Fake 1916 Navy on Gunbroker!
 

For beginners only, what's wrong with this gun?
Norm
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/867198655

I always feel like a beginner here, so I'll take a stab. Crown M proofs are spaced too far apart and also, the crown N seems strange. Although, the crowns aren't "floating" over the "M". Plus, it appears the link retaining pin is blued over, instead of in the white.

A 1916 with no chamber date? Backwards C / N ?

G2

I do not see the rear sight adjustable for range

front sight blade is ridged all the way to the top

The "N" is backwards

Come on guys, this gun has more red flags than a Moscow May Day parade!
Norm

Obi-Wan Kenobi,

Please school these many Padawns.

G2

O.K. guys, you did pretty good, not great, but pretty good:

gunbugs, you get a point for the blued toggle retaining pin.

gunnertwo, you get a point for noticing the missing chamber date, but you lose a point for not noticing that the date is missing from the front sight base as well!

Proofed, you get 3 points for noticing that the front sight is serrated all the way to the top not 2/3 of the way up as it should be (see photos). However, I have to deduct a point for not noticing that the base is undated.

How come nobody noticed the commercial C/N proofs? Don't you know that the German for Navy is Marine? Your lucky I'm in a good mood or you chaps would be in negative territory! There is one other red flag but I really didn't expect anyone to get it as it's not in the books yet. The relieved sear bar was introduced in late 1916 and the first 1200 aprox 1916 Navies came without this feature.
Norm

front sight
 

Ther is a date on the front sight base left side. hard to see but there.
And to think i was ready to severely reprimand myself and go to bed with no hot toddy

I believe you are correct, if one stares hard enough at Photo #3 one can just make out the last two digits of 1916, so you and gunner two get your points reinstated. I may be tough, but I'm fair.
Norm

Helping
 

Norm
For as much help as you have given the users of this forum, you can be any way you like.
Thank You

Ok, I know nothing about these, and little about anything.

I looked at that Luger before reading this thread. My impression was that it might be a 1920 Commercial Navy, perhaps tarted up to appear to be a military 1914 model.

The one thing that screamed at me was the "Germany" stamp on front of the frame along with the Crown over N commercial proof on the receiver. I've not seen a military Luger with these marks.

I'm all into points and gold stars. Do I get any? :)

Curl

By the way, the gun was re-listed. Here's the new URL: https://www.gunbroker.com/Item/875487639

Curl

As a followup, I just looked at Kenyon. I know he is considered outdated, but there's a lot of information there.

For the 1920 Navy Commercial, as to proofing, he states: "Nitro proof. Some have military proof, or military AND nitro proof, or NONE."

Of course, he notes it will be stamped "Germany" on the front of the frame, or "Made in Germany."

The photo in my edition is grainy, but it looks to me like the example he features in the book has its front sight serrated all the way to the top. It certainly doesn't have a date stamp on the top of the receiver. Also, his example appears to be without proofs. His does have a relieved sear bar.

So my vote is that the GunBroker gun is really a 1920 Navy Commercial.

JMHO, YMMV

Curl

P.S. Kenyon says the 1920 Navy Commercial is scarce.

Hi Curl,
The "GERMANY" stamp was applied after the war when a lot of military equipment was exported to the US to raise cash. You do get a point for noticing the C/N commercial proof on the receiver but I regret that you forfeit it because you failed to notice the C/N proof on the barrel in the photo you posted.
Norm

Oh well, points are easy come, easy go. But I did see the C/N proof on the barrel. Just didn't mention it. I also saw the military proof stamp on the left side of the barrel.

I still think this gun is a 1920 Navy Commercial.

I'll be the first to say that when the British de-commissioned their military handguns they sent them to the civilian proof house for commercial proof. I haven't seen that practice on de-commissioned German pistols. There are millions of German military Lugers here in the U.S., and I don't recall seeing one with civilian proofs and "Germany" stamped on the frame.

But again, I don't claim any expertise on these. I know just enough to get myself in trouble.

Curl

I think Curl should get at least a half point back since the GERMANY stamp accounts for the C/N on both the receiver and barrel. His observation was mostly to point out the commercial export aspect and not a detailed observation beyond that.
Ron

Being late to the game, I will only point out that the c/Ns are fake.



--Dwight

Well, at least you can buy it with no credit card fee!

Curl

Ok, I don't mind putting my ignorance on display, so I'll ask the question I'm thinking.

There is a strong consensus that the gun is fake. If the C/N stamps are fake, and I certainly agree that they look very fishy, then that blows my theory that the gun is a 1920 Navy Commercial.

So, taking that to be true, my question is: What the heck was this forger trying to emulate? What did he start with, and what was his ending goal?

A counterfeiter doesn't print out a batch of $3.00 bills.

Ron, thanks for the 1/2 point!

Curl

Fake 1916 Navy
 

[QUOTE=Dwight Gruber;332991]Being late to the game, I will only point out that the c/Ns are fake.

Dwight, your assertion doesn't mean much without an elaboration. Would you provide more detail please?

Jack

The serifs on the N show it to be upside down; the crown is too precise and too finely detailed; the crown is too far away from the N; the proportions of the stamp seem subtly wrong and it seems to be too large. This last is an intuitive impression and can only be confirmed by direct comparative measurement.

--Dwight

Thanks, Dwight.

The only thing I would say in reference to the backward appearing "N" is all the examples I have seen over the years, along with one's I have, and I have a few, have always appeared backward to me, and this goes back years. The main reason is, it appears to me that the left, or leading, "leg" of the "N" is the thinner, but should follow instead of leading, what I see as the thicker right "leg".

So to me the gun gets this part correct. For the rest, I'll defer to you. However, I can't see a Faker observant enough to get the backward "N" correct, (have to make the die, even) and then put it on a gun that in my opinion would be more valuable without it.

Now, this is just my observation from a first glance, and on which I am not adamant. Anyone can take it apart and I would like to see some do that. Maybe I can learn something.

Jack

I didn't say backward, I said upside-down. The issue is not the thickness of the legs, but the position and direction of the letter serifs. Thickness difference in stamping can be attributed to uneven positioning of the stempel during the stamping stroke.

SPECULATION: the marking under discussion is the result of two different stamps, the N being held in the wrong orientation and the crown being a separate, more finely detailed stempel.

Fakers are very often...well, I want to say stupid, but let's just go with ignorant, or just unobservant. This is the characteristic which allows us to catch them out.

--Dwight

Ok Dwight,

Spending a little more time with Norme's posted GB photos, some examples I have, and your explanation I can see what you are talking about. I wish it was not whited in, but I can see how you come to your conclusion. I don't know about being so emphatic about it, though.

I'm skeptical.

Jack

Not to put too fine a point on it, but technically the "N" of the Crown/N impression is not upside down...it is a mirror image. That is what happens when you hold the stamp upside down to apply it. :)
Ron

Thank you Ron.

--Dwight

For any of you wondering how fakers 'mark' their imposters.

https://www.waffenamt-shop.com/en/6-...eriod-to-1945-

https://www.waffenamt-shop.com/804-t...uftwaffe-2.jpg

I certainly DO NOT condone the use of these dies to deface any historical firearm or any other thing.
It's a sad world we live in so know the enemy :(

I goofed. Rich (Sheepherder) pointed out to me that my illustrations and text were somewhat in error. I was correct that the "N" stamp on the gun was the result of rotating the stamp 180 degrees so that the resultant stamp is upside down, therefore the left example is a correct representation of an inverted stamp, but not a mirror image (scratch out "mirror image" in the text and example image :)).
Here is what a mirror image would look like (and it isn't what is on the gun).
Ron

Aw man! Now everybody knows! :grr:

No, that is apples and oranges. The first illustration in my original post "Rotated 180 degrees" is the correct illustration, it just should not have had the additional "(Mirror Image)" notation because it isn't a mirror image. The correct orientation of the "N"should be with the two serifs on the left vertical stroke and a single serif on the right vertical stroke. Since the stamping tool was rotated 180 degrees (stamp held upside down) when the impression was made on the subject Luger receiver, the N on the receiver as shown has the two serifs on the right vertical stroke, therefore incorrect.
Ron

OK, I deleted my incorrect pic. :thumbup:

Nicely explained Ron.