While I appreciate your lack of satisfaction, your attitude toward folks that are genuinely trying to help is a little sad. There is a great deal of expertise represented by the members of this forum. I have been collecting Lugers for 57 years, have examples in my collection that are nearly as rare as those you have referenced, and know Bob Simpson quite well...we mutually respect each other and gladly share what knowledge we have. If you think I am an amateur, ask Bob if he considers me so.
Respectfully,
Ron

If the "forum members with the most to contribute to your knowledge base are behind corporate/government/military firewalls" thats (sic) not really my problem if they are inclined to visit forums and share their knowledge I'm sure they can wait till they are at home on a personal PC. I posted on here to hopefully find out something I didn't already know [;] (sic) the only person to help at all was the gentleman posting about the unit markings.

H'mmm.

:mad:1,2,3,4,5...9,10.

Oh, well. :rolleyes:

Regards to all,

Gunny John

PS, Durn, Ron and Sheep, you beat me to it.

Ron I don't think you are an amateur I just don't feel that speculating on why it might have been marked that way should be taken as fact. I don't mean to offend anyone I just don't have much faith in forums. This is just a last resort which hasn't thus far yielded much fact. I appreciate everyone's input but its opinion at this point.

Again, I wish you luck in your quest for fact. I am afraid you will find it difficult since documentation from that period is virtually non-existent and the marking is indeed non-standard so that makes it doubly difficult. In the absence of documentation, learned opinion is frequently the only recourse. Forums represent a large body of knowledge and experience, so while they may not encourage your faith, perhaps you could muster a small amount of respect. We mean well.:thumbup:

Thanks for the well wishes, while I do appreciate and respect your opinion, it is just that an opinion. I will keep this thread updated on any information I find in regards to this firearm, as I said I did find something saying the 1910 marking instructions included " Receivers from reserve stocks, where the year of manufacture does not correspond with the year of completion of the weapon, will receive a 2.1mm high correction for the year of completion behind the manufacture-year in fractional form." while I'm not certain that is true I found it through one singe source and as I have made painfully and rudely apparent I like to confirm opinion before I take it as fact. So I'll continue my quest for fact on this particular firearm.


I have had a hard time even finding a photo of a duplicate stamp of this variety, I have seen a few photos of 1918/20 but none 1917/20. I'm not quite sure if this makes it rare or more valuable. At this point its not even really about this rarity or value, its more the fact that its simply irritating not knowing why it is stamped this way.


If the information I found about marking instructions is in fact true, why would it have sat for 3 years?:confused:

It wouldn't have. The instructions you found were Imperial era/military instructions that were no longer applicable in 1920.

"...while I do appreciate and respect your opinion, it is just that an opinion."

(Gunny puts down his beer and sticks his head out from under his rock...)

Yeah, jus' 'bout like e=mc2 is jus' Albert's opinion.


(Gunny belches, waddles around and crawls back under his rock and tries to find where he left his beer. No luck. He pops another one. Forum members smile benevolently and say, "Good Gunny. Now go back to sleep.")

Apparently, you didn't really mean "any."

The Germans crucified Jesus??? I'd always been told it was the Romans... :confused:


Haw...This is all good!!! :D

I think I'll join John under that rock... :p

...After I check Flight Medic's thread and see what's happening there... :)

Gentlemen,
I know there is the temptation to make light of the discussion, but there is a serious intent to try to resolve a puzzling marking. There is a bit of hypocrisy in the posters approach to accepting information provided. For example, he accepted the identification of the holster as German without question because he was told that by Bob Simpson, and that rationale was used to reject the very valid comment by “wlyon” that the holster was never a German issue but likely a private purchase. While I don’t doubt that Bob arrived at his conclusion based on what he observed, since the holster lacks any markings and was not an item of issue by the German Army, he does not know it is genuinely German, only that his expert opinion leads him to that identification. Our “jbf22” chooses not to extend that observational expertise to opinions expressed on this forum. That is OK, and his reluctance must be respected.

The holster is most likely one made by a German saddler for a G.I. during occupation. The German cavalry during both world wars wore standard issue holsters on their field belts. ALWAYS.

The end for me. Have fun in your world. Bill

That sounds like the best idea I've heard all month...I think I will join you... :cheers:

(It's been a long time comin'...) :thumbup:

I sometimes wonder what a hot head like me is doing among such masters of diplomatic restraint.

^^^^^ Doug you crack me up sometimes. :D This thread will be found in the dictionary as a prime example of an exercise in futility. Good night all!

Ron, I salute your diplomacy in a difficult circumstance. I believe Secretary Kerry could use your assistance with Russia/Ukraine if you are up to the challenge.

How bad could I do? After all, I have as much experience as our Commander-in-Chief.

May be one will be so kind and translate my little answer
Etwas irritiert, aber auch amüsiert, habe ich die Beiträge bis hierhin verfolgt.
Vorab möchte ich sagen, dass mir alle Beiträge der Mitglieder gefallen und mein Interesse am Hobby wach halten. So gilt mein Respekt auch erst einmal allen Mitgliedern in gleicher Weise. Ein paar Mitglieder stechen aber durch ihr Wissen und der Breitschaft, dieses Wissen zu teilen, aus der Masse heraus. Um es ganz deutlich zu machen möchte ich Ron Wood hier in die vorderste Reihe rücken. In seiner Bescheidenheit und sicher auch durch seine Lebensweisheit wird er diese Stelle in vorderster Reihe weit von sich rücken, aber was wäre ein Forum wie dieses ohne Mitglieder wie ihn?
Nun zu der Stempelung 1917/20. Ursprung dieses Stempels wird die "Vorschrift für die Stempelung der Pistole 08 nebst Zeichnung" aus dem Jahr 1910 sein. In dieser Vorschrift wird so ziemlich alles bezüglich der 08 geregelt; sie wurde mehrfach geändert und ergänzt.
In den Anmerkungen finden wir unter Position 4. die Erklärung für das Doppeldatum.
Die Jahreszahl wird in Zahlen mit 3,2mm Höhe und 9 mm Breite geschlagen, die des zweiten Datums in 2,1 mm Höhe.
Hülsen aus Vorratsbeständen, auf denen das Anfertigungsjahr nicht dem Jahr der Fertigstellung der Waffe übereinstimmt, erhalten hinter dem unstimmigen Anfertigungsjahr in Bruchform und Höhe von 2,1mm die Berichtigung des Anfertigungsjahres.

Um Einwänden voraus zu kommen: Es gibt in Deutschen Archivalien keine Unterlagen, die darauf hinweisen, dass dieser Passus in der Reichswehrzeit übernommen wurde. Allerdings bin ich mir in Anbetracht meiner Erfahrung ziemlich sicher, dass es so war.

Well Jonah, this is your lucky day. It would seem that Klaus feels that in his experience the 1910 directive probably did carry over into the Weimar era, therefore the "1917/20" would indicate completion of a 1917 piece was delayed until 1920. Now as to why that happened I have no idea (but then again I evidently had no idea that it wasn't a property mark, so I am 2 for 2 :)).

Is it a full moon this week Ron?

From Google Translate -

A little irritated, but also amused, I have followed the posts up to this point.
First of all I want to say that I liked all the contributions of the members and keep my interest in the hobby awake. So my respect for all members applies only once in the same way. A few members stand out but by their knowledge and the Breitschaft to share this knowledge from the crowd. I want to make it very clear Ron Wood back here in the front row. In his modesty and certainly by his wisdom he will move this point in the front row far from him, but what would a forum like this without members like him?
Now for the stamping of 1917/20. Origin of this stamp will be the "rule for the stamping of the gun along with 08 drawings" from the year 1910. In this regulation, pretty much everything is controlled with respect to the 08; it has been amended and supplemented.
In the notes we see Position 4 the explanation for the double date.
The year is beaten in numbers with 3.2 mm in height and 9mm width. The second date in 2.1 mm height
Sleeves of inventories on which the production year does not match the year of completion of the weapon get behind the inconsistent production year break in shape and height of 2.1 mm, the correction of the production year.

To get objections ahead: There are no documents in German archives that suggest that this passage was taken in the Reichswehr time. However, I'm pretty sure, given my experience, that it was so.


Blame Google Translate for any confusion...