EK 1939 1st Pattern Bar to EK2 Maker Marked L/12

[DavidM]

Hello

I have just received this 1st pattern bar to the iron cross 2nd class. When it arrived it was extremely heavilly coated with a dark patenia and attached to a piece of ribbon. I have carefully removed it from the ribbon and even more carefully cleaned it as, in my opinion, the patenia / build up of 'grime' had to be removed.

As the layers of 'grime / patenia came away a mark was revealed on the back of the bar, L/12. Now, I'm happy that the item is a genuine original early or 1st pattern bar, (I wouldn't have cleaned it otherwise) as there are a couple posted on this forum which are indentical to mine, and which are deemed ok.

The question is, do I have an original first pattern bar to which someone has added the L/12 stamp or do I have an original marked Junckers 1st pattern bar ? Given the layers of grime, the patenia etc that was the bar when it arrived, (you really couldn't see the maker mark - the bar was absolutely rotten with 'grime' / patenia), I would like to think, (hope), that this is a genuine mark.

But what do the experts think.

Any and all comments and opinions warmly welcomed. Thanks.

[Biro]

Extremely interesting David!

To date, I have only seen this type - the most attractively designed spange out there IMO - as either unmarked 1st patterns or L/12 marked standard patterns - but never an L/12 marked 1st pattern!

Here's what I mean - these two examples belong to Gordon W (I beleive) and Bob Hritz respectively.

[attachmentid=44388]

We currently assume that the unmarked 1st patterns of the style you posted are made by Juncker because genuine marked examples of the standard pattern bare such an uncanny stylistic resemblance - the only real differences being the date bar and the breast feathers.

Although the L/12 could have been added later, I personally would like to think that you have an example of a very rare missing link that consolidates the maker of this style of spangen as Juncker.

Nice - I want it!

Marshall

[DavidM]

Hello Marshall

Thanks for your comments. I agree, it would be extremely nice if the makers mark is contemporary to the period and time of manufacture. That the bar is genuine, of that there is no doubt. The problem is, and it applies to this and many other pieces, was it done at the time or at a later date to 'enhance' the piece. Given the layers of 'grime' and the patina when I got it, (it really was bad, and the mark didn't show up until I was very, very carefully cleaning it), the maker mark wasn't put on any time recently.

Either way I bought it as a 1st pattern, unmarked bar. If the mark is the real thing then great, and I personally, like you, would like to think it is.

[DavidM]

Hello

Does anyone else out there have any comments or opinions on this ? For obvious reasons, I'd be really interested in what you all think on this one.

Many thanks.

[joe campbell]

i wish there were more than just "gut feeling"....

BUT!

-the obverse alone makes me think this is period.

-while the L/12 stamp is not the same as the L/12 on the

later, more common version, my suspicion that it is a

post-war add-on is VERY low.

i thinl this is one of those pieces that hung around for awhile,

and later got thrown into the mix, much along the lines of

the EK 2 Ubergrosse.

it is a fine piece, and in the immortal words of wimpy (from

popeye the sailor), "i'd gladly pay you tuesday for a first-type

spange today..."

i would be happy to have that in my collection!

joe

[DavidM]

Thanks Joe