The M1906 Russian Contract Controversy Strikes Again

[Edward Tinker]

Albert, I just don't understand how your bringing up Sturgess in so many of your postings helps your theories? I don't know the man, never met him and never met you.

The excuse for not finishing your book is that you are gathering together data is an old, lame excuse and one I have seen numerous times after the person has died and the family wonders what to do with this semi-finished manuscript. You have been working on this book for what, 5 years? 10 or is it 15 years? What are you waiting for?

I don't believe some of your theories because you don't provide concrete paperwork or provide documentation from other guns. I have never said that your theories could not be correct, but simply that you base it on conjecture, just as the present theories are based.

If the crossed rifles were a marketing ploy, just as the american eagle was, then that hurts the theory that DWM and the gov'ts were involved in the reason behind the crossed rifles. If you go on the assumption that Bulgaria / Russia, they didn't ask, just as the US gov't didn't ask for the crest on the chamber, as no precise measurements were taken, given or asked for. If you take that into consideration, then the crossed rifles is just a marketing ploy for a 'commercial' market and not some gov't request.

Do you have any idea how many 'geladen' and Geischert marked lugers came to america? Now why would they have new made lugers come to america that had the german language instead of in english? Shouldn't all new made lugers instead have SAFE and Loaded on them? Perhaps because they had a lot more frames and extractors already marked, just as they already had bulgarian extractors marked. DWM simply didn't care, DWM made lots of mistakes or omissions, sales were more important than some precise wording for commercially sold guns to Russia.

[Norme]

Dear Albert, There is no supporting evidence for your Tsar Ferdinand the First* theory, none whatsoever, not in Germany, not in Bulgaria, and not in Minsk. However, even were one to accept this theory, I would point out that, since Minsk is in Russia, these Lugers would be Russian anyway!
*Since there was not to be a Tsar Ferdinand the Second, he should more properly be called simply, Tsar Ferdinand.
Best regards, Norm

[Imperial Arms]

Originally Posted by Edward Tinker

Albert, I just don't understand how your bringing up Sturgess in so many of your postings helps your theories? I don't know the man, never met him and never met you.

The excuse for not finishing your book is that you are gathering together data is an old, lame excuse and one I have seen numerous times after the person has died and the family wonders what to do with this semi-finished manuscript. You have been working on this book for what, 5 years? 10 or is it 15 years? What are you waiting for?

I don't believe some of your theories because you don't provide concrete paperwork or provide documentation from other guns. I have never said that your theories could not be correct, but simply that you base it on conjecture, just as the present theories are based.

If the crossed rifles were a marketing ploy, just as the american eagle was, then that hurts the theory that DWM and the gov'ts were involved in the reason behind the crossed rifles. If you go on the assumption that Bulgaria / Russia, they didn't ask, just as the US gov't didn't ask for the crest on the chamber, as no precise measurements were taken, given or asked for. If you take that into consideration, then the crossed rifles is just a marketing ploy for a 'commercial' market and not some gov't request.

Do you have any idea how many 'geladen' and Geischert marked lugers came to america? Now why would they have new made lugers come to america that had the german language instead of in english? Shouldn't all new made lugers instead have SAFE and Loaded on them? Perhaps because they had a lot more frames and extractors already marked, just as they already had bulgarian extractors marked. DWM simply didn't care, DWM made lots of mistakes or omissions, sales were more important than some precise wording for commercially sold guns to Russia.

Edward,

I mention Geoff in a number of my comments because there are people like you who consider him so important in the collectors society when a number of people do not know what caused his reputation to tumble. His name and reputation has some stains like Ralph which is not as revealing because less is known about Geoff than compared to Ralph. He tries to use his 'holy' position and pompous English background to create a special image of himself, and he prefers to only exposes himself through his various publications which contain a number of errors. He will never admit that he is wrong, so he deserves the attacks that he receives. It seems that the size of his collection which he mainly acquired in one large sweep from Henk Visser in the early 1990's is what impresses collectors, but they should also learn what other rubbish has gone though his hands before saying 'Wow'. If it was not for his wealth and his 'proper' English attitude, I wonder what he would stand for in different times and circumstances?

In regards to my manuscript on the Mauser C96 which I have been working on for about 15 years, you do not need to worry about it never being made into a book - I am still young and in good health, unless your health is going in the opposite direction. I intend to make my book on the Mauser C96 a 'bible' on the subject and I have access to all the finest pieces in the world including to the first two Spur Hammer prototypes. I have learned from various experts how to properly present information based on sound historical facts and traditions, and not make similar errors like on the 'M1906 Russian Luger' and the 'Swiss-Anglo B/L pistols'.

When concrete information is not available, of course, conjecture is all that remains - As thet they say, believe what you want. However, in the case of the 'M1906 Russian Luger' theory, what can the critics provide? NOTHING - Just any excuse or weak opinion to keep it alive.

Considering the the great length of this topic being debated, I am surprised how the critics do not yet understand about the characteristics and differences of a contract and a commercial pistol. Usually, contract pistols need to be made under specific and/or strict guidelines provided by a foreign government. You tell me why the M1906 Russian Contract Luger has these strange markings that has confused collectors for decades? Is this 'curve ball' suppose to happen with a contract Luger (or a Mauser C96 pistol)? How come we do not see these odd occurences with the Portugese Lugers delivered around the same time frame? Just simply learn that the crossed rifles likely mean an infantry connection just like an anchor means navy. Now, you figure out some kind of connection between the infantry emblem on the chamber and the Russian Empire. I believe that the Tsar of Bulgaria being an infantry leader in his nation carries more weight than any empty 'Russian theory'. If you say the DWM made mistakes and omissions, they probably occurred with pistols sold in different commercial markets, but I have yet heard of a serious careless mistake dealing with a foreign contract. And do not forget about that M1902 Russian Luger Carbine with the same (contract) crossed rifles on the chamber!

Albert

[Edward Tinker]

You are so immersed in your own world that you have no idea?

I do not know Sturgess and do not care that you dislike him. But I have tried to impress upon you that you need to NOT be a jerk to anyone, and BTW that includes me. As a moderator I feel it is my duty to keep things on an even keel, but you seem to think that means that I don't like you and like Sturgess. The point is sport, that I don't care or not care about either of you (no offense meant), however, since you make snide comments about me and to me..... It makes it hard to respect you. Leave it be and remember I will enforce the rules; one is listen to the moderators and treat others with respect.

Oh, BTW, I could care less about your book and how exciting that you feel it will be the 'bible' of brooms. yawnnnnnn

sorry, but disparaging other authors, who have put in untold hours on research is disrespectful.


Ed

Originally Posted by Imperial Arms

Edward,

I mention Geoff in a number of my comments because there are people like you who consider him so important in the collectors society when a number of people do not know what caused his reputation to tumble. His name and repuation has some stains like Ralph which is not as revealing because less is known about Geoff than compared to Ralph. He tries to use his 'holy' position and pompous English background to create a special image of himself, and he preferes to only exposes himself through his various publications which contain a number of errors. He will never admit that he is wrong, so he deserves the attacks that he receives. It seems that the size of his collection which he mainly acquired in one large sweep from Henk Visser in the early 1990's is what impresses collectors, but they should also learn what other rubbish has gone though his hands before saying 'Wow'. If it was not for his wealth and his 'proper' English attitude, I wonder what he would stand for in different times and circumstances?

In regards to my manuscript on the Mauser C96 which I have been working on for about 15 years, you do not need to worry about it never being made into a book - I am still young and in good health, unless your health is going in the opposite direction. I intend to make my book on the Mauser C96 a 'bible' on the subject and I have access to all the finest pieces in the world including to the first two Spur Hammer prototypes. I have learned from various experts how to properly present information based on sound historical facts and traditions, and not make similar errors like on the 'M1906 Russian Luger' and the 'Swiss-Anglo B/L pistols'.

When concrete information is not available, of course, conjecture is all that remains - As thet they say, believe what you want. However, in the case of the 'M1906 Russian Luger' theory, what can the critics provide? NOTHING - Just any excuse or weak opinion to keep it alive.

Considering the the great length of this topic being debated, I am surprised how the critics do not yet understand about the characteristics and differences of a contract and a commercial pistol. Usually, contract pistols need to be made under specific and/or strict guidelines provided by a foreign government. You tell me why the M1906 Russian Contract Luger has these strange markings that has confused collectors for decades? Is this 'curve ball' suppose to happen with a contract Luger (or a Mauser C96 pistol)? How come we do not see these odd occurences with the Portugese Lugers delivered around the same time frame? Just simply learn that the crossed rifles likely mean an infantry connection just like an anchor means navy. Now, you figure out some kind of connection between the infantry emblem on the chamber and the Russian Empire. I believe that the Tsar of Bulgaria being an infantry leader in his nation carries more weight than any empty 'Russian theory'. If you say the DWM made mistakes and omissions, they probably occurred with pistols sold in different commercial markets, but I have yet heard of a serious careless mistake dealing with a foreign contract. And do not forget about that M1902 Russian Luger Carbine with the same (contract) crossed rifles on the chamber!

Albert

[Imperial Arms]

Originally Posted by Edward Tinker

Albert, I just don't understand how your bringing up Sturgess in so many of your postings helps your theories? I don't know the man, never met him and never met you.

The excuse for not finishing your book is that you are gathering together data is an old, lame excuse and one I have seen numerous times after the person has died and the family wonders what to do with this semi-finished manuscript. You have been working on this book for what, 5 years? 10 or is it 15 years? What are you waiting for?

I don't believe some of your theories because you don't provide concrete paperwork or provide documentation from other guns. I have never said that your theories could not be correct, but simply that you base it on conjecture, just as the present theories are based.

If the crossed rifles were a marketing ploy, just as the american eagle was, then that hurts the theory that DWM and the gov'ts were involved in the reason behind the crossed rifles. If you go on the assumption that Bulgaria / Russia, they didn't ask, just as the US gov't didn't ask for the crest on the chamber, as no precise measurements were taken, given or asked for. If you take that into consideration, then the crossed rifles is just a marketing ploy for a 'commercial' market and not some gov't request.

Do you have any idea how many 'geladen' and Geischert marked lugers came to america? Now why would they have new made lugers come to america that had the german language instead of in english? Shouldn't all new made lugers instead have SAFE and Loaded on them? Perhaps because they had a lot more frames and extractors already marked, just as they already had bulgarian extractors marked. DWM simply didn't care, DWM made lots of mistakes or omissions, sales were more important than some precise wording for commercially sold guns to Russia.

Edward, with regards to your point about a so-called 'marketing ploy', you fail to understand the notion of consistency. If the Swiss market received Lugers with a national Swiss cross, the Americans received Lugers with the national US emblem (eagle), the Bulgarians received Lugers with the national Bulgarian crest (raised lions), why would the Russians receive crossed rifles when their national crest was a double-headed eagle with a crown? Furthermore, I guess it would have been easier from the start to leave the safety area unmarked until an order was received. Considering what you say, if this was intended to be a marketing ploy, it is one hell of a confusing one created by DWM! I mentioned this in the original thread a few months ago, but I suppose that your short memory does not go back very far.

If you claim that DWM made lots of mistakes or omissions with regards to foreign contracts, please describe a few others to me. It is possible that commercial sales had a few small exceptions, but not to the extreme of placing (infantry) crossed rifles on a chamber for the Russian civilian market. This would be a marketing ploy without any sense and a waste of money for DWM during production. You make the Germans look like fools when they were more precise than the Americans - and still are! I have no knowledge of DWM or Mauser selling rejects or surplus pistols during the imperial era. It may have happened with the sale of military rifles which were sold in much large quantities, but we could be talking apples and oranges on this different subject.

Excuse me for often writing in excess, but sometimes I have no choice when I try to explain a simple logical theory which is different from the American way of thinking and method of manufacturing. It seems that the Americans are bent on a certain square mentality which other foreigners see as awkward/bizarre. Of course, the Americans are excellent in technology and logistics (in the past and present), but there is still plenty of room for improvement although it often costs more money.

Albert

[Edward Tinker]

Originally Posted by Imperial Arms

Edward.....but I suppose that your short memory does not go back very far.

Albert

Ok Albert, let me be really clear.

YOU SAY ANOTHER COMMENT LIKE THAT TO ANY MEMBER AND YOU WILL BE BANNED.

It is simple, quit making comments like this.

[Imperial Arms]

Originally Posted by Edward Tinker

Ok Albert, let me be really clear.

YOU SAY ANOTHER COMMENT LIKE THAT TO ANY MEMBER AND YOU WILL BE BANNED.

It is simple, quit making comments like this.

Edward,

<Moderated>

Of course, I have made a few mistakes in the past while researching various subjects (i.e. with Mauser C96 pistols), however, when I gain new valid information, I always try to incorporate it very carefully in line with other correct and logical facts. This is exactly what I am doing on this particular subject where the information that I am presenting is in line with historical facts, events and German heritage. Nobody can say that the 'Bulgarian theory' in wrong even though the critics continue to use the 'escape door' of 'conjecture'; however, I can state with a very high degree of confidence that the 'Russian Contract Luger' was NEVER delivered to Russia.

Albert

[sheepherder]

Originally Posted by Imperial Arms

If the Swiss market received Lugers with a national Swiss cross, the Americans received Lugers with the national US emblem (eagle), the Bulgarians received Lugers with the national Bulgarian crest (raised lions), why would the Russians receive crossed rifles when their national crest was a double-headed eagle with a crown?

Albert, the pics of the DWM Japanese prototype Luger at www.forgottenweapons.com lends credence to this argument...

[Norme]

Originally Posted by postino

Albert, the pics of the DWM Japanese prototype Luger at www.forgottenweapons.com lends credence to this argument...

Hi Rich, I don't think that posting a picture of this particular gun adds credence to anyone's argument! Best regards, Norm

http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...ese+navy+luger

[sheepherder]

Originally Posted by Norme

Hi Rich, I don't think that posting a picture of this particular gun adds credence to anyone's argument! Best regards, Norm

http://luger.gunboards.com/showthrea...ese+navy+luger

Norm -

Thanks for the link!

It led to several other links, including posts by Pete Ebbinck and drbuster, both of whom I respect. Plus a PDF document on faked Lugers which was quite interesting, if somewhat suspect as to accuracy.

I've found Still's forum to be so large and segmented that it is a daunting task [for me] to try to keep current with the various and varied threads...A classic case (again, for me) of 'too much information'...

[Imperial Arms]

Originally Posted by postino

Albert, the pics of the DWM Japanese prototype Luger at www.forgottenweapons.com lends credence to this argument...

Nice try, Rich. I'll be nice and give your effort an answer. If you read carefully my previous post, I make reference to NATIONAL emblems (Swiss, AE and Bulgarian) - not military units. That so-called japanese prototype is very, very suspicious and that unknown chamber marking seems to be for some navy unit. The infantry, as in the case of the crossed rifles, is NOT a national emblem. It cannot pertain to the Russian empire/nation, so the 'marketing ploy' explanation that Edward had mentioned is also useless.

Albert