[INM@RLM]

To your post #50, FalkeEins, I fear I did a good job of confusing you, for which, my apologies.

The words I was referring to on these pages were very specific. So:

p.9 "Ju 88 WNr. 0098, CN+NR is also identified here on p.9 by one author as "the first Ju 88 C production aircraft".
Following Peter Achs' inputs the reasonable conclusion is that this statement is erroneous. It was actually WNr. 0096 that was involved and this was not a production aircraft but rather the "prototype of the Zerstörer, first called Sa-2 (Sonderausführung 2)".
Hence, I wasn't at any point referring to "the captions on p9 & 10".

p.53 "by the other author as "the first prototype C-1 (W.Nr.0096, coded CN+NR)". Again with the benefit of Peter's clarifications the reasonable conclusion is that this statement is the more correct one. (Correct would be the first Ju 88 Zerstörer prototype.) All I would caveat this with, is that the follow-on words in the caption on p.53 of "a batch of 20 aircraft" are ambiguous, and could be read in a manner that would take you to an incorrect conclusion. In short, when it comes down to the accounting, 0096 was not one of the 20 C-1 conversions ordered from JFM by the RLM but was in addition to these 20.

Overall, it would seem that Becker did not have the same depth of data as Peter has researched, and Becker was also tempted in places into repeating observations from earlier publications that were in error.