As I posted on Jan's Forum, many questions have been raised, all to no real conclusion. No one can say for sure what this interesting piece is. I, for one, am very happy that Harry presented it as a piece such as this NEEDS to be presented. I propose that Harry try to contact Charles Kenyon, have him examine it, and hopefully Charles would present his take in his regular section in the Gun Report. He did a masterful job with Robert Beers' 1910 Erfurt a few years ago.

Harry
Harry said:â??But to the doubters of real or not I will put up $500.00 that is real, thats a standing offer.â?�
JS: Throwing $500 at the questions about this Luger will not answer them or stop the honest questions from being asked about this Luger.

Harry said: â?? lastly, if this gun is a fake then just about all the others out there could be fakes as well.â?�
JS: I do not understand how the lack of credibility of this Luger affects all the others out there??? Attacking all the other Lugers out is not the road to establishing the credibility of your Luger.

Harry said: â??As collectors, we should all work together to assist in proving-up the unusual.â?�
JS: Why should any honest collector that has serious doubts about this Luger be obligated to prove it up?? Commenting on the questionable aspects of this Luger are as important as the positive. By pointing out the defects members of this forum recently exposed a fake Kreigsmarine K date, with an asking price of $12,000 and helped save a new collector from getting stuck with a fake.

JS: You have ignored the question about the barrel band asked on the other forum. Based on your photographs, the barrel band and front sight appear to be a separate add on to the barrel. I have never examined a DWM manufactured Luger that did not have the barrel band milled from the barrel block.
Jan

Blowup of a GL-stamp on a magazine.

Borrowed from John Walter's 'Luger story', page 66. Original Photo is from dr. Rolf Gminder's collection.

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/gl.jpg

Harry,

Do not have a gun to photograph...but here is a photo scan of a page from Walter's book "The Luger Story" on page 68...

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/presentation_1.jpg

And here is a close-up of one of the photos of your luger you posted on Jan's Gun Board...I think the style of the "1" and the "2" are quite different between the two photos...

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/harrys.jpg

Harry,

Here is a bit better photo scan of a "GL" hallmarked magazine from Walter's "The Luger Book" on page 133.

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/gl_mag.jpg

Harry,

Here is a glimpse of your "double strike" of the GL on the rear toggle.

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...uble_stamp.jpg

I just cannot imagine either a prototype (for show and tell to prospective, important customers...) or a presentation luger (to some VIP dignitary...) could possibly pass DWM final inspection and leave the factory as a double-strike...:confused:

Jerry B.,

Here is a close-up and lightened photo I borrowed of Harry's AvT chamber marking from the postings on Jan's Gun Boards :

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/avt_chamber.jpg

I have been reluctant to weigh in on this discussion since feelings run rather strongly on both sides of the argument, however, â??fools rush inâ?¦â?�, etc. While I am not asserting that the piece is authentic, there is a possibility that it has merit. Let me propose the following scenario for folks to chew on:

It is a tool-room prototype â??experimentalâ?� piece presented to the German Navy. Consider the following passage from G�¶rtz and Walter â??The Navy Lugerâ?�:

â??It has been suggested, somewhat implausibly, that the five experimental navy pistols were actually 15cm-barreled Parabellums of the experimental B-suffix five-digit number prototype series. However, they may have had the special back sight of the type now found on Old Model gun number 10005 (probably made about a year prior to the trials), which also has a 17.5 cm barrel and a unique stock with a push-button attachment. It would have been very tempting to consider this gun as a potential navy trial piece had its caliber been 9mm rather than 7.65mm.â?�

The experimental aspects reflected in this #10024 C Luger under discussion/critical review might be the modification of the rear sight from the 5-position tangent sight of the 7â?� (17.5cm) 10000-series pieces to the more practical two position 100-200 navy sight, and cutting back the longer barrel to a more manageable 6â?� (15cm) length. I chose the term â??cutting backâ?� on purpose because that is what I believe is the explanation of the unusual front sight of this Luger. In the enlarged photo of the front barrel band, a small step in the barrel is clearly visible behind the band indicating that band is probably a separate piece that has been fitted and silver-soldered, along with an appropriately elevated front sight block, to the barrel (how many of you know that is the way a Borchardt front sight is fitted?). Vestiges of this modification are apparent in the â??03/â??04 Navy Luger â??fat barrelâ?� configuration with the quite small difference in the diameter of the barrel and barrel band.

The serial number of Luger under discussion bears the upper case â??Câ?� suffix and a chamber monogram indicative of a presentation piece. To continue my flight of fancy, I would suggest that these are an add-on to a tool-room piece. The rational�© for this might be that after the initial presentation of the experimental Lugers, this one was made pretty for presentation to butter-up the old boy, or von T might have said â??gee, Iâ??d like to have one of thoseâ?�.

Again quoting from G�¶rtz and Walter, a translation of the letter from the Secretary of State, Reichs-Marine-Amt, states: â??The pistol will be known as â??Selbstladepistole 1904â??. It corresponds to the model as tested, apart from minor modifications [authors italics]â?�. The modifications mentioned that were made to the rare 1904 Navy Luger are quite likely the ramp style front sight base (to eliminate snagging and ease use with a holster) and the reduction of the bulky dished toggle knobs to a flat-sided configuration, again for duty holster use.

I have presented these arguments not to authenticate the piece but to provide food for thought. This is in no way critical of Harry, but I feel perhaps he may not have the Luger experience or resources to present these considerations. The suggestion by Dr. Fisher that this example be submitted to the scrutiny of a recognized authority such as Charlie Kenyon or Tom Armstrong is certainly in order. I lack the credentials to evaluate this piece, but I would love to be looking over their shoulder if and when this assessment occurs.

Hi again, Harry...

Here is a photo I borrowed from Ralph Shattuck's WOL web site...showing the "GL" rear toggle on the .45 cal. luger carbine he has been trying to sell these past 2 years.

This gun is quite controversial in its own right...but thought you might like to see this "GL"...sorry the photo is not quite the best in-focus...

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...ne_gl_mark.jpg

Thank you Ron, I do not claim to be a luger expert by no means, in fact they are not my weapon of choice for collecting. The input you laid out is exactly the type of conversation or material I was looking for. Again thank you. Does anyone out there know how I might get in contact with either Mr. Kenyon or Mr Armstrong who I would gladly submitt this gun to for evaluation???...

Harry,

This web page might contain a current email address for Kenyon :

http://www.lugersatrandom.com/pages/1/index.htm

I have sent you Tom Armstrong's email to your email adress...

I forgot to mention the most important "modification" for the 1904 Navy...the improved breechblock and extractor.

Tom Armstrong is one of the Moderators for the Navy Luger forum, and is one of the prominent Navy Luger collectors known worldwide. You can reach him there by using the private message feature on one of his posts (Tom A), or you can email him at catofong@aol.com

Thanks John,,I just emailed him and asked about a hands on opinion..Thanks again....Harry

I think the original question on the "0" stamps for the 10000 series asked by Harry would be very informative. Unfortunately I am in no position to answer it. This flaw in the 0s might show up in other non presentation Lugers of the same time frame. Does anyone know of it?

A couple of novice questions.

I was wondering at what stage in the production the GL stamp would have been struck.

Stamps were meant to be a makers mark to identify specific craftsman/inspectors. That said with the GL mark being used on prototype/presentation lugers almost as a prestige mark is it possible that G. Luger delegated control of the stamp and the actual act of striking the GL stamp to a senior inspector?

Does this stamp still exist in some collection?

Hi l10..!

They way I understand it, so stand to be corrected - the "GL" stamp was only used on Luger that had the personal attention of Georg Luger himself - whether in design or by actual personal attention. The "GL" stamp is typically found on "one offs", prototypes and such - so I don't think he would have delegated that hallmark to a senior inspector?

John D.

GL mag
 

Some pictures of my GL mag.
http://www.gunboards.com/luger/topic...38&whichpage=2

Hi,
Really do not know much about these early Lugers, but do have a question. Just why is it that all the recent "one of a kind" Lugers that have "mysteriously just dropped out of the sky" have all been in almost mint condition? And why is it that there is no paper trail or trail of any kind to help varify these? They always seem to come as a walk in or was stuck in a cabin in some remote place for the last 100 years. One last point, these owners of these pieces sure can keep a secret or keep there mouth shut as apparently they never showed them to anyone and in turn rumors have never surfaced about any of these rare pieces. -- I have no idea whether these are real or not, but the conditon and the way they have just shown up instantly raises some questions to me as it should to you also. These pieces will eventually sell for some big money to someone sometime, so the money is always a reason for these to be accepted. There are fake carbines, fake 02 fat barrels, fake K-date navies, fake 1916 navies, just to mention a few, and the workmanship just continues to get better and better on them. If they could be built once they can be built again. Just an interesting observation, but an unknown variation of a 45 carbine shows up in mint condition, and next an unknown variation of a prototype shows up in mint condition. No history? Hmmmmm could there be a pattern here? --- Bill

Bill ..Had to respond to your post..where have they been? can't answer for all but as has been noted in another post,,many of the G.I's that brought back guns are in there 80's..as my own father. He in fact brought back a little walther .25..did you know about that..of course not its still in a box with some million mark notes he returned with..He's 86..a lot of these guys are passing away and have been over the last few years. Let me ask you , if they kept the weapons and never offered them for sale..how would you or anyone else know they existed..point of fact..I just came home after buying a Forestry Service Officers Dress dagger (w/knot) mint cond. Bought it from the son of a vet. Its real..its nice and no-one knew about it except probably mom and the kids..I would in fact be surprised not to see a number of good discoverys in the next few years and expect collections will be enhanced with ownership of them..As to my Luger..This week end Mr. Kenyon is meeting me to examine the gun, I know if even he gives it the thumbs up, that will still be not enough for some...So I guess thats why we don't all drive Fords..There is always another opinion..