EK 1914 1914 EK1 with screwback marked L/12

[hagahr]

LDO text you cuote speaks off the peaces fore the private marked wood be optained at junckers

the add off maybauer I show is in a pivate organisation book .

so meant fore the private marked

so those must be junckers then ?

Edited April 14, 2012 by hagahr

[hagahr]

Who say, that the Kleiderkasse sold not authorized pieces, as "Nachbildung" > copy?

Where is written, that this is also meant for a 1914 EK? Do you really think and believe, that a 1914 EK need a "Mustergenehmigung", more than seventeen years after the award period?

§18 is for the licensing (Zulassung), the Kleiderkasse had the licensing.

The remark "Gesetz ... vom 19. Mai 1933" is against the sense of the dignity of the symbols. That is not a problem for the Kleiderkasse.

No Gestape for (against) copies.

"and Maybauer was selling Juncker crosses in 1941 privately?"

Excuse me, what is meant here? Where is here a connection to a 1914 EK?

Uwe

Who say, that the Kleiderkasse sold not authorized pieces, as "Nachbildung" > copy?

authorized pieces as "Nachbildung" > copy with the mark L12 do not exist fore me .

they are the real thing as the L12 is the autorisation .

as nachbildungen or copy's wood never get a LDO number

(speaking fore the cross this all started with )

but we can get on and on with this and never get to the bottom off this ..

I stop here ,,,as I know this has been a point off discussions on many forums already

and always ended undecided .

I respect your opinion ,,,leave me to mine please

regards kay

Edited April 14, 2012 by hagahr

[speedytop]

Sorry! I must show the LDO text more completed:

"Ebenso wie die Herstellung des Eisernen Kreuzes 1.Klasse 1939 mit Schraubvorrichtung jetzt gestattet ist, ist nunmehr auch die Herstellung der Spange zum Eisernen Kreuz des Weltkriegs mit Schraubscheibe zugelassen. Ferner können Kreuz und Spange in fester Verbindung mit gemeinsamer Schraubvorrichtung in den Handel gebracht werden. Es sind nur bestimmte Muster zugelassen.Diese können von den Firmen, die eine Genehmigung des Präsidialkanzlei des Führers zur Herstellung von Nachbildungen staatlicher Orden und Ehrenzeichen für den privaten Handel besitzen,von der Firma C.E.Juncker, Berlin SW 68, Alte Jakobsstr.13 bezogen werden.Alle anderen Anfertigungen bleiben verboten. Vor der mengenmäßigen Herstellung sind der Präsidialkanzlei des Führers und Reichskanzlers Muster vorzulegen."

Juncker is here only meant for the specimen (Muster) of the above described decorations.

Important is here for me, independent of the described decorations, the usage of the term "Nachbildungen staatlicher Orden und Ehrenzeichen für den privaten Handel".

And I remeber a contemporary catalogue of a maker, where he definitely wrote, that he offered not originals. But I don't remember, which maker it was, and what term he used.

In several contemporary catalogues you can find the word Original, e.g. St&L in 1939. But it is not meant as an original piece. It is only the word Original for the differentiation between the original size and the size for a miniature (Miniatur).

You can find the same description in the post war Bundeswehr catalogues of the Kleiderkasse der Bundeswehr (KKB/KKBw).

Uwe

Edited April 14, 2012 by speedytop

[Graf]

Dear Members,

I noticed that the topic created a very hot dispute.

Dear Uwe,I am afraid however you took the question very strictly.

I appologize for any hard tension created.

This Club is called Gentelmen's for a reason and we have to try to keep it, by all means, that way.

My question was, regardless whether the EK is considered as original or a copy by different memebers, whether this EK has all the featurs of 1914 EK1 produced by Eduard Carl Juncker during WW2 period.i.e. whether it is contemporary piece or recent production.

As we know the market is floaded with recently made WW2 EK2 because of the incresed interest and prices.

I will not be surprised that more and more top of the range WW1 EKs will appear on the market.

I agree with the members that We need a new tread for the Question What is FAKE and what is ORIGINAL.

I will be not surprised if it turns to be very interesting and extremly hot topic with creative criticism not distructive one.

My Question to UWE is why on the Market are so many Original KC of EK Much more many than were awarded .All are considered as Original. or claimed as such

If you look strictly into this Question the answer is <IT IS ORIGINAL DECORATION ONLY IF OBTAINED DIRECTLY FROM THE RECIPIENT OR HIS FAMILY WITH ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION WITH A VERY STRON PROVENANCE> Otherwise it is just a piece of metal made somewhere at certain time.

Kind Regards

Graf

[Graf]

Dear UWE,

I can not understad you . It is very contadictory

In several contemporary catalogues you can find the word Original, e.g. St&L in 1939. But it is not meant as an original piece. It is only the word Original for the differentiation between the original size and the size for a miniature (Miniatur).

You made such a big question about my "ORIGINAL"

At the same time you are defending the word "ORIGINAL" in S&l 1939 Catalogue

Again, no bad feeling just a friendly remark No harm done

We are members of Gentemen's Club

Cheer up

Kind regards

Graf

[speedytop]

Graf,

I'm not defending the word "Original" in the St&L catalogue. Please look at the picture in post 28. Above you see first the word "Original", next the word "Miniatur", then "Auflagen".

The three words stand here for the size, and not for the originality of the decorations. Listed on this page are 1957 versions and not originals (copies).

You could buy the 1957 version "Panzerkampfabzeichen" in the original size, as miniature 16mm and as minature 9mm for the ribbon bar.

And you could buy a copy of a "Panzervernichtungsabzeichen" in the original size, the same decoration as miniature 16mm and as minature 9mm for the ribbon bar

The word "Original" stand here not for the originality, only for the size.

Your 1914 EK 1 is in the original size, but it is not an original.

My interest is the historical truth. And I express this clearly.

And my problem is, that several collectors don't like it. But that does not change the truth.

"All [KC] are considered as Original. or claimed as such"

It is not like the Kleidekassen-Katalog with originals and copies. Here it is a mixture of originals and not originals, copies and fakes.

I think, that we don't need a new thread for the Question what is FAKE and what is ORIGINAL.

There is need for a thread about originals and not originals, not originals splitted into copies and fakes.

But it is quite pointless, if individuals do not even accept a common basis. And the lowest common basis can, in my understanding, only be the award period.

Uwe

[Graf]

Dear Uwe,

Thank you for the mai

I respect your view. Evrybody has the right for their view about originalty.

However if in the Collectors world something is widely accepted as "Original" depite our view we have to accept what is the common view.

It is another story, whether we agree or not. It is our right to defend our view.I hope you will convince one day the collectors community to share your point of view

I can undurstand your point of view, despite the EK1 being made by officially LDO aproved Maker and stamped by the company -it could be considered as so called wearer/replacment copy. because did meet the time criteria -the Period between 1914-1924

On that point I would agree with you.

From Collector's point of view, you can not underestimate this EK1, because we know that LDO had very strict guidelines of aproval, including with the replacment Decorations

From your point of view all top German Dealers/Experts, including Detlev Niemman, have been convincing and saling fakes/copies as originals to the collector's community for years.

I do not like to drug this issue any more

My question to the Forum is, regardless whether the EK is considered as original or a copy by different memebers, whether this EK has all the featurs of 1914 EK1 produced by Carl Eduard Juncker during WW2 period.i.e. whether it is contemporary piece or recent production.

If you have any information and experiise about it , please share with us.

Kind Regards

Graf

.

[Graf]

Hi Uwe,

I noticed a mistake in my text :

because did meet the time criteria

Please read -because did not meet the time criteria

Regards

Graf

[hagahr]

to make it moore easy fore myself and solve the contrdiction we see in the collection off original Iron Crosses .

I figured there two category's who are mixed up in original and fake ( replacement) discussions

1 category is = the ORIGINAL DECORATION ONLY IF OBTAINED DIRECTLY FROM THE RECIPIENT OR HIS FAMILY WITH ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION WITH A VERY STRONg PROVENANCE> in short the 100% original rewarded worn soldiers property

well 99.9999 % off the collectors wil not have such a cross

2 category is = the diferent Iron cross maker production examples linked to a certain time frame

those examples can be, legal, war time ,peace time , patriotic ,ilegal,rewarded ,worn ,experimantal ,privat, theatre props ,replacent and so on ,and so on .

but all can be placed in to a certain time frame and can be legal or not the certain time frame by the standart off the officials off that time

maybe this helpes all party's here to understand eachothers point

I work with category 2

GRAF also

speedytop ,,youre ideal would be category 1

can these two category's be accepted ?

regards kay

Edited April 15, 2012 by hagahr

[Graf]

Hi Kay,

Thank you for the comments.

As far i am concerned the case regarding the word "ORIGINAL" is closed.

You gave me a nice information regarding the EK in one of your earlier mails

It appears that Juncker has used Core made by AWS with frames from his early 1939 EK1 and stamped it with LDO Mark

That means it was made after the LDO was introduced on 1-st of March 1941

I found thsi EK a very unique, because after The LDO wasi ntroduced no vaulted EKs were allowed to be produced

I do not know how mane were made, however i do not believe that was in great numbers

I would like to get more information regarding wheter the EK1 I posted meets the criteria for the EK1 made by C.E. Juncker during WW2 period (size,,frames, parts ,Maker Mark etc etc)

To help the Forum here is additional information

EK1 Size 44x44 mm Weight 21.9 g Core attracts magnet Clear Maker mark L/12 Vaulted Soldering nice a clean

Small traces for rust on the core around the crown The rust is dark brown, therefore old The new rust- faked one is usually light orange colour

The Dealer from Europe who I bought the EK1 from is with very good reputation

The Dealer from Nort America who questioned this EK1, has sold the same one, long time ago, with garantee by Detlev Niemann

Regards

Graf

[saschaw]

I'm seeing a nice and not to common WW2 era wearer's copy here.

[Graf]

Dear Saschaw,

Thank you for your comment

Yes it is not too common 1914 WW2 era made wearer's copy I could agree with this categorisation

It is interesting fact the way you have categorised the EK1 marked by L/12

On your site you are selling much more common 1914 EK1 WW2 era made - marked L/59, however you do not mention the word Wearer copy you use the term

Seltene Variante!

i.e. Rare Variant

I call this fact- double standard

However, this was not the aim of my listing to argue this fact

The question I am asking is whether The EK1 I listed -marked L/12 is a contemporary piece made by C.E.Juncker or recent production.

The reason - I bought it as Contemporary piece made in WW2 era ,however other Dealer questioned that, therefore I would appriciate your help in sorting this question out

Danke

Graf

[marrauder]

"There is need for a thread about originals and not originals, not originals splitted into copies and fakes."

This is what I wrote you at the beginning. Answer the Graf´s question simply and open the new thread by yourself. I will read it very carefully, believe me.

"But it is quite pointless, if individuals do not even accept a common basis."

Individuals accept common basis, but they feel worthless to repeat it again and again... Yes, original is only award period, private purchase is copy... I know it deadly for sure. But when I will ask next time, if some cross is original or not - all members of this forum will understand that I am not asking about award period, but about originality according to the supposed production era.

To answer your previous question about how I had helped Graf... I can not help him, I am beginner. But I wanted to help you to become a real moderator. Moderator, it is not only knowledge, but also behaviour. I see I was wrong

Edited April 15, 2012 by marrauder

[Graf]

Dear Marrauder,

Thank you for you coments.

I like your statment - "I am not asking about award period, but about the originality according to the supposed production era"

You got it directly to the point That was my aim of this listing. It has gone in a wrong direction.

This is a selling ad for this 1914 EK1, made by Juncker in WW2 era, by a Dealer:

Magnetic/Iron core, vaulted, marked 'L/12', of very fine quality make by maker Juncker, in extremely fine condition. Excellent example. (Comes with expert evaluation from D. Niemann).

I do not think that Detlev will be wrong. When Detlev is involved we are talking rare piece and a high price..

I will be curious to read Detlev Niemann evaluation regarding this EK1

Regards

Graf

[marrauder]

Graf,

Niemann is also human, so he did some mistakes. But combination of his expertise with the relevant info which was offered to you by hagahr and sascha is quite sure thing. Btw, I think you will be dissapointed by what NIemann writes about that cross. According to the expertises I have seen (and own) he repeats still one phrase on them (if the cross is original of course). Only measures and weight changes.

If there will be some poll, I will vote for terms like original award cross, original private purchase, original 57 version, etc. If we will call private purchases "copies" it will be more confusing than helpful. Now beginners are fooled by dealers who sell fakes as originals. After that they will be fooled also by those who - quite honestly - sell fakes as copies.

I can imagine that eBay conversation:

- Hallo! Is this original?

- No, this is copy...

- Ok, fine. But is it original copy?

- What???

- Errm, I mean, is it nachbildung, sammmleranfertigung, reproduktion, kopie, oder juwelieranfertigung?

- Wtf...

But if there really is time to change the world, I would start with emedals. Not a long time ago they started to sell fakes as "Theatrical copies".

[hagahr]

I agree with you Marrauder

But if there really is time to change the world, I would start with emedals. Not a long time ago they started to sell fakes as "Theatrical copies".

wel,,,can not help feeling guilty a bit ,,

i presented a theatre products catalogue with some military medals in it , some time back

dealers like to pick up trends from the internet

beware off the future

kay

Edited April 15, 2012 by hagahr

[marrauder]

Hah, yes, I felt it to be trend, I didn´t know you are the author, hehehe. Anyway, it was good move - real theatrical copy (mainly from famous play or movie) can be sometimes more expensive than original. But to sell Latvian fake as Theatrical copy is quite funny, isn´t it.

[Graf]

Hi Marrauder,

If you have have the EK1 from Emedals you can help me with the EK1 I listed. If you paid this high price it was your choice Sometime we do just to get an item we really want to have in our collection.

I assume that Detlev ,very smartly, did not put the word Original, however he gave description and information re: seze ,weight erc

I do believe that the Experts/Dealers are human and they can make mistakes, however I also do belive that some Experts/Dealers are very smart and use the teminology in a way they cannot be blaimed anything for the item

Example the saschaw coment regarding mine EK1 marked L/12.and my reply to it:

It is interesting fact the way you have categorised the EK1 marked by L/12

On your site you are selling much more common 1914 EK1 WW2 era made - marked L/59, however you do not mention the word Wearer copy you use the term

Seltene Variante!

i.e. Rare Variant

I call this fact- double standard

When they sell items like this one, the smart Experts/Dealers do not mention the Worrds such as Original or a copy

They use the word RARE VARIANT

I noticed that in Detlev Expertises he conviniently avoids the Word Original ..just pure description about size, wight.

However when the item is 100% Original he uses the Words ..This is an Original Example ot...

Anyway, from all the facts collected till this moment we can say:

The EK1 listed by myself is A Replacment Copy of 1914 EK1 made and marked with LDO mark L/12 by Carl Eduard Juncker in WW2 era

It ia a rare copy, because it is , for sure, made with the aproval of the LDO using his strict qudelines for Originals and Copies.

It was meant to replace lost or damaged 1914 EK1 by WW1 Veterans

No one will dare to put the LDO mark at that time on just Theatrical Copy.

Only thing we have to find out is:

Whether the Cross, presented to the Forum, is correct and meets the criteria of originality to well known examples 1914 EK1 made by C.E. Juncker in WW2 era.

Regarding yoor concern about Theatrical Copies,, yes you have the full right to be upset.

Worse is when Theatrical copies are sold as Originals. The same aplies to the t herms Genuine Reproductiion, Museum Quality Copies and... the List is too long.

Regards

Graf

[marrauder]

Graf,

I didn´t buy any EK1 from emedals, neither original nor theatrical copy. Sometimes at total beginning I bought EK2 1914 from emedals for quite big prize (70 dollars), but I knew what I paid for - I was not member of any forum and I was looking for big and seriously looking dealer to be sure that my first cross would be original. Now I know that I could burn my fingers very easily, but I was lucky and that ek2 is still my lovely good R marked cross.

But I like to observe emedals stuff. They are also humans so they sometimes do mistakes and offer some items quite cheap.

To continue our linguistic debate, I would like to say one more thing. Old german catalogues are crucial for picture comparing (with pieces we hold in our hands), but not for terminology. In the times they were printed (let´s say 20´s-30´s), there were only award crosses and private purchases. The ww1 experience was still very fresh, so it is normal, that they called those holy sacred crosses awarded in the field originals, and those private purchased were considered as copies. But then another 80 years came, during which also fakes, forgeries, reproductions and other stuff appeared. From this point of view it is normal that also those private purchases started to be sacred for us, because they were worn by veterans - and we started to "protect" them with the call for "originality". Langauge (and meaning of the words) is just developing in the stream of time, we can´t do anything with that. But OK, if we are going to rally on what is written in old catalogues totally, please Graf, sell me your LDO nachbildung for 3,80 Reichsmarks (plus shipping by Graf Spee), please. I will apreciate your respecting of historical correctness (but I will buy those banknotes on eBay for dozen euros, hehe).

Some collectors avoid this neverending dispute with the terms "good" or "bad". You can see it many times here that the answer is " this cross is good", not "original". I think it´s quite good solution, although - ad extremis - it can be sometimes confusing too. I saw bad fakes but I saw also really good ones...

Regards

[saschaw]

Example the saschaw coment regarding mine EK1 marked L/12.and my reply to it:

It is interesting fact the way you have categorised the EK1 marked by L/12

On your site you are selling much more common 1914 EK1 WW2 era made - marked L/59, however you do not mention the word Wearer copy you use the term

Seltene Variante!

i.e. Rare Variant

I call this fact- double standard

When they sell items like this one, the smart Experts/Dealers do not mention the Worrds such as Original or a copy

Did you notice my shop is in German language only, and this could be the reason I'm not writing "wearers copy"? And don't you agree a WW2 era made 1914 cross with screw back is rarer than a 1918 awarded "K.O." cross? You probably do agree!

Other question, how do you know (my) L/59 cross were "much more common" than (your) L/12 cross? Any proof for this claim? Probably not. Neither have I.

Any serious collector - and I'm sure my customers are - do know a vaultet screw back cross cannot be an awarded one, so is a Zweitstück (wearers copy!) anyway. I don't see a reason to mention this. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. See the L/12 cross I sold: "gefertigt während des 2. Weltkriegs um 1941/45 für den Ordenshandel". I find it hardly irritating to be offended here.

I did not claim wearer copies not to be worth collectiong. Never! I'm honestly not 100% sure if speedytop did - but I don't. Still, they are copies. Why not collecting copies? It doesn't hurt, believe me...

So thanks, Graf, for your gentlemanlike behaviour. And thanks for the talk!

[Graf]

Dear Members,

I do think that we have to stop here.

Otherwise it will get out of control

I am thankfull to all members who responded to the topic.

If anyone felt offended I apologizze to the

Anyway I found the exchange of the "hot' mails very constractive

At least i know how I can clasify this EK!

It is certain also that the topic " What is Original and What is Copy is quite desputable

I do not mention Fake because Fake is a fake it is made to decive the potential buyer/collector

Although, i did not get so far a direct answer to my question about the originality of this EK1 Replacment copy by Juncker, my special Thanks to saschaw for providing me a picture of the same cross sold on his site.

When i compared mine L/12 with the one sold on his site I am more convinced tha i am holding real 1914 EK1 made by L/12 in WW2 era.

I hope he will allow me to buy from his site if I like any item from his Catalogue It is a nice site.

Thank you Marrauder for his chronological explanation related of the Topic..and thanks God you did not buy the EK1 for the price on the Emedals Catalogue

Thank you Hagahr for deffending and standing for what you belive is correct and your support

Kind Regards

Graf

[hagahr]

your welcome ........

regards kay

[speedytop]

Hi,

saschaw:

"I did not claim wearer copies not to be worth collecting. Never! I'm honestly not 100% sure if speedytop did"

See my comment in Post 8: "Yes, they [the veterans] can buy a copy. Why not!"

Really, why not? I have some copies (not originals) in my collection. For example a German Luftwaffen "Generalsdegen", numbered, in very good quality. When I bought it, I bought it as "Kopie" (copy, not original). It could be, that the etched blade is original, but I bought it as copy.

It was the quality, why I bought it. And I bought it, because the price was acceptable, ... for a copy. Why not?

Uwe

[hagahr]

• I am so amaised about you speedytop ..
  
• 
  
• do you have originals ?
  
• take a peak in your collection and ,,,,,,,,
  
• schow us ,,,what you wood see as original ,,
  
• and tell us wy the shown cross is a original ,,,
  
• 
  

[saschaw]

Thanks for the nice words, Graf. You're welcome! I thought I was pretty clear in answering your question on the cross, and others were, too. As clear as one can get without picking a quarrel.

Kai, you have probably read of "probemäßig" and "Probemäßigkeit" on the German forums you're visiting, or you've read it in the magazines or books. You know and we know which types were definitely awarded. And that we don't need a 100% wearer proof to know it's original. These are facts you are aware of. I wonder. I really do, honestly.