My 1st P.08, a 1914 Erfurt
 

Yesterday I received my first Luger, a 1914 Erfurt, all matching but the magazine. I'm quite pleased with it, wanting one that had a little honest useage & holster wear, but still collector grade. It was supposed to be "correct & matching, except for the mag", but I noticed right off that the grip screws weren't proofed, therefore not Erfurt. I'll post on the WANTED TO BUY to try to get the correct screws. Also, as I recall someone mentioned a thread for swapping magazines...I'd appreciate someone pointing me to that thread, as the mag is a DWM spare. Price was $1200 + shipping. Opinions very welcome!

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/1914erfurt1.jpg
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/1914erfurt2.jpg
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/1914erfurt3.jpg
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/1914erfurt4.jpg
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/1914erfurt5.jpg
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/1914erfurt6.jpg
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/1914erfurt7.jpg
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/1914erfurt8.jpg
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/1914erfurt9.jpg
http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/1914erfurt10.jpg

Mike,

See your Private Messages.

--Dwight

Mike,

Very nice Erfurt. Excellent condition too. I really like the strawing on that one, still very clean...

You did well... :)

Oh my, here is another 1914 Erfurt P.08 that is like several now that have surfaced on both Forums! Note that, like the others, it has a non-relieved breechblock, a notched receiver AND a "q" suffix. I used to own one of these with a matching magazine (with one proof mark), also in the "q" suffix range. It created quite a stir among the then Forum members, such as Garfield, etc. As has been reported many times (see Jan Still's Imperial Lugers), only 7000 "authentic" 1914 4" barrel Eefurts were made that year, most of the 1914 production going into LP.08's. The suffix range never got out of the "a" range. So what are these "mongrels" with a "q" suffix (I saw one also with an "r" suffix), notched receivers, relieved breechblocks and one proof on the magazine bottom? They appear (no one can proove it) to be LATER issue guns (1917-1918), with all the features of these years, apparently fitted with ?SPARE? 1914 dated receivers. This piece makes at least the fifth or sixth one like this I've personally seen. I am proud to say that I do own two "original" 1914 Erfurts (2 of 7000!) P.08's with all the correct features!

Doc,

I'm sceptical of the 'spare' 1914 receivers. Remember they were subject to the marking instruction which required the /date stamp for a dated receiver assembled into a gun at a later date.

Not that I have an answer to where these guns come fron...

--Dwight

Dwight, Thanks for your input. First, I must apologize, where I typed "breechblock" above should read "sear bar". Mr. Garrison, as well as others, brought up the apparent "rules" about dating the receivers, but how the heck can one explain "q" suffix with these guns, not to mention the notched receiver, which only appeared on the 1917-1918 models. They had to be later rebuilds.

1st P.08, 1914 Erfurt
 

Ok, if only approximately 7000 were manufactured in 1914, then they never even made it to the "a" block. From collecting Gew98 rifles, I'm familiar with the serial numbering system, along with the required date/ stamp for a dated reciver that was assembled later.
I would have thought more of the experienced forum collectors would have stepped up with opinions?
I guess I need to know if the pistol is humped before contacting the seller.
Mike

I think that notched receivers on Erfurt P08's appear from 1916 through 1918.

The number of "RC" stampings on the above pistol lead me to conclude that it was put aside in 1914 due to flaws and was subsequently put back into production in 1917 which is why it picked up the "q" suffix.

Goerge's explanation, or course, could be absolutely correct, no one knows for sure. And notching did begin in 1916. And Mike, the feeling is that these guns probably left the factory like this and were not "boosted" subsequently. The "a" block was indeed reached with original 1914's as the serialization was not consecutive, LP.08's were interspersed.

At a minimum, I think this gun is reblued. The lack of "halo" and the shallowness of the underside barrel stampings are indications...

There is some loss of definition in the Erfurt toggle stamping as well...

Pete,
I very well may be a reblue, but according to Jan Still the barrel serial number digits on original condition Erfurt Lugers usually do not exhibit a halo.

Mike,

I must counter the thoughts of my good friends George and drbuster with a much more conservative viewpoint.

There existed a known system to denote weapons whose manufacture was completed in years after their chamber date. There are examples known of Erfurt Lugers following this requirement ("A Real Two-date Erfurt" (Luger Forum) ; Jan Still, "Imperial Lugers" p.78). One of the known examples has a chamber date 1914/18 ("1914 Erfurt" (Jan Still's Forum) ).

From a collection standpoint, this 1914 Erfurt will always be questionable due to the lack of a certifiable explanation for its radically out-of-place serial number. While it "could" have come to be by the proffered speculation, this is not enough to warrant its authenticity, or to place a value on it as an original.

Too bad, too, because on the face of it this is a really nice looking Luger.

--Dwight

Hi Ron,

You are probably right about the "halo" on Erfurts...I had forgotten I have a 1913 Erfurt in my safe and took a look.

On Randy' pistol, some of the numbers on the undeside of the barrel look odd...as in possibly touched-up with an engraver tool..

The loss of depth in the middle of the Erfurt wording and crown seems odd to me...

There is also a very big, deep gouge on the front of the frame near the TD lever that appears to have blue inside the gouged areas...

Thus my guess that it is a reblue...

Dwight, I remember the two date Erfurts. I believe that the pistol above was probably finished in 1915 or later, I think that its' pedigree is demonstrated in the provenance of the individual pistol. There is no sense in boosting a pistol that will sell at the low range. At the sale price of $1200 no one could have made any real money on the sale unless they had simply "turned" the pistol.

Everything about the subject pistol tells me that it is a solid example of a WWI period P08.

Interesting piece. Here are my thoughts.

First, the example is NOT a pure 1914. The relieved sear, and unmarked grip screws date this piece as 1916 or later. In my opinion the unmarked grip screws can be correct for a late Erfurt. The relieved sear means the piece was produced/assembled/refurbished sometime during or later than 1916. The notch on the reciever indicates to me that this was originally intended to be an artillery receiver. So, in my opinion I think these were assembles or refurbished at a later date than 1914, and possible a time frame as late as from 1919 into the late 1920's. With the serial number in the "q" letter block it very well could have been assembled from parts, made to match, and issued to the Weimar military. If you look at Weimar Lugers you will find that military examples are fairly hard to find, as most have a sear safety added and were issued to the police. The extent of the rework varies as does the workmanship. It would be interesting to know what the other oddball 1914 Erfurt Lugers looked like and there serial numbers. This information would be very helpful. So, in my opinion this is not a true 1914 military example and was assembled/refurbished sometime later than 1914. --- Bill

1st P.08, 1914 Erfurt
 

I tend to share Dwight's conservative viewpoint. However, if someone was trying to hump/boost it, or the other in the 5000 range (& "q" suffix), why would they not maybe utilize a prefix "b", and have a considerably more valued pistol (and no doubts)?
Imperial Germany was almost considered anal in the regulations, and I can't imagine them not adding the additional date as required. But on the other hand, I'm informed that an estimated 7000 1914 Erfurt P.08's, with prefix reaching into the "a" suffix, have interspersed (serial #'s) with LP.08's that year....that's seems slightly odd, especially from a government arsenal. Is there documentation to validate that?
I guess the bottom line is I've acquired a high priced "shooter".....

1st P.08, 1914 Erfurt
 

Also, regarding the three visible inspection failure stamps (crown over "RC"), there's a fourth one on the barrel that's not visible in the pics I posted

Re: 1st P.08, 1914 Erfurt
 

Mike,

Best documentation for all things Imperial P-08 is Jan Still's "Imperial Lugers". p.15 is a table of serial range, letter suffixes, and production.

As the Imperial-era production records for DWM and Erfurt are no longer extant, data has had to be inferred from the details of reported examples, compared with known manufacturing practice and commentary by people and publications closely contemporary to the source. This information comes from reports, observation, and study by serious collectors for more than 50 years.

Evidence is that in 1914 Erfurt produced a total of 30,000 Lugers--7,000 P-08 with serial numbers with (ns) and a suffixes; and 23,000 LP-08 with (ns), a, and b suffixes (Still's chart notes "less than three" P-08 reported with b suffix).

A 30,000-piece production run is not very large (compare with DWM's estimated 1917 production of more than 180,000 Lugers of all varieties).

1914 was the first year of production of LP-08. There is no fundamental difference between these and the standard Luger; use a rear toggle piece with no sight, make a relief cut on the front of the receiver, install an Artillery barrel with tanagent sight, and you have the LP variety. Having the variations intermixed seems logical. One guesses WAG that over the year's time the Army requests delivery of standard or LP-08 as they need them, and Erfurt simply makes the parts change as necessary in the normal production line.

--Dwight

Very interesting posts regarding this "mongrel" (my term only, please excuse) 1914 Erfurt. As I have posted above and formerly, I once owned one of these in the "q" range, have seen another in the "q" range, know of a definite one in Texas in the "r" range, and to confuse the issue further, I examined one about a year ago at the Reno show in the proper no suffix range BUT it still had the receiver notch, relieved sear bar and the matching magazine had only one acceptance mark. I really do not think these were boosted guns to fool and exploit collectors, but rather they were probably later assemblies of guns from parts to satisfy the need for guns near the end of WW1 (no proof of course). It's just amazing to me that now I have either owned, examined, seen on this Forum, or heard of from reliable sources, of six of these "mongrels".

This is a very interesting thread - and I'm personally interested in the thoughts brought forward. The reason I'm personally "vested" in this is that I'm about to close a deal I've been working on for a few months on a "1914" Erfurt in, yes - the "q" block. It too has the receiver notch, relieved sear - but not a matched MAG. Interesting to note is that the grip screws are NOT proofed, but the grips do match?? While it's not in my possession yet - this thread has given me some pause - as I take Jan Still's book the definative research to date on this variation.

If I do acquire this piece - I'll post it up with photos - and try to see what, if anything - we can deduce - if anything..??!!

Hope this helps,

John D.

Dear John, the pieces with these characteristics I have examined have not had matching grips, except one with dark inked numbers. I just don't know why or where these are coming from. Could there have been a batch of unused 1914 dated receivers that Erfurt came upon in their frenzy to get more handguns out into the field in 1917-18? But then why are so many of them appearing here and now? The ones I have seen, or owned, are well used and have no grip screw proofs. The prices on these, in my opinion, should be in the shooter range.

Hi Doc,

Great questions..! When I take a look at this again, I'll recheck the grips later this week as I asked to see it again, but I do believe that they were matching..? I have purchased several Erfurts from this gentleman over the past year or two, as he is slowly selling them off to concentrate on Banner Lugers.

There are also some other common aspects I see between the one I'm interested in and feldm�¼tze's "1914", but I don't know if it is true of other "q" blocks? I note the strong amount of remaining "blue". Why would "q" blocks have this amount of finish left after being issued to the field for 4 years of battle - unless your theory has some merit. That, coupled with the grip screw proof?

It would seem counter-intuitive that some enterprising person in WaffenFabUSA would purchase a bunch of "q" block later year Erfurts (I don't see any indication that the suffixes were altered?) and alter the chamber dates to 1914 - given the relative small higher return of the "1914" variation and that Erfurts generally do not command a price premium unto themselves? However - stranger things have certainly occured..?!!

As for more turning up only recently..??? That is a good question... The only thing I could attribute that to is the communication medium (Internet) has enabled many new and old collectors to share data. If you consider this Forum and Jan's forum - combined, they are one VERY large "Luger Symposium" with over 5,000 folks in attendance...??

Hmmm - great thread again - and thanks for the continued thoughts/comments!!

John

Hi,

The idea that at the end of WW1 several shortcuts were made in order to satisfy a need for pistols for the war effort can be dropped.

During 1917 the major P08 production lines were actually slowed down as a result of material shortages and the fact that the arsenals were stockpiled with pistols. Focus changed to producing as much machineguns as possible, as they were especially in demand.

There was no shortage of handguns during 1917 and 1918.

If these 'weird' Erfurts demand an explanation, it would be most interesting to look at whoever inherited the Erfurt machinery and leftover parts after WW1.

Gerben brings up another very interesting and very plausible explanation. I have heard on past posts on this subject, from Bill Garrison and others, about the lack of a shortage of handguns at this time in WW1. All I can say is these guns are out there, and no one can explain it. Gerben, have you seen any of these in your European travels?

This is a subject I do not know much about, but the oddity is that the year is 1914. Any thought that more than a couple of "left-over" 1914's were used after the war or after 1914, brings up the following questions;

1. Why 1914? If the thought is like what I have heard about KU guns, you'd see other years, not just 1914.
After all, why would the factory have â??left-overâ?� frames dated 1914, especially to the q block? If the factory had a few frames in 1915, then they would have used them, not waited 150,000 guns into the production cycle (1916 or 1917)? And if they used old parts, why wouldnâ??t they take the date off, put a new date, or add a 2nd date?

2. Did other years, 1916, 1917, or 1918 have q production? (so the q is more disguised if added later to other dated guns)

3. I thought the year was marked at the end of acceptance? If so, then if RC'd bad enough not to use, then why keep them around?

4. I have a police luger that had an 8 added before the serial number. It is possible that the q was added to a set of guns during or after the war. I doubt this theory, but it is possible.

Doc,

Can't say I have seen many Erfurts. Most of them ended up at your end of the Atlantic :)

But I think there's one thing we can be sure off. Erfurt didn't create these. They were a government facility, stuck to the rules, had no under the counter point of sale and no official commercial customers.

My 1st P.08, a 1914 Erfurt
 

If P.08 production was slowing down beginning in 1917, how do we account for the late war Spandau (also a government arsenal) P.08's?
Have patience with me on probably silly questions, I don't have Jan Still's book yet....

Charlie Sorrentino, in Auto Mag, has suggested the possibility that 'someone'--no evidence who, not necessarily Simson--finished up and sold guns which were nearly done when Erfurt halted production. He thus explains u suffix 1918 Erfurts, and Erfurts which have surfaced with a 1918/20 chamber date. He suggests that these might be considered 'Weimar Transitional'.

--Dwight

Interesting subject with no real answers.

Since the receivers are dated 1914 and notched, they were originally intended for a 1914 artillery. Since these have 4 inch barrels, the configuration (4 inch barrel) was added at some point/time after 1914.

My thoughts are these are Weimar assembled Lugers (reworks), made up from left over parts or dis-assembled Lugers, made to comply with the restrictions for the Weimar Military.

If -- that big word -- this pistol had a sear safety added, there would not be any questions about what it was, as we'd just say it was a reworked Weimar Police Luger. The only difference on this piece is that it escaped police use.

Anyway, the date, notched receiver, and 4 inch barrel suggest a rework of the Weimar era to me. -- Bill

Re: My 1st P.08, a 1914 Erfurt
 

There were no "produced" Spandau's, there may have been some refurbished ones with their marking on the toggle, but that is contested also.

Like I said, very contested, supposedly a couple of "true" spandau guns, but I can't believe there were any produced from scratch.

ed

I think that the answer to these unconventional 1914 P08s lies in the undiscovered production history of the Royal Arsenal. There are no 1915 dated Erfurts, I would assume that the government arsenal was not instructed to cease LP08 and P08 production as of 31 December 1914. It is more likely that parabellum production was halted sometime during the year of 1914. It was most likely halted quite abruptly in order that facility and man power resources could be put to a more urgent use.

If 1914's production was halted rather abruptly then one might assume that P08 components were available but put aside in order to pursue whatever the greater need was. Subsequently, when that greater urgency had been satisfied, P08 production resumed and at some point the 1914 dated receivers were pulled in to the production line.

If one uses logic, the fact that these oddballs all fall in the same letter block should indicate that it was an original production anomaly and not the work of some modern day charlatan. The mecahnics and economics of boosting a line-run Erfurt to an improperly serial numbered 1914 do not add up.

Think about it.

My 1st P.08, a 1914 Erfurt
 

The Erfurt arsenal was rather busy in 1914. Besides producing numerous bayos, they made alot of Kar98a's rifles. Serial #'s for '14 run to #506ee (reported), and #8123x (confirmed). Regarding the Gew98's produced by Erfurt that year, only about three are reported, and a friend/collector has one of those (#1754).

Certainly we can write off the 'Spandau' varations as fakes. The Spandau arsenal had no production facilities for P08 production and, as stated before, there was no handgun shortage during 1917 and 1918, so no reason for Spandau to start producing (or even reworking) P08's.

I don't believe the '1914 Erfurt anomaly' is a postwar boost, as George said, it's not worth the effort financially. I also don't believe they were put together during the 1914-1918 period. If 1914's were produced during the first months of 1915 there would be no reason for the receiver cut, unnumbered screws and relieved sear bar.

It might just as well have been a commercial company that bought the Erfurt leftovers and assembled a couple of guns for commercial or semi-commercial sale. Who knows?

A more recent example is Mauser. When they ceased to exist in their old form in 1997, the remaining stock was bought by a couple of dealers, who assembled and sold a number of pistols. To this day, at least one of them still has unbuilt but complete Mauser Parabellums in stock.

My 1st P.08, 1914 Erfurt
 

Many thanks to all of you that spoke up and voiced their opinions. This pistol is not what I wanted for my first P.08, but I'll just chalk it up to a lesson learned. Sometimes that's just the way those apples fall.....

Re: My 1st P.08, 1914 Erfurt
 

Hi feldm�¼tze..!

If I were you - I wouldn't be a bit disappointed.. For that - if yours was the "only one" known to ever exist, well - then you'd have a problem... However - to make you feel better, I sold one of my 1911s today, so I had the cash to pick up my 1914 Erfurt as well. Since "misery" loves company - following is a short description of mine. As well - I'll try to post some rather extensive pictures in a new thread in the next few days. In the meantime...

After reading all these posts and theories and closely examining mine, I'm more inclined to agree with the following post:

I'm way out of my specialized area here, so I reserve the right to be wrong ;)

1914 Erfurt - serial number "7019 q". Overall VG to excellent blue with strong straw. Non-matched MAG, but correct type.

Some of the details....

- Notched receiver for arty sight;
- Relieved sear bar;
- The grips are matched, stamped with the last two digits AND are proofed;
- Grip screws are NOT proofed;
- The same "RC" stamps as shown on the "q" block pictured by feldm�¼tze are present - including one on the left of the barrel he indicates is also present on his 1914;

Now - I have a question... When did Erfurt stop putting the proof on the MAG releases (right side). If I look at the photos in Jan's "Imperial Lugers" (I'd be LOST without that reference!!) - it would not be present on post 1914 production? If that's true, coupled with the relieved sear and grip screws - it points to post 1914 Erfurt production, with Erfurt producing these "q" block 1914s....

As for the theory that these were produced after the end of WW1, I'm not so certain I'd agree. To make that theory plausible - it would say that these were completed "Lugers" (read below as to why) that were not issued during the war - but during the Weimar period by the "new owners" of the Erfurt spares. That certainly doesn't make sense - but it would have to be the case... Why?

Based on the fact that these are all serialized (including the small parts) and the majority of the small parts also carry the Erfurt proof which again, are also correctly numbered to the pistol. If they were assembled post WW1 - I would tend to doubt that the Erfurt proofs/digit matched parts would continued to be used to "make these complete" Erfurts;

Second - note the comments about the crown RC being prevelant. I highly doubt that the new post-war assembler would have "matched" so consistiently all the parts that had the crown RC old Erfurt spares to "create" this new variation. If the proofs/serialized part/crown RCs were more random - I could be more inclined to agree with post-war assembly - but they are not random - hence, highly unlikely is was a "post war spare parts" Erfurt;

Third - fit and finish. This variation appears to have a uniform finish and blue. If they were "assembled" from different year parts - one would expect that the Luger would have to re-blued to achieve the same consistiency overall throughout the firearm. That is not the case, they are not re-blued - as all the stamps proofs are crisp - including the correct halo on the serial number digits on the left side of the receiver (not the toggle, see the previous posts in this thread on this issue).

For all that - I'm more inclined to agree with George's theory stated above, certainly moreso than any of the "post war" theories brought forth so far.

Just my $0.0002 ;)

John D.