Test Luger on GB
 

I noticed this on GB, and would like other's opinions regarding this 1900 AE. Does anyone think that this is an original gun?

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=129277526

DJU

That is a neat gun and looks like it has the proper attributes from the photos. It was on GB in August of last year for $16,000. If that is a "factory original finish" then I am a 16 year-old track star. Of course it doesn't say what factory tho, so perhaps Waffenfabrik USA is the factory they are referring to.:)

There are members on the forum with a lot more knowledge about test Lugers than I have, but this serial number is not in the range of known test eagles. Besides it looks a bit too new to have gone through the rigors of testing.

Mike

The Bannerman purchase included 7108 and 7147. Bodes well for 7110 to be in line as a test gun, but lacks a Bannerman pedigree.

The location of the serial number on the takedown lever (leftside) is wrong, so this pistol falls short from a genuine US Test Luger.

Albert

The takedown is what caught my eye. And also the overall condition. Could one possibly survive for 110 years and look that good? (I'm sure I won't.) Even in museum conditions I would expect to see some "age", particularly on the strawing.
DJU

Its a very nice restoration, too nice...


When the finish is nicer than an original AE, well, thats a shame.


Ed

I wonder if P. T. Barnum is up there, lounging on a cloud, peering over the edge, smiling, tracking this auction...

Albert,
The placement of the serial number on the takedown lever is correct. Both 7108 and 7147 are surviving test trial examples from the Bannerman purchase and the takedown lever is numbered on the left flat on both of them.

Hello Ron,

Over the years, I have moved away from those 'defined' serial ranges mentioned in various books, especially those relating to the Mauser C96. As I continue to examine more guns in my hands in various countries of the world which gives me the opportunity to increase my expertise, these 'outside' guns are allowing me to make some exceptions to the rule. These exceptions which I consider and accept are not made based on the discovery of only one pistol, but at least three which must be genuine/original.

In regards to the US Test Trials Luger being discussed in this topic, it is very likely that it has been professionally restored (and a damn good one), so this pistol in my opinion cannot be classified as an 'exception' when comparing it to Bannerman records. If the Bannerman records state that the pistols 7108 and 7149 are Test Lugers, then the next story we will hear is that there were 39 additional pistols purchased by Bannerman from the US Government.

In a previous discussion on the serial range of the US Test Trial pistols (including their characteristics), I continue to notice that controversary still exists on the subject of the true serial range and I would not classify those pistols that fall outside the 6100-7100 serial range by 10-20 numbers as true US Trial Lugers, especially when some details are not specific such as serial number location on the takedown lever.

If I was going to spend $14k on a US Test Trials Luger, I would want it to be in the 6100-7100 serial range as well as having the EXACT characteristics of a true US Trials Luger. If other collectors wish to gamble against these strong facts, that is their freedom of choice.

Albert

Albert, unless you disagree with the newest information supplied in Central Powers, the actual range is the Bannerman range, NOT 6100-7100...


I beleive the point is that unless a document is found that states that DWM sent sn's 6100-7100 (or even a mixture of numbers from xxxx to xxxx equaling a 1,000 lugers); the best data is the lugers actually sold and documented by the US gov't to Banner; which has listed sn's.

Any lugers outside of the Bannerman listing is an "exception"; a possibility, not a probability.

The quote from Jan Still's website:

This shows 330 lugers "missing"; were these sold, destroyed, canibalized, or stolen. My SWAG is that a percentage were stolen, a percentage were given away as gifts, and a percentage were canibilized / destroyed. From most to least n that order. But that is just an educated guess. It is hard for me to beleive that 330 were so damaged they were destroyed as that is a 33% destruction rate and they were being tested by solders, not tested for proof loads...


PS: I like your 6100-7100 as I own one right in the mid 6000's and sold one to a friend in that range too :D


Ed

When we start to combine various sources of information (including those remaining US Test Trials Lugers purchased by Bannerman), I suppose that it 'puts a spin' on the reported serial range! Does it start at pistol #6167 or lower - how much lower - is the pistol #6100 the beginning of the Trial Lugers etc....?

The next questions are - where does it end - at 7100 - or 7108 - stretch it higher to 7147 - exactly how many deliveries were made to the US Government - where they sequential, or only sequential up to a certain number and the last delivered batch containing pistols with random numbers until #7147. If we assume that pistol #7108 could be the last delivered pistol (excluding #7147 because it falls at a distance outside the circle), then is #7110 in or out of the game (putting aside that it has been likely restored)?

I am curious to know what is the lowest and hightest serial number for each US Test Trial Luger that meet the true characteristics of a Trial pistol (i.e. correct placement of the serial number locations).

I also like the 6100-7100 serial range with pistols having the characteristics of a true US Test Trials Luger - those other pistols in the 'grey zone' tend to tickle my funny bone.

Albert

Albert,

The points of your questions are well taken, and unfortunately we will probably never know the facts.

One of the results of my Commercial serial number studies is that the conventional wisdom concerning Test Eagles is misinformation, and there is, in fact, no single set of "true characteristics" which define the U.S. Test Eagles.

--Dwight

Having read most of the published info on the M1900 US test eagles, it's my opinion, that the rejects from the 6100-7100 range, were replaced with a like number, perhaps up to 100 and not consecutive, from later commerical production. So any attempt to expand the accepted test range as being consecutive is frought will problems. The only true authentication of pistols in the "gray zone" would be if further field test reports surface in the future. TH

Hello Tom & Dwight,

In view of the fact that we will never know whether the pistols outside the 6100-7100 are actual correct US Test Lugers, many of us will remain with uncertainities and doubts while some other collectors will be prepared to take a gamble with those pistols in the 'grey-area'.

I guess that at the end of the day, it is possible that how much money a collector is willing to pay for a 'grey' US Test Luger will determine if it is acceptable or not. For the purpose of my 'comfort' and satisfaction, I would prefer to buy a US Trials Luger in the theorical serial range and the correct features. Some collectors like contraversy whereas I like my peace of mind when I decide to spend plenty of money for an expensive pistol. It is all about how deep you are willing to swim from the shore and what feeds underneath.

Albert

I like reading the reviews and comments, always learn something.

AE Test guns are way out of my area but I did notice a couple of things of interest that maybe someone could comment on.

The indent on the safety is very small, is this of concern?

I also don't really like the crest:
The head looks a bit wrong to me: "beak, eyes and front of the neck".
The top of the shield looks smooth.
Also, if you follow the top edge of the right wing ( as your looking at it) down to the shield you will notice that it makes a sharp 90 degree downward turn.

This may all be glare from a camera flash, be carfull my friends.

Vern

I doubt that any firearms markings or currency authentication expert would need much time to study the stamping on the left, above, before reaching his conclusion. Too many things jump right out at you. LugerVern mentions a couple.

Having the genuine article for comparison usually makes it easy, except when the forger is a real pro. If there are small but distinctive irregularities in the original, they should also appear on the marking in question. If there was symmetry and perfection in certain features of the original, the same should be true of the marking under study.

Take a look at the lack of parallel alignment of vertical stripes on the shield in the left photo. Compare it with the photo on the right. Anybody need more time to deliberate?

People who represent rare and valuable things, on the Internet, as being genuine should assume that not all their viewers are yard sale browsers who will only take a quick look from three feet away.

With no bona fide exemplar for comparison, and quickly viewing it from a distance, the effort on the left is not all that bad. :rolleyes:

I had to return a little bit more than 1/3 of guns acquired remotely, for various kinds of problems. What's average statistics? (Don't worry, all C96, no Lugers so far:) )

I think Ed said it best :)



Vern

Over the course of American Eagle production more than one die was used, each differing slightly in detail. There are some comparison photos in a past discussion either here or on Jan Still's Forum; I don't have time right now to search and cite the link.

To be confident in the identification, one would need to compare eagle stamps on guns which are close to each other in serial number range.

--Dwight

I immediately acknowledged that the gun is not factory original, it is obvious to the most casual observer that it is a refinish/restoration. But I am sorry gentlemen, to label the chamber marking as specious from that out of focus, glare distorted photo that was rotated approx. 45-degrees clockwise (which introduces additional distortion in a poor photo) to post is pointless (I had a stronger word in mind but I truly do not want to stir up ill feelings). There are times that a fake can be deduced from an Internet photo, I have done it myself and so has Vern. But you have to have at least the resolution of the photo on the right before you can even begin to do a proper assessment.

Both Dwight & Ron are correct.

Please note, I did not say the gun was a fake. I too think it is a a very nice restoration.

Now to some a restoration is a fake. So lets not split this too finely.

The reason I looked at the crest was that knowing a restoration had taken place the crest is one of the best places to look. The details are almost always messed up to some degree in the restoration process.

It is a poor picture however and what we see and what we have may not be the same.

Vern

I think we are using different terms to describe the same thing, non-originality. Significance lies only in how a seller represents his offering.

The last few months, I've done quite a lot of Internet Luger shopping. I've studied hundreds and hundreds of photos, good and bad, of purportedly "rare" examples with price tags of thousands of dollars.

I see common threads running through so many of the ads for Lugers which I consider highly questionable, as to authenticity and/or originality. First, the seller frequently makes a special point of saying he doesn't know much about Lugers. Then he makes detailed claims which, to me, suggest otherwise. Second, photographs tend to be underlighted, overlighted, or slightly out of focus. Third, provenance is often fiddled, fudged, indirectly implied, and fine tuned in such a way as to lead the reader to believe or assume something, but to evade responsibility for the truthfulness of it. You might call it the Bill Clinton approach to Luger marketing.

Ron, I think my reference to the talents of a skillful forger may have been interpreted as referring to what this seal is. I don't know that that is the case, but I am also not convinced that it isn't. The quality of the seal is simply too far off the mark. And my opinion is not related to poor photographic quality or lighting. The photo may not be up to professional standards, but it is quite sufficient to make sound judgments about seal detail; I believe it was not originally stamped that way, whether or not the Germans used different or replacement seals at different times. They did not likely use second or third rate engravers on important projects showcasing German quality abroad. And what we see in the seal picture looks to me like either engraving made to look like a seal, or poor quality re-engraving of a seal stamping. Put another way, I don't think that what we see in the picture is the result of a stamp striking the receiver bridge.

If it is the restoration of a genuine, original seal stamping, it was not a first rate job. If it was a wholecloth creation...more credit is due to he who created it, but an original stamping it is not. Or so I believe.

I own an original first production run Automag pistol, on which some of the chemically etched factory markings were completely worn away. I wanted them replaced with deep and permanent engraved markings, similar to stampings, which never appeared on these pistols. I sent the receiver to a man who knew how to do that. He did a wonderful job, with clarity and precision. This Luger seal, whatever its history, cannot compare to the fine work my engraver did.

I won't live long enough to accumulate the Luger expertise of some of you on this board, and I respect that, but I've also been collecting, shooting, and studying firearms markings for more than half a century. It's fascinating. So it doesn't take me, or any of us, I imagine, very long to separate originality from the opposite, even without the benefit of a hands-on examination.

And I'm a guy who doesn't frown upon quality restoration work or creativity. I admire the craftsmanship and motivation, and will buy it, as long as everything is up front and honestly represented. I like crisp lines and good bluing or straw color, rather than expensive rust. :) And several close friends of mine would hotly disagree. So happily, often we don't compete as buyers.

Anyway, it's about fun and continuing education, and I'm getting both here.

That discussion of the various Eagles that Dwight was referring to is titled "Not all Eagles are created equal". If you put that title in search, you will find it.

Mike

Phil:
Very eloquently put.
DJU

Thanks David. I hope I don't go too far in expressing myself sometimes, but this stuff really fascinates me, and I enjoy discussing or debating the nuances and mysteries with other people who feel the same way. We are so widely scattered that it could never happen, except for the Internet. And there is no chance we are all going to perceive things the same way in every instance. So it takes some mutual toleration and tact.

I know that I learn a lot, constantly, when people on the net call to my attention something that was right in front of me for years, but I never saw it; because there was nobody else nearby with the same narrow interest, who had caught something or other, and could call it to my attention.

A reference book on Lugers, or anything else, is a body of knowledge which is set in concrete (for awhile) when it goes to the publisher. But on the net, in a forum like this, that database is constantly growing and changing, with the input and critiques coming from a diverse worldwide knowledge base.

Every time I scan a site like this, I marvel over and appreciate this. Younger people, who grow up on the Net, will never see it the same way. The downside is that so much of it is perishable, unless somebody makes a great effort to sift, sort, and save some of it. Few have the time or inclination.