made and I can't say there are 'more' of these than the CEJs.

So how is a 6.6.1939 badge marked CEJ? Had to be ordered before 6.6.1939. Maybe anticipated and production begun by Juncker for a very limiited run? We also know there is only ONE CEJ stamp, not many. So begun before 1939 by Juncker marked with CEJ then as the troops came home to Berlin for the "big" ceremony many more were still required and Juncker pumped out some 900's as the CEJ stamp was no longer their choice.

It gets really fuzzy trying to nail down which SK's were there on 6.6.1939 but I tend to think Juncker, Meybauer and Deumer. If a cross is not 900/835 silver I don't think it was there. I am guessing that was part of the requirement on that date.

So we know there are TWO types of "early" Juncker silver content Spain Crosses. CEJ/900 and 900. No CE Juncker Berlin marked. So lots of theories possible but for my mind the CEJ and 900's are both very early.

And if it makes any help at all to people the L/12 IMO ARE the most rare. After they ran through their early production they apparently had little need to strike up a large number of LDO's which several of the other manufacturers stepped up and produced. 900 or CEJ, all very nice. But the CEJ stamp seems to have vanished from use everywhere else at Juncker sometime around 1936.

[Stan]

I have just upgraded my un-marked Juncker Gold Cross to one with the "CEJ" mark.

This SCiG was awarded to Oblt Alfred Mantwitz MIA 20 July 1941.

Mantwitz had both versions of the Juncker SCiG (both CEJ marked and un-marked).

Stan

[Brian S]

By unmarked you mean no "900" either?

[Stan]

No, it had the silver "900" mark.

Stan

[Brian S]

Thanks Stan good info.