Dwight your #18 Post was written while I was writing #19.

If you can change convention I'm all for it. I am not resistant to change. Have seen it many times, in about all areas, in my life.

However, in 27 years Jan Still's laudable attempt to do it with "1920" and "1923" Commercials has only created confusion. Please don't get me wrong, I said "laudable attempt". Had it worked I'd be happy to accept it. His terms are practically never used outside the two Forums and quite often not even in the Forums. When they are used they are followed with an explanation in order to be understood. Excess verbiage. This has nothing to do with me or my opinions, it's only my observations and experience.

Dwight, I think there are just too many inconsistencies in Luger designations to change them in one lifetime. I really don't know why anyone ( read that as self proclaimed arbiter) would even want to try since, due to convention, nothing is broken. I see it as "tilting at windmills".

Jack

Norme, I agree with your quote. Respectfully, I think you should have stopped there.

I have expressed appreciation for Dwight's monumental efforts, but to your Post, no one has any "right" to tell me, or anyone else, what to think or what to conform to. I don't think it is Dwight's position to suggest he has that privilege. He can speak for himself.

Let me be clear, convention is not an arbiter of anything. I am convention, I, over the years, have joined with a multitude of like minded individuals in a mutually understood area of understanding forming a convention. No one needs to, or is required to, accept that convention.

Norme, I'm not being critical of you, I'm only stating my position in light of your Post #20. No one's efforts or good works gives them dominion over another's thinking or actions. If it did Mother Theresa would have ruled the world...in the minds of some. You get the point.

Jack

I am with Dwight and Norme.
"Clone" seems to have an accepted usage in the firearms lexicon: as in "1911 Clone" "AR15 Clone" inferring that the object is a very close copy by a different manufacturer. An S&W 1911 is a 1911 clone, a Colt Commander is not a 1911 clone, but a different model. It is typically used as jargon, not as a definitive category. If you want to pick nits you might look up Webster's definition of convention. Dwight's use of clone is conventional.

The problem with 1923 commercial for the 1918 to 192? serial-numbered commercial and 1920 commercial for the later alphabet serial numbered commercials is those designation are inaccurate and misleading.

I disagree a bit, although we all mostly understand the phrases used in the past, many times they are just wrong. Such as 1903 French and many others. The early phraseology was many times wrong by the early book writers as they didn't know.

I like to say 1902 carbine or fat barrel - Dwight likes things in certain boxes (although he is far better at words than me).

-------
I am reading some older articles a friend sent me, early stuff by Kenyon and some others and to todays ears and writing, it sounds weird (commercial Simson, etal)

ed

Jack,

I think you have identified the crux of the matter beyond which we will not agree.

The assemblage of Luger collector variations which has grown up over time has served the purpose, as you say, of providing experienced collectors a shorthand way to discuss, buy, and sell Lugers.

The problem is, most of the accepted Luger collector designations are simply counterfactual. Casual repetition of these prevailing designations fosters the continuation of erroneous “conventional wisdom,” and it deceives the faith of new collectors—and experienced collectors as well, for that matter—who trust that more experienced collectors mean what they are talking about. The “shortcut to the mental picture” is an intellectual disservice if the shortcut itself is in error.

This presents a bar to the casual Luger owner who simply wants to know about their Luger, or to historians or persons who simply want to read up on the topic. Conventional collector designations are not descriptive. A person with casual interest cannot understand anything about the topic until they have overcome the jargon of Luger collecting, only to discover that what they have learned is objectively wrong and must be explained away.

More adequate collector designations would be based on physical characteristics or manufacturers’ designations, in as simple a notation as is practical. Yes, this application leads to more discussion (that is a good thing) as it becomes an integral part of a collector’s vocabulary. This is no different from conventional designations, particularly as more and more (dated) variations proliferate an must be explained.

I regret that we cannot sit down together and have this conversation..

--Dwight

It might be nice to see a list of current "best practice" variation names along with what they are commonly known as, or used to be known as in the past. I could even see a moderator making that a "Sticky".

That, my friend, is a subject for a book.


--Dwight

Dwight,

You have said nothing from your point of view I disagree with. I don't like to think in terms of agreement or disagreement. I agree the matter of Luger identification is a daunting jumble of misinformation leading only to confusion for folks wanting break into this field of gun collecting. I say "break in" because no doubt the present convention is a barrier.

I am part of that convention, probably to my detriment, because I grew up in it, so to speak. Things developed slowly over the years, so were easily absorbed. Take my 63 years of accumulation, it goes back further than that, and dump it on an aspiring individual today, it's no wonder they give a blank stare and just move on. It has to affect the future of Luger collecting, the subject of a Thread on this Forum.

If convention could be changed, I'm for it. But, what can one person do? I think you'd have huge support for what you want to do but without your depth of knowledge what can anyone do other than agree with you. (I'm being rhetorical, these are more statements than questions.) How do you change the status quo? How do you change the thinking of such a dauntingly diverse number of folks?

Dwight, I know I probably sound antagonistic, however despite what you might think from our discussions, in me you have a supporter. But, what more can I do but agree and then fall right back into the status quo. I, like so many others on these two Forums, would like to see things as you envision, but we're the choir. Thousands of otherwise interested people don't even know we are having this conversation, and won't. I see them as the status quo. They are the unknown quiet majority that keep things the same. I see them as unreachable.

I hate being such a pessimist when you are so optimistic. Is it ok to ask for a general outline of a proposal to effect a change to the current thinking? Or not! I don't want to hi-jack ithacaartist's Thread. I wrote this before seeing spacecoast's Post #26 above. I like his proposal.

In closing let me say the first conventional identification I would like to see fade away is "Black Widow". I hate that term and won't use it. I saw it light heatedly mentioned that the ones with wood grips be "Brown Recluse". Things like that, though unintended, can catch on.



Jack

It would be a very interesting and welcome book indeed!

Roscoe

Instead of "saying" that Still failed with his commercial designation, we could all start using the
corrected "convention".

Same goes for the other misleading descriptors- stop using them; and use the more appropriate ones.

We don't need to know what they "all" are to start; "Black Widow" can be debunked if called out by the scores or hundreds of members here; so can use of 1920/23 commercial be replaced with more appropriate descriptors.

We are part of the problem if we are lazy, just give up, and hide behind convention.

JMHO. :)

Don, I for one agree with you 100%. The "Devil", as they say, is in the details, or just how to get the word out. If everyone on the two Forums began using "correct" terms we'd also have to have a two tiered Lexicon, one for use on the Forums and one for use elsewhere, as most people outside the Forums would have no idea what is being talked about, as is the case now. .

Since there is no list of proper terms, Forum members can't begin using what doesn't exist. What would be the proper term for a 1906 Commercial? I know it's not correct, but what is?

I went to Gunbroker and entered "Alphabet Commercial Luger" and got nothing. I found "Alphabet Commercial" used in quotes in the title of an auction on the Gun Auction web site. They began the description with a lengthy explanation of what "Alphabet Commercial" (their quotes) means, as the term doesn't speak for its self, at least as they see it in their minds and the minds of others.

I'm not stating a position, I have no position. I don't even see this as a genuine problem. But, if some one comes up with a workable practical solution I'll join in. However, until that time, everyone understands "1920 Commercial", not many understand "Alphabet Commercial," and that's after 27 years of exposure. There is nothing disrespectful about that, it's just a fact.

Jack

New Model Parabellum. In use for more than than a decade.

--Dwight

Thanks, Dwight. I always thought of "1906 Commercial" as a definition for "what is a New Model Parabellum". Less verbiage. But, you are right.

Jack

It would remove a lot of confusion to standardize some terms. A glossary of such could also include variations identified by descriptively accurate names. People have gotten together before, put some thought into it, and created such things (the Constitution comes to mind) in attempts to make sure everybody is on the same page and communication is clear as possible.

These days, we can communicate much more easily than relying on letters, phone calls, and the occasional gun show or visit. Seems like a good time to do something about it.

Consider that text, even with pictures, may not even be the most effective medium in which to lay all this "book" out. I have a notion of one big graphic. It would be based on a timeline and have branches/bars that represent variations in manufacturer, contract, configuration, or whatever you like laid out on the timeline, and relating to each other and keyed as such in a visual manner like color, cross-hatching, etc..

/crazy uncle stuff

It might take a little effort when typing, but letters and numbers are cheap online- so
why not "alphabet commercial(formerly identified in error as 1923 commercial";
or "new model parabellum(often referred to as 1906 model).

"Black Widow(a fantasy/marketing name for an all blued Mauser P.08 with black grips)"?

Each time we use the correct terms, we make a little progress. JMHO.

When searching online, I just use "luger"; one never knows how anyone will describe something special; occasionally I toss in "Lugar(sic)". :)

I could go along with that.

:roflmao:

Ron,

I went back to some source material and reminded myself of some data. The dating in this commercial range is dependent on the August 1913 order which mandates the stock lug in all P08 production; and the institution of the flat recoil spring well by 1915. From the limited reporting in hand, one cannot say with confidence whether these pistols were made in 1913 or 1914, with a slight bias toward the possibility of 1914.

Under the circumstances, "grip-safety P08 commercial" seems to be the most comprehensive collector designation.

--Dwight


Edit: Strike all of this. I checked commercial navy sn 71406 (six pistols after the last grip safety entry, 437 pistols before the first flat recoil spring well entry); it has a spur in the recoil spring well. This confidently places the grip safety pistol production in 1914.


I still stand by "grip safety P08 commercial", because the grip safety pistols include both stock lug and no-stock-lug examples.

Btw everybody the stock lug was mandated in P08 production in August 1913. A strike against the "1914 Commercial" designation.

--Dwight

Striking works for me...I'm going to stick with 1913 Commercial :)
Ron