EK 1939 EK 2 un-marked Juncker

[RICK SCHMID]

Her is a recent purchase that I'd like to share with you , which I hope will help in identification of some un-marked EK 2's. Note the crosshatching on the inner beading along with the hump frame on the top where the ring is attached, some of the Juncker traits.

Comments appreciated.

RICK SCHMID

[RICK SCHMID]

Her is a recent purchase that I'd like to share with you , which I hope will help in identification of some un-marked EK 2's. Note the crosshatching on the inner beading along with the hump frame on the top where the ring is attached, some of the Juncker traits.

Comments appreciated.

RICK SCHMID

[RICK SCHMID]

reverse

[RICK SCHMID]

reverse

[RICK SCHMID]

full reverse

[DavidM]

Hello

I really can't say if this is a Juncker EK or not. All the examples of alleged Junker EK2s that I can find don't feature the cross hatching on the inner corners - which was a feature of the Junckers RKs. Of course, that doesn't mean your's isn't a Junckers or that the others are, I just don't know. It would seem that Junckers attributed EK2s are (yet) another hotly debated area.

Sorry this doesn't help to much, other than to say that the ones alleged to have been made by Junckers that I have found don't have the cross hatch.

[Motorhead]

Well,the inner corners are accepted as a "Juncker" special. There are a lot of 1st class EKs marked with L/12

beeing accepted as "real" Juncker crosses. Another point-my "iron cross mentor"told me once that a Juncker always has to look like a "W&L".So when I look at this one her I would say it is following that rule.For me(and this is my own and personal oppinion) a Juncker has got to look like this one! Unfortunatelly I don't own a Juncker Ek,but I'm pretty shure how it has to loke like when I will buy one.

Micha

[Marcus H]

To be honest with you there's alot of W&L thought and debate thus notions - I personally just don't know in all honesty.

I wouldn't say that a Juncker is only a Juncker when it looks like a W&L, a little provincial that: is this core and frame or one or the other ?

However, I do accept there does seem to be a less than broad relationship in the guise of some of these crosses.

What about the thought the K&Q relationship ?

I'll tell you why: my example of an L/12 EK2 doesn't prescribe to a W&L, it's on a court mounted bar and stamped on the frame, nor does my outer cartoned (marked Juncker) and cased EK1 look like a W&L EK1 - all the examples found with outer carton look like my L/12 pin back EK1.

But, I do have a screwback EK1 which would prescribe to a W&L cross.

Can any of the W&L advocates expose their thoughts to this determination perhaps ?

Kr

Marcus

[Dave B]

I would say the cross is a W&L just because it looks exactly the same as a 100 marked cross,the thing with Juncker EKII's is that I have never seen one marked that I am 100% sure on.

If it were mine I would probably label it a W&L.

Just my tuppence worth.

Dave

[RICK SCHMID]

I would say the cross is a W&L just because it looks exactly the same as a 100 marked cross,the thing with Juncker EKII's is that I have never seen one marked that I am 100% sure on.

If it were mine I would probably label it a W&L.

Just my tuppence worth.

Dave

Hi Dave I think the key to solving this riddle lies solely in the beading corners directly facing the swaz. Look at the unique cross hatching design totally different than the MM 100. I have seen 4 others with this design all marked L/12 with different mounts. You decide.

[RICK SCHMID]

[attachmentid=58355]2