What we like in guns is very subject to personal taste, but I think this is the crown jewel of a fine collection from what I've seen of your postings. I personally couldn't sell it.

Yeah, upon careful consideration, I probably couldn't either.

Alvin,

Walter does not say he saw #19, this one or any other, he only mentions the account in the British journal and says that â??it is tempting to suggest that the gun is number 19â?�â?¦not a shred of evidence that the gun in the article was #19.

â??Is there any possibility that two #19 were madeâ?�â?¦not a snowball's chance in the Sahara. Loewe production of the Borchardt (before they became DWM) consisted of three phases, pre-production, early production and late production. There are subtle, but readily identifiable, differences in each. The #19 currently at auction is a LATE Loewe production piece. A few hundred Borchardts had been manufactured by the time this one was produced and there is no imaginable reason why Loewe would reach back to the very beginning of pre-production to give this piece number 19. The only scenario that I can come up with is that whoever renumbered this otherwise lovely Borchardt hoped to capitalize on Walter, or other historical accounts, and represent this gun as having providential lineage. It is this type of deception that is designed to snare the collector with deep pockets but the inability, or lack of initiative, to do authentication research. If you are going to run with the big dogs, you had better be able to pee in the tall grass without it splashing back on you.

Mr Wood,

You, Sir, have a unique mastery of the mother tongue.

Tom A

Let's temporarily put the auction #19 aside. Today, I read chapter 1 & 2 of Walter's classic book again and found an unexplainable thing:

On 6-22-1897, Swiss ordnance department tested a Borchardt along with a Bergmann, a Mannlicher, and a Mauser. The Loewe-made C93, #95 was demonstrated by Georg Luger (Page 43).

The myth to me are (1) Why did DWM (already setup earlier) want to send a Loewe gun (instead of DWM marked one) for Swiss test? (2) Even more interesting, why did they send a pretty early one (#95) for the testing purpose?

The 1st one could be... DWM initial products were assembled from Loewe parts anyway, either one would work. So, might not a big issue.

The 2nd one .... I stuck on the 2nd one. By end of 1896, Loewe had made at least 1,000 Borchardts (Page 33). It's also mentioned some functional enhancements, including coil springs elevated magazine follower (D.R.P. 91,998, 10-10-1896, Page 30) were made. Why didn't DWM show Switzerland their latest and best.....

Here are a few possibilities that I can think of at this moment:

(1) All enhancements were made before #95, so #95 was DWM's latest. But the patent date (10-10-1896) ran against it. It's hard to believe Borchardt could put the product on market before issuing patent application, and it's hard to believe only fewer than 100 guns were made before October 1896, and at least 900 were made in the last two months of that year.

(2) Georg Luger intentionally carried a outdated model to Switzerland. He knew Swiss would reject it so he could improve it. By reading Mauser Archive (Jon Speed, 2007), GL was a shady guy and that's not impossible. But, which gun to send to Swiss could not be a GL's decision. It's not his gun, he only performed demo.

(3) A bold one.... absolutely no evidence..... DWM could have a seperately numbered series, and #95 was a late gun in that series.

Any comments?

I did a quick look-see in my old reliable and tattered 'The Luger Book' By John Walter to see if there was a diagram of the Borchardt. Sure enough on page 69 there was one. But I did a quick skim read of the rather long write up for serial number 19. There it was on page 68.

"Guns number 19 and 27 are the earliest known Loewe-marked Borchardts, the former being presented to Eley Brothers of London in 1894(?) and the latter submitted to Fabrique Nationale. The patent drawings suggest that the first gun(s) had a lanyard ring where the stock-lug will be found on the production guns, a different front sight and, just possibly, a different roller unit at the back of the toggle. Interestingly, the drawings also show flat concentric-ring toggle-grips of the type later associated with one of the prototype Borchardt-Lugers".

I'll be going back to Stars pictures to see if her Loewe-Borchardt corresponds to what Walter wrote. The above mentioned diagram page 69 will show the suggested changes.
Norm

I did not see a stock lug on mine, nor any place that it appeared one might have been.
I have seen them on the back of the overhanging hump, (mainspring housing), on other guns, but mine lacks this little lug.
I do however have a lanyard ring, but it is on the left side.
I was wondering how they got a stock onto this beast.

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/4_copy7.jpg

Ron Wood,
just where did you see that snowball in the Sahara? Global warming is a funny thing. I almost had to erase the gazillion atta boys that I have after your name in my computer. Gosh, they ARE taking up a lotta space in my computer. It runs slow because of it too.

I looked at Stars Loewe-Borchardt shortly after writing my last post and, obviously, it isn't serial #19. So I went to Juliaauction and saw the Borchardt that you were referring to. Its Loewe #19, but its not what Walter described. Same old front sight, its got a stock lug and the right toggle knob is like the production Borchardts. (The left toggle knob is questionable). Oh boy, I thought that I had a gotcha on you. I still couldn't imagine that I had you, so I went to Walters write-up again. Sure enough, you got away. Apparently, Walter was looking at the patent diagram that I suppose is in his book on page 69. He didn't mention at he actually saw the physical gun itself. Ok, so you get to keep all those atta boys and my computer still is going to run slow. But gun #19 will play on my mind for a long time. Now we have to get someone to go to France and see Loewe-Borchardt #27 to see if it corresponds to the patent drawing.
Big Norm

Oh, did you happen to notice the size of the numbers on the magazine that Star presented. Considerably smaller that one would expect from seeing other Borchardt magazines. This issue came up before in emails between you and me.
Big Norm

I would tend to believe that the number size on my mag is correct, if for no other reason than it does NOT match the gun, lol.
If they were going to boost it, they could have at least matched it to that gun.

Any ideas about the lack of stock lug?
Or am I just missing it, and it is a side mount or something?

Star,
the Lanyard ring on the patent drawing is quite pronounced on the rear around where the stock lug should be. The absence of a stock lug on your Loewe is interesting too. Maybe this is part of Mr. Lugers fiddling around. A lanyard ring mounted on the left side is not shown on the patent diagram. Time for me to keep my mouth shut for a while and to listen to what others might have to say.
Big Norm

Star,
I am not suggesting that your mag has been renumbered. I am sorry that I gave that impression. Ronny, me and others have discussed the number sizes before via emails. (Maybe on this forum too) A different way of having serial numbers on the mag is simular in size and location to a navy mag. I have two non matching mags for my DWM Borchardt and they go both ways. I have seen them both ways on other Borchardts. And they don't look redone either. If memory serves me right, a definite conclusion was never reached regarding the size and direction of the numbers.

Some day, I will start a thread with pictures and get a real discussion going on it. But I have a lot of learning to do on my digital camera and computer first.
Big Norm :confused:

Alvin,

â??Any comments?â?� Yes, a few.

Point 1 â?? This is your most insightful comment â?? â??So, might not [be] a big issueâ?�. It isnâ??t. All changes in the Borchardt from beginning to end were largely cosmetic. Some were a little more significant than others, but not enough to impact basic functioning of the arm, so it really didnâ??t matter if #95 Loewe or #2095 DWM was used for the Swiss test.

Point 2 â?? The riveted magazine leaf spring died in the starting blocks. It lacked a solid follower and was unreliable, so Borchardts were marketed from the get-go with the double spring and follower. The patent of 10 October 1896 covered a holdopen for the toggle that would block the line of sight when the magazine was empty. The illustration for the patent showed the double coil spring, but had nothing to do with the double coil arrangement, which had already been implemented because of the failure of the flat spring arrangement. With respect to â??Why didn't DWM show Switzerland their latest and best...â?�, the Loewe pistol represented the best version of the Borchardt for demonstration. When DWM production began, several minor modifications were made to simplify manufacture: a) The fine stepped and pinned front sight of the Loewe version was replaced by a simpler solidly machined pyramidal sight; b) The pattern of the side plate was made more simple and largely eliminated the â??schnabelâ?� on the leading edge; c) Most significantly, the adjustable rear sight of the Loewe version was replaced by a fixed sight. So by presenting the Loewe #95, DWM was demonstrating the most sophisticated, adjustable sight, model. Probably #95, being an early production piece, had been used for other demonstrations and probably was pretty finely tuned for proper functioning.

Now letâ??s address your â??few possibilitiesâ?�:

(1) You are essentially correct; all enhancements were made before #95. The patent of 10/10/96 has already been discussed above and didnâ??t have diddlysquat to do with production numbers.
(2) In 1897, and subsequently, Georg Luger was an employee of DWM. Therefore he demonstrated what he was told to demonstrate and had no particular ax to grind. In fact, it is very likely the criticism of the Swiss test regarding the â??action lengthâ?� that prompted his initial consideration for modifications to the Borchardt design.
(3) Nearly every time an example of an early firearm shows up that has an oddball or out of sequence serial number, someone will put forth the theory that there was a â??separately numbered seriesâ?� (I have been through this ad nauseum with pre-production Lugers). Please be assured that after myself and other collectors have been tracking Borchardt serial numbers for nearly two decades, there is absolutely no evidence of anything other than sequential serial numbering throughout Borchardt production. There are a couple of flyers, but like this #19 they are easily identified as bogus.

â??Nuff said?

I don't see where any of you Borchardt owners have answered Star's question about the location where she should find the stock lug on her gun. I am completely ignorant where these guns are concerned... but I sure am also curious about a Borchardt without a stock lug.

I am a little embarrassed to admit that I didn't notice the absence of a stock lug right off the bat. It should be located on the rear of the mainspring housing, so either it has been removed or never had one (unlikely). It is fairly small and sticks out where it could be easily damaged, so I think an examination in good lighting from several angles may reveal that it has been removed and the housing nicely refinished.
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/housing.jpg
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/attach.jpg

Hi Ron,

Is the stock lug integral to the housing? or is it attached to the housing? If so, by what method? Welding? Brazing? Could the missing lug be fabricated and replaced?

Hmmm, well no evidence of a lug ever having been there, not any refinish to cover.
Odd.

John,
Under magnification the lug appears integral to the housing, all machined from one piece of solid stock. I see no reason why a replacement couldn't be easily fabricated. The trick is attaching it to the housing. Silver braze would probably be strong enough to allow attachment of the stock. I am not sure it would hold up to firing (not much chance of that anyway). It could be strengthened by pins integral to the lug placed in corresponding holes drilled in the housing and, in addition to the silver solder, peening the pins over on the inside.

One thing I quite canâ??t understand, were Borchardts produced without a stock lug? And if yes what is the time period of these Boorchards? Because as far as I know I always thought that all Borchardts should have a stock Lug.

Alf :confused:

Other than possibly one or two early pre-production pieces that may have been produced with the lanyard attachment where the stock lug eventually was placed, I am unaware of any Borchardts that were made without a stock lug. But, I haven't seen or have had reported to me all of the Borchardts in existence, so I can't say positively there were none.

Fig 1 of the October 1896 patent (D.R.P. 91,998) shows a unusual spring housing as well. In the stock lug's position, it has a lanyard ring, but not like the lanyard ring eye as appeared in the original C93 patent (D.R.P. 75,837).

According to patents and surviving samples, there are at least three types of spring housing:

(1) Lanyard ring eye in the upper position;
(2) Lanyard ring eye in the lower position. Also, a different shape;
(3a) -- nothing -- (questionable, but not impossible);
(3b) Stock lug in the lower position (most common).

Hopefully, I did not miss a configuration, did I?

======

For (1) & (2) listed above (visible on patents), there are virtually two lanyard rings per gun. What could be in Borchardt's mind to put two rings on the gun.... any suggestion? Thanks.

I made a mistake. The original 1893 patent did not have the lanyard ring on the side. However, the 1896 patent did have two lanyard rings.

Any idea why two lanyard rings:)
Alf

John Sabato,
if Stars Borchardt never had a stock lug on it, I would NEVER suggest that someone try to put one on. Until someone of Ron Woods qualifications inspected it and decided one way or another, I would just leave it alone. There just might be something historically unique about her gun. I don't know where Star is from, but I sure would like Ron Wood to, physically, look it over.

Ron Wood,
Have you physically seen the #19 Borchardt that Juliaauction is selling? Your explaination sounds logical given the current amount of counterfeiting going on within the Luger ranks. But I just can't understand why someone would do it to this particular gun. Its expensive enough as is. I'm not challenging, just stunned. The pictures in the auction just are not good enough to see if the gun has been altered.

Maybe gun #27, mentioned in Walters book, might shed some further light. Walters book shows some pictures of that pistol. Unfortuately, the pictures do not address the current discussion. The pictures were taken by Colonel W. Reid Betz, John M. Browning Museum. Does this pistol now reside in that museum? Where is that museum?

Great discussion everyone.
Big Norm

Big Norm -

Well, a google search shows that the John M. Browning Museum is in Ogden, Utah.

Mauser720 - Ron

I feel comparing with #27 is a great suggestion. I bet the Museum is in Utah.

According to Walter, #27 has stock lug and Loewe text over the chamber. By pictures posted by Star and www.borchardtland.com, the triggers have full s/n. Probably many small parts are fully numbered as well. If that's true, changing numbers on so many parts to 19..... of course, not a problem for a professional and the auction price pays for the work.

Ron mentioned pre-production, early and late models. There is one thing unclear to me -- What's the supposed shape of #19? Since #27 does not match the 1893 patent drawing (because of the stock lug), #19 might not match either.

Here is a Loewe over the chamber with a stock lug. This rig is for sale.

Close up of stock lug.

Alvin,

I probably should just let this thread go, but I am a glutton for punishment. Number 19 in the auction is a late production Loewe as I have stated before. Number 27 is the earliest known production Loewe (immediately following the pre-production series, which ended with #25) and is pictured in the October 1993 issue of Deutsches Waffen-Journal. Forget about the patent drawings, they are just drawings and unless you have the text to go with them, you will have no idea whether what is in the drawing has anything to do with actual production. They are stock drawings that are modified to illustrate the particular item for which the patent applies. For instance, the 1896 patent is for a stepped follower on the magazine that was supposed to act as a hold open. The fact that Walter used it to illustrate the double spring magazine has nothing to do with the double spring. Borchardts were never fabricated with two lanyard attachments. It only existed in the patent drawing.

In reviewing my records, I did find one more Borchardt, # 8, that is recorded as having no stock lug, but I do not have any additional information whether it was made that way or if it was removed. To the best of my knowledge, and that of others more knowledgeable than me, Borchardts were made with a stock lug from the get-go.

The "supposed shape" of #19 would be like every other Loewe Borchardt, stock lug and all. But a "real" #19 would not have the sear bar that is shown on the auction Borchardt, it would not be marked on the right side of the receiver "System Borchardt Patent", it would not be proofed, and the sear spring would be secured by a small screw and not in a groove in the receiver.

Least I have not made myself clear, let me state again THE BORCHARDT #19 IN THE JULIA AUCTION IS A LATE PRODUCTION PIECE AND COULD NOT HAVE A SERIAL NUMBER 19. You guys trying to come up with justification for it being legitimate is precisely why it was boosted. There is historical reference to #19, so that is most likely why someone decided to use that serial number to renumber this otherwise beautiful gun. Not content with having a potential $25-30K sale, they were hoping that the uninformed buyer would swallow the possibility of it being a very early piece with historical provenance and cough up an additional $10-15K for the rarity.

Yes, it has been masterfully re-done, but either the "mechanic" was unaware of the differences in pre-, early- and late production Loewes and figured a "Loewe is a Loewe", or he figured a potential buyer wouldn't know the difference and swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Ron. Very well written as usual. Bill

Dow,
That is a good looking rig. Who has it for sale?

Ron, thank you very much for the analysis & explaination. Through my short experience with old guns, C&R study is nothing but details. I appreciate it.

Reading once again this thread, I am thinking that there are here on this forum some (many ?) very first class collectors and historians. I am really impressed by the knowledge of some of you, Gentle-men (and -Woman..). It is one of the great pleasures and advantages of being member of this forum. Congratulations to you !

laoshi -- If you read their profiles.... Ron Wood has collected guns for over 50 years, and Tom A, I have not figured out yet, hint is he searched Borchie near 50 years in the past. We are talking about half a century..... It's a privilege to post asking them questions.

A Loewe Borchart in Beijing Military Museum. Enjoy.

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

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/bt1_copy1.jpg

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/bt2_copy1.jpg

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/bt3_copy1.jpg

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/bt4_copy1.jpg

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/bt5_copy1.jpg

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/bt6.jpg

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/bt7.jpg

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/bt8.jpg

=======

P.S. -- By reviewing those pictures, I am not sure.... halo on chamber marking??

Alvin,

Thank you for the link to the Beijing Military Museum Borchardt. It is obviously a Loewe piece. Is there any indication of the serial number?

Ron -- The lighting is poor, and it's locked in a glass cabinet. I will carry a telescope with me to visit again to find the s/n..... in a few days. Will also try to take clearer pictures.

Would be interested in what the placard information says about it.

Tom A

A word about the Loewe/DWM 'transition':

DWM, or Deutsche Waffen- und Munitionsfabriken A.G., was set up in 1897 by Ludw. Loewe & Cie. Loewe had purchased the Deutsche Metallpatronenfabrik in Karlsruhe and decided to group it's military production into one company, so they founded DWM, with locations in Karlsruhe (former DM) and Berlin (the Loewe arms production part).

Nothing much changed for the Berlin based Loewe weapons branch and staff, just a new name on the stationary and the outside wall, that's all.

So there's nothing weird or mysterious about Georg Luger walking around with a Loewe marked C/93 in those days.

The placard says "Borchardt Automatic Pistol (Germany Made)". There are tons of Broomhandles, 1911s, HP35s, Nambus, S&W revolvers, etc in the Museum, but only a single Borchardt. Interesting enough, there are also four Lugers: a 1920 commercial, a DWM Army 9, an Artillery, and a ?? (I cannot remember), all 4 Lugers are in 10% shape.

S/N is 905.

I did my best, even spent $12 to get a 10x binocular. People must feel funny seeing a guy standing 3-4 feet away from the gun and watching it with a binocular. Unfortunately, it did not help at all. I could not focus the lens. I took 200 pictures, the following three are the best quality ones that I could create.

The same camera did a little better this time. s/n is 905. The middle 0 is unclear from the first picture, but it's visible on the trigger.

Two more pictures showing the BUG on barrel, and BU on receiver. For some reason, the camera did not catch C/G clearly, but it's there.

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/b9x5a.jpg

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/b9x5b.jpg

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/b9x5c.jpg

========

Two more pictures... same thing, but might be better (??)

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/b9x5d.jpg

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/b9x5e.jpg