What are these proof marks?

sschultz · 07-03-2003, 09:34 PM

I was hoping to get some help with these markings (right side). A friend purchased this piece from a local store. Toggle(byf marked and matched to self) was the only mismatched piece.

Herb · 07-03-2003, 10:24 PM

Left to right- 1933 Heers Waffen Amt proof used by police forces guarding warehouses operated by the Heersaeugment. Most observed are reworks with double date or blank chambers of DWM and ERFURT manufacture.
--Erfurt dated 1918 proof.--???? Info from Constanzo's World of Lugers Proof Marks.

Dwight Gruber · 07-03-2003, 10:55 PM

This piece has some story to tell.

The mark on the left is an eagle-swastika over HZa.JL.16 . It is a sufficiently interesting mark that I will quote Costanzo:

"HZa.JL.16 1928 military Heereszeugamter = Army quartermaster early supply proof. Used on models issued to security guards of military installations. 'J' represents building J. 'L' represents Lager (depot) 16. Note: this proof is used in 1928 only. Location noted: can be found on any major parts." (Costanzo, "World of Lugers--Proof Marks" p.94)

Costanzo shows stamps with straight-style eagles over HZa.JL.16 on other pages, and refers to them generically as Heereszeugamter reworks.

The crown/figure is probably either a Simson or Mauser rework mark. I'm not good with eagles, but the eagle on the right looks to me like some manner of Simson eagle, so overall the gun (with the exception of the mismatched toggle) is likely a Simson rework, in some fashion.

Can you provide photographs of other markings--all the other markings--on the gun? Barrel markings will be particularly useful.

--Dwight

Jim Keenan · 07-04-2003, 12:14 AM

A 1928 Army proof with a Nazi swastika?? In 1928, Hitler was falling for Geli and trying to get the party's act together. The Nazis were just another party (though growing), "the Leader" was five years away from power, and the German Army was certainly not using Nazi eagle/swastikas on anything.

I have not bought that book, and this sort of stuff is the reason why.

Jim

walter · 07-06-2003, 03:04 PM

Isn't the first letter a k

Dwight Gruber · 07-06-2003, 04:46 PM

Could be, although at that point we are cut completely free from Costanzo, as I don't see a reference to a KZa marking anywhere. Also worthy of note is that the two axes of the swastika under the eagle are vertical and horizontal. Every diagram I have seen places those axes on the diagonal.

--Dwight

policeluger · 07-06-2003, 08:00 PM

Some good points here, but I would drop back and look at the opening line. If the toggle train was mismatched, could the pistol, over 80 some years old, have been rework and forced matched (those parts no matching), who all has had their hands on this gun, where has it been. Why is a gun correct, but had a complete mismatched train, I mean, that is a lot of major replacement without correct Armour proofs, I'll bet no one knows for sure. And with respect to sschultz, could he be mistaken in his inspection of the gun, that no other parts are mismatched, and can he state with all certainty that other then the train, it is a 100% correct piece....Costanzo work is a great piece, are there now a few bit of information that we now know too be incorrect, of course. Will this happen too all the highly re guarded works of today...I'll bet. For my money, I will still fall back on Walther's book as the best.

Ron Wood · 07-06-2003, 08:49 PM

Dwight and Jim,

Keen observations about the "swastika" in the proof. 1928 rules out the "Hakenkreuz" or Nazi swastika, and Dwight's notice of the horizontal and vertical arms of the cross might lead me to believe this was actually a form of the early chemical symbol for crucible.

Although I have no idea what relevance this would have to an Army Quartermaster, it is more plausable (I think) than a Nazi swastika in 1928. If the mark on the topic Luger is original and not a later day "Waffenfabrik USA" addition, I guess that leads to the conclusion that the line drawing in Costanzo was made by someone who did not closely evaluate the mark and assumed it was a swastika.

Although it has its flaws, I have to agree with policeluger that Costanzo is a great reference, and considering when it was compiled it is the opus magnum of Luger proof marks

John St · 07-07-2003, 08:39 PM

I agree with Ron Wood! Amazing lesson to learn here that I just learned myself with the other post about force matching, where Wes says "no restrictions" for very good reasons.

John St

JuergenG · 07-08-2003, 04:44 AM

The eagle on the far right hand side appears to be a post war "Bundesadler"; Federal Republic of Germany.

Lugerdoc · 07-08-2003, 09:40 AM

IMHO, The proofs shown at the beginning of this thread were all applied at different times. The middle crown over a letter indicates to me that the unassembled receiver was inspected during WW1 and leftover as a spare part at war's end. The right most eagle, is a Weimar test fire proof for the entire assembled pistol, which as later repaired or accepted (left most eagle) by a Nazi repair depot. TH

Dwight Gruber · 07-08-2003, 10:42 AM

Tom,

An interesting and useful speculation.

The crown/letter stamp is shown in Costanzo (pp.287-290) as the first inspector's stamp on 1913 and 1914 DWM, and 1916 Erfurt. On this gun, however, it is in the wrong position for a first inspector's stamp, and the marking instructions for the P-08 require the receiver date stamped at the same time as the first inspector's mark (GÃ?Â¶rtz & Bryans, p.111)--it is not reported whether the subject pistol is chamber dated.

Costanzo also notes one example (p.302) of a 1918 Erfurt/HZa rework much as you propose, however with a different eagle and the crown/mark in a different position.

On closer examination and comparison with Costanzo I retract my speculation of the crown/mark as a rework mark, it is different in detail.

On p.236, in an interesting and confusing commentary on the Imperial right receiver proofs, Costanzo expresses his opinion of some of these marks as military "codes", rather than proofs; his description of the code markings is tantalizingly obscure, and seriously makes one wonder about the mark on this gun. He notes that he is studying these "codes", and intends to publish the results in the (now, regrettably, never to be written) Vol. II.

--Dwight

Jim Keenan · 07-08-2003, 10:06 PM

Perhaps a few notes on the Heereszeugamter might be in order. What follows is my understanding, so if anyone has more or better info, please share it with us.

The term means Army Equipment Office. In English publications, I have seen the German term spelled as two or even three words, but I have never seen it in a German source as other than one word.

Unlike the centralized Heereswaffenamt (Army Weapons Office) which assigned inspectors to arms factories, the term HZa was applied to what we would call an Army Depot. Like its U.S. Army counterpart, the term was not used alone, but was always coupled with the name of the city or town in which it was located. Thus we see "HZa Naumburg", or "HZa Kassel". Others I know of were at Stettin, Dachau, Wein, Munchen (Munich), Ingolstadt, and Spandau, but there were many others.

The term "zeug" in this usage was not limited to quartermaster (non-weapon) items, since the German system was not divided up like the U.S. system was. An HZa was a depot for all army equipment.

Again like U.S. Army Depots, HZa establishments could be huge and they had several missions. They accepted materiel from contractors; stored all kinds of war materiel, including weapons and ammunition; and rebuilt and repaired materiel, including guns, vehicles and tanks.

Some HZa depots were involved in manufacturing, and when they did so, they were assigned a manufacturer's code just like any other manufacturer. For example, the big shell factory (geschosswerkstatt) at HZa Koenigsburg was assigned the code "czo".

Now a common abbreviation for Ingolstadt was/is "Il" or "Jl" (remember the "I" and "J" discussion a while back?). Its manufacturing code was jlj.

The story about markings on pistols assigned to watchmen is a good one, but I beg leave to doubt it.

FWIW, I think the mysterious mark is nothing more than a rebuild mark, indicating that the pistol was rebuilt at HZa Ingolstadt and the work was passed by inspector No. 16.

Jim

Jim Keenan · 07-15-2003, 08:30 PM

For those not completely fed up with me, one more note. There was also a system of Luftzeugamter (LZA or LZa) or Luftwaffe (Air Force) depots. The comments on the HZa system pretty well applies to the LZa as well. I would assume the Kriegsmarine had a similar system but have not found any information.

(Again, sorry about the lack of the umlaut.)

Jim

Edward Tinker · 07-15-2003, 08:35 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />For those not completely fed up with me..<hr /></blockquote>Jim, it'll take a lot, I enjoy your posts very much!!

<img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" />

Ed

Ron Wood · 07-15-2003, 08:55 PM

Jim,
I like your HZa information and the conjecture about the mark. Keep posting...it's good stuff.

Morris Gardner · 08-31-2003, 03:04 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jim Keenan:
For those not completely fed up with me, one more note. There was also a system of Luftzeugamter (LZA or LZa) or Luftwaffe (Air Force) depots. The comments on the HZa system pretty well applies to the LZa as well. I would assume the Kriegsmarine had a similar system but have not found any information.

**(Again, sorry about the lack of the umlaut.)**

Jim<hr /></blockquote>Your posts are fascinating and extremely informative ... indeed, compared to some of the other commentary, "a breath of fresh air."

By the way, an acceptable alternative to the apparent lack of an Umlaut in an the otherwise quite comprehensive Forum posting software package is to merely insert an "e" after any vowel for which an Umlaut is required...for example: "Maenner," "Aemter," "Haende" "Loewen,"
"Muenchen, "Loewen," "Fuerstin," "Frauelein"
Koenig," "fuer," und so weiter.
"Koenisburg" "Fuerstin", /geuGGz und so weiter.

Lugerdoc · 08-31-2003, 11:59 AM

Jim, Your above comments regarding the existance of LZAs (LuftZeugAmter) Air Force Repair Depots, as the Luftwaffe equivalent of the HZAs, has jogged my brain cells. Perhaps you have found the answer (maker) of the Ku lugers. Since these bear a unique "LA" or "LZA" final exceptance proofing, is it possible that the Luftwaffe assembled these PO8s in their own depots from Mauser and KH spare parts? I wonder if they had an LZa in a city that began with Ku with an umlaut? TH

Leon DeSpain · 09-05-2003, 10:18 AM

Here is the link to a P.08 that I have that is similarly marked.

http://lmd-militaria.com/page157.html

Regards, Leon

Jim Keenan · 09-05-2003, 01:23 PM

Hi, Lugerdoc,

That is quite common in modern German, even in Germany, but when I do a direct quote from something or describe a marking, I prefer to use the vowel and then say it has the umlaut; otherwise it looks like I added a letter.

I once saw a Walther PP that Bubba claimed he captured from Goering. Sure enough, in electric pencil on the slide was "Herman Goering". Do you suppose it could have been fake?

Jim

07-03-2003, 09:34 PM	#1
sschultz User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: ca Posts: 22 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	What are these proof marks? I was hoping to get some help with these markings (right side). A friend purchased this piece from a local store. Toggle(byf marked and matched to self) was the only mismatched piece.

07-03-2003, 10:24 PM	#2
Herb User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Utah, in the land of the Sleeping Rainbow Posts: 1,457 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Left to right- 1933 Heers Waffen Amt proof used by police forces guarding warehouses operated by the Heersaeugment. Most observed are reworks with double date or blank chambers of DWM and ERFURT manufacture. --Erfurt dated 1918 proof.--???? Info from Constanzo's World of Lugers Proof Marks. __________________ Utah, where gun control means a steady trigger pull

07-06-2003, 08:49 PM	#8
Ron Wood Moderator 2010 LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Santa Teresa New Mexico just outside of the West Texas town of El Paso Posts: 6,986 Thanks: 1,065 Thanked 5,088 Times in 1,674 Posts	Dwight and Jim, Keen observations about the "swastika" in the proof. 1928 rules out the "Hakenkreuz" or Nazi swastika, and Dwight's notice of the horizontal and vertical arms of the cross might lead me to believe this was actually a form of the early chemical symbol for crucible. Although I have no idea what relevance this would have to an Army Quartermaster, it is more plausable (I think) than a Nazi swastika in 1928. If the mark on the topic Luger is original and not a later day "Waffenfabrik USA" addition, I guess that leads to the conclusion that the line drawing in Costanzo was made by someone who did not closely evaluate the mark and assumed it was a swastika. Although it has its flaws, I have to agree with policeluger that Costanzo is a great reference, and considering when it was compiled it is the opus magnum of Luger proof marks __________________ If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction

07-08-2003, 09:40 AM	#11
Lugerdoc Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: POB 398 St.Charles,MO. 63302 Posts: 5,089 Thanks: 6 Thanked 736 Times in 483 Posts	IMHO, The proofs shown at the beginning of this thread were all applied at different times. The middle crown over a letter indicates to me that the unassembled receiver was inspected during WW1 and leftover as a spare part at war's end. The right most eagle, is a Weimar test fire proof for the entire assembled pistol, which as later repaired or accepted (left most eagle) by a Nazi repair depot. TH __________________ Tom Heller POB 398 ST.Charles, MO. 63302 Tel 636-447-3006 lugerdoc@charter.net

07-15-2003, 08:35 PM	#15
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,909 Thanks: 1,986 Thanked 4,500 Times in 2,076 Posts	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">For those not completely fed up with me..</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Jim, it'll take a lot, I enjoy your posts very much!! <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" /> Ed __________________ Edward Tinker ************ Co-Author of Police Lugers - Co-Author of Simson Lugers Author of Veteran Bring Backs Vol I, Vol II, Vol III and Vol IV

07-03-2003, 10:55 PM	#3
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,889 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,281 Times in 423 Posts	This piece has some story to tell. The mark on the left is an eagle-swastika over HZa.JL.16 . It is a sufficiently interesting mark that I will quote Costanzo: "HZa.JL.16 1928 military Heereszeugamter = Army quartermaster early supply proof. Used on models issued to security guards of military installations. 'J' represents building J. 'L' represents Lager (depot) 16. Note: this proof is used in 1928 only. Location noted: can be found on any major parts." (Costanzo, "World of Lugers--Proof Marks" p.94) Costanzo shows stamps with straight-style eagles over HZa.JL.16 on other pages, and refers to them generically as Heereszeugamter reworks. The crown/figure is probably either a Simson or Mauser rework mark. I'm not good with eagles, but the eagle on the right looks to me like some manner of Simson eagle, so overall the gun (with the exception of the mismatched toggle) is likely a Simson rework, in some fashion. Can you provide photographs of other markings--all the other markings--on the gun? Barrel markings will be particularly useful. --Dwight

07-04-2003, 12:14 AM	#4
Jim Keenan User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 184 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	A 1928 Army proof with a Nazi swastika?? In 1928, Hitler was falling for Geli and trying to get the party's act together. The Nazis were just another party (though growing), "the Leader" was five years away from power, and the German Army was certainly not using Nazi eagle/swastikas on anything. I have not bought that book, and this sort of stuff is the reason why. Jim

07-06-2003, 03:04 PM	#5
walter User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: quebec canada Posts: 6 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Isn't the first letter a k

07-06-2003, 04:46 PM	#6
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,889 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,281 Times in 423 Posts	Could be, although at that point we are cut completely free from Costanzo, as I don't see a reference to a KZa marking anywhere. Also worthy of note is that the two axes of the swastika under the eagle are vertical and horizontal. Every diagram I have seen places those axes on the diagonal. --Dwight

07-06-2003, 08:00 PM	#7
policeluger RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Ca. Posts: 2,141 Thanks: 8 Thanked 89 Times in 54 Posts	Some good points here, but I would drop back and look at the opening line. If the toggle train was mismatched, could the pistol, over 80 some years old, have been rework and forced matched (those parts no matching), who all has had their hands on this gun, where has it been. Why is a gun correct, but had a complete mismatched train, I mean, that is a lot of major replacement without correct Armour proofs, I'll bet no one knows for sure. And with respect to sschultz, could he be mistaken in his inspection of the gun, that no other parts are mismatched, and can he state with all certainty that other then the train, it is a 100% correct piece....Costanzo work is a great piece, are there now a few bit of information that we now know too be incorrect, of course. Will this happen too all the highly re guarded works of today...I'll bet. For my money, I will still fall back on Walther's book as the best.

07-07-2003, 08:39 PM	#9
John St User Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 48 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I agree with Ron Wood! Amazing lesson to learn here that I just learned myself with the other post about force matching, where Wes says "no restrictions" for very good reasons. John St

07-08-2003, 04:44 AM	#10
JuergenG User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Germany Posts: 154 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	The eagle on the far right hand side appears to be a post war "Bundesadler"; Federal Republic of Germany.

07-08-2003, 10:42 AM	#12
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,889 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,281 Times in 423 Posts	Tom, An interesting and useful speculation. The crown/letter stamp is shown in Costanzo (pp.287-290) as the first inspector's stamp on 1913 and 1914 DWM, and 1916 Erfurt. On this gun, however, it is in the wrong position for a first inspector's stamp, and the marking instructions for the P-08 require the receiver date stamped at the same time as the first inspector's mark (GÃ?Â¶rtz & Bryans, p.111)--it is not reported whether the subject pistol is chamber dated. Costanzo also notes one example (p.302) of a 1918 Erfurt/HZa rework much as you propose, however with a different eagle and the crown/mark in a different position. On closer examination and comparison with Costanzo I retract my speculation of the crown/mark as a rework mark, it is different in detail. On p.236, in an interesting and confusing commentary on the Imperial right receiver proofs, Costanzo expresses his opinion of some of these marks as military "codes", rather than proofs; his description of the code markings is tantalizingly obscure, and seriously makes one wonder about the mark on this gun. He notes that he is studying these "codes", and intends to publish the results in the (now, regrettably, never to be written) Vol. II. --Dwight

07-08-2003, 10:06 PM	#13
Jim Keenan User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 184 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Perhaps a few notes on the Heereszeugamter might be in order. What follows is my understanding, so if anyone has more or better info, please share it with us. The term means Army Equipment Office. In English publications, I have seen the German term spelled as two or even three words, but I have never seen it in a German source as other than one word. Unlike the centralized Heereswaffenamt (Army Weapons Office) which assigned inspectors to arms factories, the term HZa was applied to what we would call an Army Depot. Like its U.S. Army counterpart, the term was not used alone, but was always coupled with the name of the city or town in which it was located. Thus we see "HZa Naumburg", or "HZa Kassel". Others I know of were at Stettin, Dachau, Wein, Munchen (Munich), Ingolstadt, and Spandau, but there were many others. The term "zeug" in this usage was not limited to quartermaster (non-weapon) items, since the German system was not divided up like the U.S. system was. An HZa was a depot for all army equipment. Again like U.S. Army Depots, HZa establishments could be huge and they had several missions. They accepted materiel from contractors; stored all kinds of war materiel, including weapons and ammunition; and rebuilt and repaired materiel, including guns, vehicles and tanks. Some HZa depots were involved in manufacturing, and when they did so, they were assigned a manufacturer's code just like any other manufacturer. For example, the big shell factory (geschosswerkstatt) at HZa Koenigsburg was assigned the code "czo". Now a common abbreviation for Ingolstadt was/is "Il" or "Jl" (remember the "I" and "J" discussion a while back?). Its manufacturing code was jlj. The story about markings on pistols assigned to watchmen is a good one, but I beg leave to doubt it. FWIW, I think the mysterious mark is nothing more than a rebuild mark, indicating that the pistol was rebuilt at HZa Ingolstadt and the work was passed by inspector No. 16. Jim

07-15-2003, 08:30 PM	#14
Jim Keenan User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 184 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	For those not completely fed up with me, one more note. There was also a system of Luftzeugamter (LZA or LZa) or Luftwaffe (Air Force) depots. The comments on the HZa system pretty well applies to the LZa as well. I would assume the Kriegsmarine had a similar system but have not found any information. (Again, sorry about the lack of the umlaut.) Jim

07-15-2003, 08:55 PM	#16
Ron Wood Moderator 2010 LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Santa Teresa New Mexico just outside of the West Texas town of El Paso Posts: 6,986 Thanks: 1,065 Thanked 5,088 Times in 1,674 Posts	Jim, I like your HZa information and the conjecture about the mark. Keep posting...it's good stuff. __________________ If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction

08-31-2003, 03:04 AM	#17
Morris Gardner User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 24 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Jim Keenan: <strong>For those not completely fed up with me, one more note. There was also a system of Luftzeugamter (LZA or LZa) or Luftwaffe (Air Force) depots. The comments on the HZa system pretty well applies to the LZa as well. I would assume the Kriegsmarine had a similar system but have not found any information. (Again, sorry about the lack of the umlaut.) Jim</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Your posts are fascinating and extremely informative ... indeed, compared to some of the other commentary, "a breath of fresh air." By the way, an acceptable alternative to the apparent lack of an Umlaut in an the otherwise quite comprehensive Forum posting software package is to merely insert an "e" after any vowel for which an Umlaut is required...for example: "Maenner," "Aemter," "Haende" "Loewen," "Muenchen, "Loewen," "Fuerstin," "Frauelein" Koenig," "fuer," und so weiter. "Koenisburg" "Fuerstin", /geuGGz und so weiter.

08-31-2003, 11:59 AM	#18
Lugerdoc Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: POB 398 St.Charles,MO. 63302 Posts: 5,089 Thanks: 6 Thanked 736 Times in 483 Posts	Jim, Your above comments regarding the existance of LZAs (LuftZeugAmter) Air Force Repair Depots, as the Luftwaffe equivalent of the HZAs, has jogged my brain cells. Perhaps you have found the answer (maker) of the Ku lugers. Since these bear a unique "LA" or "LZA" final exceptance proofing, is it possible that the Luftwaffe assembled these PO8s in their own depots from Mauser and KH spare parts? I wonder if they had an LZa in a city that began with Ku with an umlaut? TH __________________ Tom Heller POB 398 ST.Charles, MO. 63302 Tel 636-447-3006 lugerdoc@charter.net

09-05-2003, 10:18 AM	#19
Leon DeSpain User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Plano, Texas Posts: 124 Thanks: 0 Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts	Here is the link to a P.08 that I have that is similarly marked. http://lmd-militaria.com/page157.html Regards, Leon

09-05-2003, 01:23 PM	#20
Jim Keenan User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 184 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Hi, Lugerdoc, That is quite common in modern German, even in Germany, but when I do a direct quote from something or describe a marking, I prefer to use the vowel and then say it has the umlaut; otherwise it looks like I added a letter. I once saw a Walther PP that Bubba claimed he captured from Goering. Sure enough, in electric pencil on the slide was "Herman Goering". Do you suppose it could have been fake? Jim