Krieghoff Rework II
 

Hi everyone; after the September gun show in Portland I posted a note on the Luger Forum about a 1920 era commercial that appeared to be a Krieghoff reworked gun based on Lazy Crown over N proofs. I noted that I did not have pictures nor had I torn the gun down to observe inside markings. Well at the November Portland show the owner was again displaying some of his guns and I shared with him the responses that I got on the forum. He was delighted to see the comments and knowledge that the forum provided. He also said he was encouraged that none had called him an old curmudgeon. He offered to bring his luger to my house so I could tear it down and take some pictures of it to see if this would lead to any additional information. He brought the gun out today and I have posted the pictures below. I promised to keep his name out of the posting at his request, but will print and provide him with copies of all of the responses.

I told the owner that the consensus was that these guns were not bringing the premium that one would normally ascribe to an association with a Krieghoff. This can be attested to by looking at this Krieghoff rework that has been on www.gunbroker.com for several months with no bids; http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=40451963. The gun in the gunbroker auction has the L-C/N markings on the right receiver not the left. I do not know if this is significant or not but would like to hear what others think. The gun here in Portland is clearly a rework of a WWI military Luger as it is serial numbered 9007 h in the military fashion and shows signs of buffing. The new 6" barrel is proofed with a crown N and does not have a witness mark. Dwight Gruber (who saw the gun with me at the Portland show in September) said the barrel was changed before import into the US otherwise it would not have been proofed.

I told the owner that I think these guns have the potential to increase in value at a greater rate than other 20's era commercials, however this is just my personal opinion.

I am still curious as to whether any firms other than Krieghoff used the â??lazy crown over Nâ?�(L-C/N) proof mark. Several of the Luger Forum members said that this was only used by Krieghoff other said that a number of other shops used this proof. Do we have examples of L-C/N proofs from other manufactures?

Thanks for you help on this;
Bob M.

Okay, I am trying to find out why my pictures didn't post? I'll add them to a reply when I have it fixed.

Bob M.

Picture 1.

Picture 2 Rside

Picture 3 front of frame

Picture 4; frame proof mark

Picture 5: barrel proof mark

Picture 6; top of toggle

Picture 7; Safety marking (frame)

Picture 8; Trigger marking

Picture 9; breachblock (sorry this one is fuzzy but you can make out the Crown/N stamped on the right side)

Picture 10; side plate

Picture 11; clip base (stamped "Germany")

Picture 12;wittness mark

Picture 13; end of toggle (last one)

Bob M.
Good luck!!!!!!!!!
I have a DMW double date that was originally a 1917 arty that after rework ended up with the Dresden police. It has the lazy C/N on the right side of the receiver, frame, breech-block and barrel, and although barely visible, another hit on the right vertical side of the front toggle link. Barrel is a 4" with full markings including the bore size and serial matching the frame. Have tried for years to get a definative conclusion as to whether or not this is a true Kreighoff rework with varying opinions from the good folks on the forum and outfits like "Blue Book" simply giving up and saying they just don't know. If, (Big IF), they can be verified as Kreighoff's, they would in all probability represent the earliest version of Kreighoff entry into the rework market well prior to the 1923 Commercials. Have only fround two other examples of the right side lazy C/N's in several years of puttering around with this thing, one being a dealer and the other an individual, both stating that they were "DWM/Kreighoff" reworks. Anyway, the very best of luck on your search. I finally gave up on mine with many thanks to everyone who gave information to try and put this to rest.

Bob,

If I recall correctly part of the discussion revolved around the lazy c/N on the left frame and receiver, those being places where Kreighoff stamped these marks. A recent discussion on Jan Still's Forum http://www.gunboards.com/luger/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6370 involves a rework with those marks in those positions, clearly a Simson product (lots of e/6 involved).

Absent any more positive Krieghoff identifying markings--e.g., eagle/2 marked parts--it appears that the c/N alone are no longer sufficient to suggest a Krieghoff connection with htis gun.

--Dwight

Lightened up one of Bob's photos :

http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/bob_1.jpg

It's frustrating my computer keeps freezing up on me before I can post my reply! Let's try it one more time.

Walt and Dwight;

Thanks for the responses I find this type of issue very interesting and I know the owner will appreciate any information we can give him.

Walt I looked in Gibson and all the examples of Krieghoff reworks he showed (last chapter) had left side lazy c/n's. I don't know if this is significant or not.

Dwight; I looked at the posting on Jan's sight and I disagree to some extent. I only saw one Eagle/6 and that was on the grip screw; this is not enough to convince me of a Simson connection. The halos on the serial number and crown/n are puzzling as they tend to indicate that the gun was not reblued in the rework process. The interior of the frame is in the white which would be correct for the original finish but not for a Krieghoff rework finish (Gibson pg 53). I did not take a picture of the interior of the frame on 9007 h but it has been reblued via the salt blue process. This would be consistent with a Krieghoff rework.

Any other thoughts?

Bob M.

Bob,

Look again, there is what appears to be an e/6 on the right receiver. Its alongside another mark which is not documented in Costanzo but is similar to other marks he ascribes to Simson.

--Dwight

Dwight,

yes I do see it now; strange set of markings on that receiver crown over nothing twice? Could it be that the receiver didn't make it through the acceptace process the crowns were stamped first then no letters were added due to rejection and it being sent to the RC?

Is the stamp next to the Eagle/6 (maybe a dove?) also associated with Simson?

Are the lazy c/n's associated with Simson or does it just mean that this gun may have gone to Krieghoff and Simson? Or we just don't know? It does muddy the water some!

Bob M.

Bob,

The receiver on this gun is 1918. My WAG would be that it made it through hardening (including the Revisions-Commission) and date stamping and was prepared with the crowns for the other two inspection steps, but never made it out of the parts bin before the war ended.

The figure next to the e/6 is not exactly represented in Costanzo, but is very similar to others which he attributes to Simson.

I think there is more to the lazy c/N, and less, than meets the eye. The reason we are so conscious of it is its use on DWM Lugers before 1920, differentiated from the upright c/N after that year. There is no "official" or regulatory (that I know of) reason for the change, it is simply a convention chosen at the time.

Similarly, commercial c/N (and c/U) on other commercial Lugers were stamped lazy or upright for unknown reasons. Considering the locations it could be for convenience, or fit, or esthetics, or some combination of these reasons.

The liklihood of the Luger you are looking at having gone to Simson -and- Krieghoff seems very remote indeed. Gibson documents comercial Krieghoff conversions as having matching lazy c/N on the left frame rail and reciever; I accept the other conversion as an example of Simson doing the same thing. Yes, this does muddy the water, but I think it also properly focuses the search for a commercial conversion's provenance on more characteristically indisputable markings.

--Dwight