|
The seller has some additional images.
I see from the description no mention is made to the bore condition (although my translation relies solely on bable fish!) From the images posted - can anyone detect a possible refinish? Brendan |
I would be quite surprized if this gun has not been refinished. There is some pitting on the front left of the barrel that appears to be UNDER the bluing. The straw parts however look original to my eye in these photos.
But I still wouldn't mind having it in my gun safe... it is a nice Luger...and I don't own a Navy... Yet. |
I agree with John:
Nice refinish/restoration, no ware marks on the high edges, notice too that the area just in front of the side plate is just a little darker than the rest of the finish. Vern |
Hello Vern,
I do not think that this Navy Luger is restored based on the images. If so, it would be the best restoration that I have encountered. However, a inhand examination is always recommended. I notice consistency in the blue and the strawed parts as well as some very fine patina on various areas of the pistol which is a positive sign. Albert |
Albert, thanks for your opinion on this one...
To my tired old eyes, it appeared very difficult to distinguish the original finish... I would rather err on the side of caution, and profess my doubts, than recommend to someone to purchase a possible fake. I bow to your expertise in these matters. kind regards, John |
Based on the pictures, I like it. I would, of course like to have the opportunity for a detailed, hands-on look before committing to it. If a re-do, it is certainly the best I have seen.
Tom A. |
It is always wise to be cautious when 'scoping out' any fine condition item, and I always try to be fair and give credit were due. In the case of this Navy Luger, hereunder are the points that I like:
1) Signs of natural patina, and micro patina even under the finish; 2) The edges are sharp, even on the high edges of the sideplate; 3) The straw shows (dirt) discoloration and slight thinning, and the small fire blue parts look acceptable to me. 4) The grip screws have turned a dullish blue-brown which shows normal handling; 5) The grips are original and show consistency to the rest of the Luger. If the grips would show more wear, yes, I would be concerned that the pistol has been refinished. If this Luger has been (partially) refinished, some pro definitely took the time to strip this pistol down to the bare bone and applied a very careful selective restoration. It would have costed quite a bit money and time to apply this level of workmanship while preserving the signs of orginality. It is possible that only one part/area of the pistol may have have been refinished, but I cannot detect it in the supplied images. Overall, I am comfortable with the originality of this Navy Luger based on the supplied images, but I may have overlooked or missed a particular detail that might disturb/alarm somebody else. I have received some information from my European sources that there are a number of collectors bidding on this item and I presume that bidding will intensify towards the end of the auction. Albert |
I have to agree with Albert & add that the slide rails are in the white...Also take a close look at the rear grip strap near the stock lug. Strong patina particularly in the W.W.....No refinnish here. The left slide Crown M's are strong. I also agree with fellow Paratrooper Col. Tom A...It would be necessary to have it in hand to look at something besides photo's.
From the photo's it looks rightous. Jerry Burney |
Well, sorry but I am just not buying it, no offense to anyone. I know I am going against some of the most knowledgeable collectors in the world but you have taught me well.
The gun just does not stand up to close scrutiny, it is the fact that it is too perfect that draws my attention to the details. How do you explain the darking in front of the side plate? Where are the scratches from recoil and take down? Both in front of the side plate and around the take down lever? What about the rear sight, darking there too where there should be ware marks? The gun is way too clean, the only sign of rust is under the rear sight and yet that is recent, wrong color, not embedded enough. The pictures are pretty clear in the areas I am talking about, so thats not the issue. I actually like this gun and would love to have it in my collection, am I too critical? Maybe, but honestly when was the last time anyone saw a perfect 06 Navy that had not been messed with? You can evict me now :) Vern |
Vern...Maybe, but honestly when was the last time anyone saw a perfect 06 Navy that had not been messed with?
I have one.... Jerry Burney |
Sorry Vern, I have to side with the probably un-messed with group. I have a '06 that is even better than this one (well actually the straw isn't quite as good, but the blue is better). Like Tom, I would want a hands-on, but from the photos it looks OK to me. There is wear on the high points (take a closer look at the side plate). The dark area in front of the side plate could (notice I said could) be an oil smudge (take a clean dry gun with a little bit of lube under the side plate and work the action). There is battering/nicks on the leading edge of the side plate, the front of the frame, and the edges of the trigger guard to name a few places. Check out the freckling on the grip safety and rear grip strap and stock lug. It is not too perfect by a long shot. You have a great eye for detail, I think you may just have missed a couple.
|
Hi Ron
I am just not convinced yet, I don't think that there should be bluing inside the area where the old safety marking was. Below is a picture to show what I am talking about. This is the 3rd area that looks refinished to me. If there was only one or two questionable areas I would give in, there starting to add up. I also don't like the looks of the ware line on the rear of the frame, but that one really is questionable. Reviewing a gun based on pictures is always ify, in hand it might all wash away, we have been down this road before. Its hard to have a conversation if everyone always agrees__ good discussion Vern |
Here's some more images to ponder.
Brendan http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...14_2_copy1.jpg http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/marine11_4.jpg http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/marine9_4.jpg |
Hi Vern,
I also enjoy a good discussion and disagreement is healthy. I don't know of anybody that argues as friendly as we do:)! You will see a lot of variation in the alteration of the safety marking. Heinz Ahlers has made a pretty good study of them. The depth and width of the machining will vary, some are re-blued and some are not, and some, as in the case of mine, the area was welded back up and re-machined after removing the marking. The alteration obviously was not done as a lot and not performed at the same facility or with the same level of care. |
Hello Vern,
Based on the additional images provided by 'ChannelIsles', I am confident that the Navy Luger is genuine. For example, notice the tiny amount of patina near the top right corner of the sideplate and also notice the sharp edges of the sideplate. Furthermore, the front gripstap shows patina under the blue which is a very strong positive point. If I wanted this Navy Luger for my collection, I would bid on it. Unfortunately, it does not have a matching rig. I also notice that magazine has not been messed with - the magazine bottom pin is untouched and the concentric circles are perfect. Sometimes you become paranoid and quickly jump to conclusions when you encounter a fine pistol in an auction, and I feel that you still need to gain more experience and train you eye. No offense to you and I am only giving you encouragement. Albert |
Albert,
Vern has trained his eyes intensively to spot fakes and flaws...perhaps overtrained!!!:) He and Pete Ebbink (he even calls himself "Paranoid Pete") have unmasked several fakes over the past few years. But they, like us, are not infallible and the fact that they do miss one now and then is no great condemnation. I am not shy about disagreeing with them. Sometimes they convert my opinion, and I think they may have agreed with me once or twice...but not without a struggle.:rolleyes: |
Albert
I never questioned the luger being a genuine "06 Navy" it is exactly what it appears to be, however I believe this gun is an older restoration that has aged very well and developed authentic looking patina, something we are going to need to deal with more and more often as time goes on. The facts remain that this gun has been cleaned internally of all rust and in fact appears bright and shinny without even a hint of oxidation on internal surfaces. When we add the lack of high edge ware and no sign of holster or stock ware you must ask the question how can this be. This gun was issued, so we have an issued gun that was never used, never carried and fired very little--Am I paranoid, yes I am and for good reason. I stand by my review of this gun Vern |
The bottom of the safety alteration slot appears to be exactly the same blue as the pistol. If that is so this is not a good sign.
|
The last two images to view,
Brendan http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/marine115_2.jpg http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/marine7_4.jpg |
Hello Vern,
I do not believe that this Navy Luger has an older restoration - in my opinion, it is a Military Navy Luger in excellent condition which experienced hardly any use. These kinds of Lugers do exist, but they are usually in private collections which some collectors might never see. In view of the fact that the Navy Luger has had the safety altered, is it possible that the pistol was refinished at an arsenal? It is possible, but I doubt it. All the small details that I look for are present such as patina, the color of the strawed parts and the color of the small fire-blue parts. Even the rear sight button bar has correct tone of fire-blue. In addition, the serial number under the barrel has 'halos' (Pete's word of the century!) which is a good sign. As I mentioned previously, if this pistol has been refinished, it is the best restoration I have ever seen and I would like to meet the fellow who did such a fantastic restoration. If I would be wrong, I would be the first to correct myself and apologize to you. For example, the near mint M1906 Portugese Royal Navy rig which I have in my collection is in better condition than the Luger which we are discussing - does this mean that my pistol have an "older restoration"? Not! So, high quality pistols do exist, but they do not surface that often. There will still be some uncertainity on this pistol until an expert examines it in his hands. If this pistol is in Germany and it happens to remain in the same country, I would be willing to examine it if the next owner could attend the gun show in Kassel. Albert |
Albert
There is never any need to apologize to me, this is just a forum for discussing lugers, we can not agree all the time, it would be incredibly boring if we did and nothing new would ever be learned/taught. Oh!!!! You know I love that Portuguese Luger of yours!!! :D I have studied it in extreme detail, it is a beautiful gun! I love the way that it shows honest ware even though it is obviously an almost uncirculated gun. It is a pity the gun we are currently discussing does not show the same basic ware. :) :) Below are a couple of shots of your Luger showing the honest ware in front of the side plate and also the ware on the grip safety, it is exactly the lack of this that bothers me so much about the gun we are reviewing. I hope who ever gets the gun is happy and not surprised in any way. I don't really have anything to add-- good discussion Vern |
Vern,
You like the top one but don't like the bottom one...what in the world am I missing? http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/side_copy2.jpg |
Ron
Please take a look at the 06 Navy's currently of the FGS web site and study the area of concern, you will quickly see why I have issues with this gun and feel it has been messed with. I am not trying to dodge your question, a picture is worth a lot of words and FGS has several very nice 06's currently for sale. http://fgsfirearms.com/ My point throughout this discussion has been that this gun does not show appropriate ware. It is the very bases of evaluating a gun, this is always my first step. If a gun fails step one then there needs to be a good reason because even a gun like Albert's nearly uncirculated Portuguese shows some ware. It may not be in front of the side plate, but there will be some at one of the critical points I pointed out. This gun has an unusual lack of such ware at every point the odds of that happening are very low. Thanks for your kind words of support earlier Vern |
Vern,
I really am missing the point. The blue is completly worn through on the lower left corner of the hump on the side plate and there is definitely wear on the leading edge. I don't mind being pointed to the FGS site, but it doesn't have a thing to do with the obvious signs of wear on this Luger. I am finding it increasingly difficult to understand how you can pick up on a darkened area in front of the side plate and can't see visible flaws in the finish on the side plate. I know you are an avid collector of Portuguese Lugers and associated info, but why is Albert's pristine gun accepted without reservation while this Navy is labled a restoration when it exhibits a lesser but honest finish indicitive of being well cared for just like Alberts? The kind words were sincere, I do appreciate your vigilence. |
Ron
This has nothing to do with the side plate, it deals with usage marks. What I wanted you to see at the FGS web site was that all but one of the 06â??s have considerable recoil marks just forward of the side plate. They also show ware marks on the grip safeties. Ok, it is true that if a gun has seen very little usage there might not be any of the ware marks I am talking about. I too have a couple of nice 06 Lugers that have seen minimal usage and they do not show the ware marks, but again we are talking about guns that have seen very little if any usage, this is not the case with this gun. Below is a picture of the guns internals, look closely at the hold open and the leading rearward edge, you will notice that it is worn. Now look forward of the hold open on the flat of the frame and you will see where the breech block has worn a channel into the frame, this takes awhile to happen. So we have a gun with almost no usage marks externally but considerable usage marks internally. The only way that this can occur is if the exterior surfaces have been refinished. Look at your guns, how many of them have a channel worn down the middle of the frame? I know I am fighting an up hill battle but there is no way I am going to be convinced that this gun has an original finish, if others want to believe thatâ??s fine. Vern |
Vern
Good for you! Please rest assured that I am equally comfortable that this gun is OK. I am just as obstinate as you and based on the photos we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I see nothing in the internal photos to change my mind. Quite the contrary, I see the patina of an original piece that has had the action exercised a few times. There is no "channel" worn, it is just the light evidence that the action has been operated and scored the aged patina of the "in the white" interior. Might I remind you of your statement: â??The facts remain that this gun has been cleaned internally of all rust and in fact appears bright and shinny without even a hint of oxidation on internal surfacesâ?, yet you use the light score lines in the oxidation as evidence of wearâ?¦ya canâ??t have it both ways Slim!:) I remain your pig headed protagonist, but hopefully still friends Ron |
Vern,
Some observations: http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/navyforvern1.jpg The receiver in front of the sideplate does show use wear (pointed out in the photo) although it is indeed very light. In my experience this wear pattern varys with the fit of the parts, and does not necessarily wear through to the steel. http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...ern2_copy1.jpg The breechblock does not at any time contact the flat portion of the frame ahead of the holdopen. Although the photo is not conclusive, it does not appear that the steel at the bottom of the breechblock is worn. Also, note that the wear mark on the flat is matched by a wear mark on the angled relief cut in back of the holdopen (arrows); these marks are characteristic of the end of the recoil spring stirrup connector dragging across the frame during disassembly/reassembly. http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload/navyforvern3.jpg What is your assessment of what appears (to me) to be very clear patina (rust!) in the unit mark stampings? --Dwight |
Dwight
I like the unit markings, no problem there. There will not be any ware marks ahead of the holdopen, this is beveled downward. The beachblock has been refinished so you will not see the ware on its bottom. Look at the picture of the center pin, the edges are rounded from hand sanding. Lets assume you are correct that the marks are from of the end of the recoil spring stirrup connector dragging across the frame during disassembly/reassembly. This means the gun has been taken apart a lot over the years, this requires that the grip safety be depressed and some rearward movement of the receiver. Again the internal ware is disproportionate to what we see externally. Look closely at the lug of the upper receiver, you will see where the old ware marks have been blued over, yes there are fresh ware marks but also older ones. No one has commented on the deep scratch in the middle of the grip safety that has been blued over. This is a very nice 06 Navy, it is probably unfair for me to pick away at it when someone is trying to sale their gun. If I am right we are talking most likely a factory refurbishment or maybe a slight touch up 20 or 30 years ago. I believe the gun is original but that something happened to the finish along the way. Vern |
|
This will be my last post on this gun, I think members are getting tired of my nick picking a nice gun to death.
My last comment, is really not all that bad, the ramps appear to have that same darking that we see forward of the side plate and on the rear sight. With the added pictures I feel much better about this gun but believe that at the very least some touch up bluing has been applied at some point in its life time. If that is all that was done it is fairly easy to correct and not a big issue. I wish the buyer good luck Vern |
Hello Brendan,
If you have contact with the seller, could you kindly ask him to take an image of the crown/muzzle (similar to image above, but showing the crown in focus) and also the left and right side of the front sight. The condition of the bore looks excellent and consistent with the external condition of the pistol and it continues to convince me that it is genuine. Thanks, Albert E-mail: imperialarms@att.net |
This is the frustrating thing about even these excellent photographs. We seem to have gone from a complete refinish or some believe that at the very least some touch up bluing has been applied at some point in its life time.
No real consensus. Jerry Burney |
Jerry,
Ample demonstration that photographs cannot substitue for hands-on inspection for the final analysis. Also that close inspection by careful observers is not always going to result in agreement. What does anybody think about the pantograph application of the unit mark? --Dwight |
Jerry
Ok, I said I wouldn't post any more but I am addicted to this sort of thing. :) Pictures can be so frustrating, and sometimes you just don't say anything because you know its most likely someones shaky hand. I am obviously not a big fan of this gun but just for the sake of conversation and to show how frustrating pictures can be, look at this picture and tell me if this a a wide flange or small flanged gun? I don't like this gun, so you already know what I am thinking. Vern |
Looks like a small flange, which is proper for a 1906. What do you see?
|
Quote:
Should the safety bar be up in both thumb positions? No crown views though. Brendan http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...e1_6_copy2.jpg http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...e8_7_copy1.jpg http://forum.lugerforum.com/lfupload...e116_copy1.jpg |
Hi Ron
Yes, I see a small flange too, my point was that pictures can be so misleading and even the slightest movement can make things appear bad. We see the same thing on the last picture showing the crown/M's, if this had been the only picture provided what would we think? The last few pictures even though very nice still do not resolve our friendly dispute. The pitting on the barrel looks blued in to me and of course you could counter that they are not :) The lack of machine swirls in both ears is not a good sign, we know they should be there. On the bright side I see some small amount of barrel ware that could not be seen before. This one is tough. I am afraid I still think its been refinished. The sad thing is we may never know for sure :( I want to thank Brendan, Albert, Dwight, Jerry and you of course for putting up with my point and counter point, it can get a bit tedious Vern |
Brendan, It has a grip safety so the safety block stays up until both safeties are in firing position. (You knew that )
|
Quote:
Great discussion from all. Thats what I love about this forum. Brendan |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2025, Lugerforum.com