Early 9 mm Commercial on Proxibid
 

'08 configuration. Not in Commercial Data Base. High quality pics that are fairly uninformative... Inaccurate description (unit marks? lol). The pitting makes it the kind of mutt I'd buy as an interesting shooter. Alas, the budget...:crying:

https://www.proxibid.com/DWM-Luger-P...03900#topoflot

I don't see a grip safety making the 1906 version. The lack of knowledge shows regarding the "unit markings" under the barrel (9mm markings) It has the commercial BUG proofs and does not have the hold open added. I think it's around 1910 vintage. I think you should try a bid, nothing ventured nothing gained, as they say.

G2

Really early 1908 Commercial.
Ron

According to G&S, page 605, at about serial number 39100 of the '08 commercial series, they stopped stamping the last three digits of the serial number on the receiver stop lug and went to a new system. For a five digit serial number, the 2nd and 3rd digits were stamped on the receiver ring in front of the lug. The 4th and 5th digits were stamped on the lug. Thus the last four digits on the full serial number were on the receiver ring and lug.

The subject Luger should be stamped in that way. I also think Gunnertwo is correct that it was made about 1910 and Ron is correct that it's an early 1908 commercial..

My mistake about the '08 configuration, sorry! I'll edit.

Saw that one too. Unfortunately it would cost you at least 900 bucks with the premium and it's not in great shape. I picked up a later one several years ago that IS in nice shape for only a little more. But, if I didn't own one already I would be tempted to bid at least the minimum.

This pistol appears to me to be a very low serial numbered Commercial clone of the P.08 Luger pistol. There are other 1908 Commercials that are not the exact clone of the P.08; barrel length, caliber, American Eagle, etc. which I find interesting, but not much has been written about them. I'm talking about the Army's P.08 not the '08 Navy.

Using Simpson's inventory of '08 Commercials as a guide, this gun's price is still within an acceptable range, but just barely, even considering Proxibid's Buyer's Premium. To be a good deal the hammer price needs to be no more than a thousand dollars. I don't know, but the bid increment probably jumps to one hundred dollars after a one thousand dollar bid.

This Proxibid gun's condition could be better, but at the right price it could be a desirable low serial number 1908 Commercial variation. At any rate, someone is going to buy it, I hope it goes to someone who can appreciate it.

Jack

Doubs, I can't find that information using your reference. Are you using the red or green issues of G&S? I'm using the green.

Jack

Not a clone, just not a military contract pistol. The P08 military contract stipulates that DWM was to produce P08s for officer private purchase, outside of the military inspection chain and contract delivery (and so outside of the military contract serial numbering, as well). DWM accommodated this by numbering these P08s in the commercial numbering sequence and with commercial proofing.


The P08 is, by definition, a pistol in 9mm Parabellum with a 10cm barrel length, without a grip safety. A Parabellum pistol originally with a different barrel length or caliber is not a near-clone, it is, by definition, simply not a P08. There are no P08s reported with authentic American Eagle receivers.


--Dwight

My set are the red books. It's found in chapter 10 under "New Model and DWM Commercial P.08 Numbering".

Dwight,

I'm not sure, but I hope you haven't totally missed my point.

Except for your first sentence, pertinent, but with which I respectfully disagree, I will take the rest of your two paragraphs as general information meant for the crowd, as they do not relate to anything I've said in the two sentences you quoted.

To my disagreement: The Proxibid Luger, subject of this thread, is a clone. It is a "a person or thing regarded as identical to another" the Dictionary definition of "clone". In this case the only difference is in the markings, unless one wants to be anal-retentive about it and find fault in not including those details when describing the gun as a commercial clone of a 1908 P.08. In that case only the next gun off the "production line" could be considered a clone, and really not even then if one considers the serial number will be different. See how ridiculous this can be?

I don't think "clone" is an improper term to use in an informal conversation when referring to an object's lookalike. "Lookalike" is a synonym for "clone". I consider a Model 1914 Commercial a "lookalike" for the 1914 P.08, and therefore a "clone", for example.

I hope you don't find my difference of opinion offensive. It's certainly not intended to be.

By the way, did you ever sell that "1920 Arty "? I noticed you changed the mag.

Jack

Jack,

I completely reject your conceptualization of "clone" as regards the P08. The entirety of my response absolutely relates to your entire commentary. No offense involved; I will not belabor it further. I will note that there is no such thing as a "1914 commercial."

The commercial artillery is still for sale.

--Dwight

How about 1913 Commercial, with and without grip safety?

OK Dwight, I really don't think we are at odds, I think we a talking past each other. Every thing we are talking about are collector constructs. The terms collectors use to identify various "models" are colloquial terms, part of a Lexicon, used to form mental pictures of, say, a particular Luger in the absence of the real thing.

I asked you about your "1920 Arty" in wrongly stated terms, but because of what I just stated above, you knew exactly what I was talking about. You might not agree with it, but you understood it and that's the point.

Getting to identifying the Proxibid Luger, subject of this thread, I won't push "clone", as I don't consider the word a part of the most used Lexicon, anyway, but I will have to use some of its synonyms to help form a mental picture.

I'm hopeful we both agree that the original P.08 is most readily visually identifiable by its absence of a grip safety and stock lug, short frame, and 100m/m barrel. Were not talking about markings, yet.

The proxibid gun has all the above mentioned features. I posted "This pistol APPEARS to me to be a very low serial numbered Commercial clone of the P.08 Luger pistol." (Strike the "clone" and insert "lookalike".) The pistol pictured looks like, or APPEARS to be, a 1908 P.08 configured Luger. Does the "1908" seem redundant? Without it there is nothing to help form an image of a P.08 that has no stock lug from one that does. If I were to describe this gun to you in casual conversation I could say it is configured as a 1908 P.08 and you would immediately have a mental picture of it. If I were to go on and say it is commercially proofed and numbered you would have it exactly.

To your other point of no near lookalites. I have a Luger that had all the outward appearances of a P.08 except that it has a 120m/m barrel of obvious .30 cal. Upon closer examination it had no hold-open, was commercially numbered, and had an American Eagle (AE) over the chamber. Is it a P.08? No! Is it a 1908 Commercial? Yes! And from a distance, it was its P.08 outward appearing features that drew my attention. The P.08 features, not the 100m/m barrel, lots of Lugers have 100m/m barrels. Only the barrel kept it from appearing, at a distance, to be a P.08. To me that's enough to describe it as "near".

By the way, who said anything about a P.08 having an AE over the chamber?

Also, I enjoy discussions with you and reading your offerings, you have interesting points of view.

Jack

--Dwight

Ron,

I have an aversion to dated commercial collector designations. They carry no evolutionary information relative to their official origins, e.g. New Model Parabellum vs. "1906"--the actual DWM blueprint designation is "Selbstlade Pistole 1904"; they frequently mislead a collector with erroneous date information, e.g. 1902 carbine, 1902 fat barrel, 1914 commercial, '23 commercial; and they tend to proliferate wildly, e.g. 1914 commercial, Bill Reupke's 1916 commercial designation based on the inception of the rebated sear bar, and Aarron Davis's wildly inflated variation list, etc.

In the commercial database I have found it necessary to create a simple distinction between P08s with and without stock lug: 08C designates non-stock lug pistols; P08 designates pistols with stock lugs. This is made clear in the database key.

To your actual question, "grip safety P08 commercial" works just fine as it avoids a date and encompasses the examples both with and without stock lugs.

--Dwight

As an explanation of these discussions, I believe them to be on topic as they are intended to give reason to the description and identification of the subject Proxibid pistol.

Dwight, in reference to your Post #15, please explain how you interpret my quote "There are OTHER 1908 COMMERCIALS that are NOT the EXACT clone of the P.08; barrel length, caliber, American Eagle, etc…" as referring to a P.08. I gave an example of an O8C, to use your reference, having all three exceptions to a P.08. There is no reference to a P.08 having an AE over the chamber. The frame is 100% the same as a P.08, only the barrel differs. When referring to it I will say "near" and will expect a reasonable listener to understand my reference.

From your Post #16 you make it clear that your opposition to a date as a designation of model or variation is based on a personal bias and not convention, convention is where all this comes from. There is no arbiter in matters of convention when it comes to designating Luger models or variations. It is conforming to convention that makes possible the conveying of ideas. Bucking convention only leads to confusion. I'm not saying one has to agree with it. As an example,trying to correct an obvious error in identification 27 years ago bucked convention and still, after 27 years, leads to confusion and has to be explained every time it's used in place of the conventional terms. I'm not taking a position for or against the attempted change, I'm just saying one cannot buck convention, especially with bias. The erroneous term "Black Widow", a marketing term, has become part of the Lexicon through convention, let's see someone try to change that.

By the way, as to saying there is no 1914 Commercial, convention says there is.

Respectfully to Dwight and all Forum readers.

Jack

"There are P08 commercials ("clone" is a nullity) whose barrel length or caliber have been altered, or which have been fraudulently altered to represent an American Eagle pistol."

Following Jan Still's example of revising the understanding of commercial Luger production culminating in the Alphabet Commercial collector designation, I intend to change the convention.

--Dwight

Dwight, I'd like to comment on your Post #15 to Ron Wood. Since you didn't make it privately to him by PM, but in the open Forum, I figure you welcome comments.

I agree dated commercial collector designations carry no evolutionary information relative to their official origins. However, I say that is neither necessary nor their purpose. Their purpose, from my point of view, is to provide a shortcut to a mental picture of the subject Luger, that's all. The excess verbiage adds nothing to the conversation that can't added later if called for.

In my 63 years of Luger collecting I have never been mislead, or knew anyone who had, with erroneous date information, e.g. 1902 carbine, 1902 fat barrel, 1914 commercial, '23 commercial. With each one of the examples used I get a full mental picture, the purpose of the conventional use of these shortcuts. Further details can be discussed when all know they're on the "same page".

I see Bill Reupke's 1916 Commercial designation based on the inception of the rebated sear bar as only a further refinement of the 1914 Commercial, itself a further refinement of the 1908 Commercial to indicate a stock lug and hold-open, replicating (a synonym of clone) a 1914 model P.08, except for commercial serial numbering and proofing. I haven't said anything here you don't understand, you just don't agree with any of it, which is ok.

I do want to add, much of your research and opinions have already entered into convention and there will be more to come. Your efforts are much appreciated and I am sure I am joining a huge crowd when I say that. Thanks,

Jack

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

Since Dwight Gruber is the one person who has undertaken the Herculean task (as I should know!) of listing and classifying all Commercial Lugers, it seems only right and proper that he should get to name them as he sees fit.
Norm

Dwight your #18 Post was written while I was writing #19.

If you can change convention I'm all for it. I am not resistant to change. Have seen it many times, in about all areas, in my life.

However, in 27 years Jan Still's laudable attempt to do it with "1920" and "1923" Commercials has only created confusion. Please don't get me wrong, I said "laudable attempt". Had it worked I'd be happy to accept it. His terms are practically never used outside the two Forums and quite often not even in the Forums. When they are used they are followed with an explanation in order to be understood. Excess verbiage. This has nothing to do with me or my opinions, it's only my observations and experience.

Dwight, I think there are just too many inconsistencies in Luger designations to change them in one lifetime. I really don't know why anyone ( read that as self proclaimed arbiter) would even want to try since, due to convention, nothing is broken. I see it as "tilting at windmills".

Jack

Norme, I agree with your quote. Respectfully, I think you should have stopped there.

I have expressed appreciation for Dwight's monumental efforts, but to your Post, no one has any "right" to tell me, or anyone else, what to think or what to conform to. I don't think it is Dwight's position to suggest he has that privilege. He can speak for himself.

Let me be clear, convention is not an arbiter of anything. I am convention, I, over the years, have joined with a multitude of like minded individuals in a mutually understood area of understanding forming a convention. No one needs to, or is required to, accept that convention.

Norme, I'm not being critical of you, I'm only stating my position in light of your Post #20. No one's efforts or good works gives them dominion over another's thinking or actions. If it did Mother Theresa would have ruled the world...in the minds of some. You get the point.

Jack

I am with Dwight and Norme.
"Clone" seems to have an accepted usage in the firearms lexicon: as in "1911 Clone" "AR15 Clone" inferring that the object is a very close copy by a different manufacturer. An S&W 1911 is a 1911 clone, a Colt Commander is not a 1911 clone, but a different model. It is typically used as jargon, not as a definitive category. If you want to pick nits you might look up Webster's definition of convention. Dwight's use of clone is conventional.

The problem with 1923 commercial for the 1918 to 192? serial-numbered commercial and 1920 commercial for the later alphabet serial numbered commercials is those designation are inaccurate and misleading.

I disagree a bit, although we all mostly understand the phrases used in the past, many times they are just wrong. Such as 1903 French and many others. The early phraseology was many times wrong by the early book writers as they didn't know.

I like to say 1902 carbine or fat barrel - Dwight likes things in certain boxes (although he is far better at words than me).

-------
I am reading some older articles a friend sent me, early stuff by Kenyon and some others and to todays ears and writing, it sounds weird (commercial Simson, etal)

ed

Jack,

I think you have identified the crux of the matter beyond which we will not agree.

The assemblage of Luger collector variations which has grown up over time has served the purpose, as you say, of providing experienced collectors a shorthand way to discuss, buy, and sell Lugers.

The problem is, most of the accepted Luger collector designations are simply counterfactual. Casual repetition of these prevailing designations fosters the continuation of erroneous “conventional wisdom,” and it deceives the faith of new collectors—and experienced collectors as well, for that matter—who trust that more experienced collectors mean what they are talking about. The “shortcut to the mental picture” is an intellectual disservice if the shortcut itself is in error.

This presents a bar to the casual Luger owner who simply wants to know about their Luger, or to historians or persons who simply want to read up on the topic. Conventional collector designations are not descriptive. A person with casual interest cannot understand anything about the topic until they have overcome the jargon of Luger collecting, only to discover that what they have learned is objectively wrong and must be explained away.

More adequate collector designations would be based on physical characteristics or manufacturers’ designations, in as simple a notation as is practical. Yes, this application leads to more discussion (that is a good thing) as it becomes an integral part of a collector’s vocabulary. This is no different from conventional designations, particularly as more and more (dated) variations proliferate an must be explained.

I regret that we cannot sit down together and have this conversation..

--Dwight

It might be nice to see a list of current "best practice" variation names along with what they are commonly known as, or used to be known as in the past. I could even see a moderator making that a "Sticky".

That, my friend, is a subject for a book.


--Dwight

Dwight,

You have said nothing from your point of view I disagree with. I don't like to think in terms of agreement or disagreement. I agree the matter of Luger identification is a daunting jumble of misinformation leading only to confusion for folks wanting break into this field of gun collecting. I say "break in" because no doubt the present convention is a barrier.

I am part of that convention, probably to my detriment, because I grew up in it, so to speak. Things developed slowly over the years, so were easily absorbed. Take my 63 years of accumulation, it goes back further than that, and dump it on an aspiring individual today, it's no wonder they give a blank stare and just move on. It has to affect the future of Luger collecting, the subject of a Thread on this Forum.

If convention could be changed, I'm for it. But, what can one person do? I think you'd have huge support for what you want to do but without your depth of knowledge what can anyone do other than agree with you. (I'm being rhetorical, these are more statements than questions.) How do you change the status quo? How do you change the thinking of such a dauntingly diverse number of folks?

Dwight, I know I probably sound antagonistic, however despite what you might think from our discussions, in me you have a supporter. But, what more can I do but agree and then fall right back into the status quo. I, like so many others on these two Forums, would like to see things as you envision, but we're the choir. Thousands of otherwise interested people don't even know we are having this conversation, and won't. I see them as the status quo. They are the unknown quiet majority that keep things the same. I see them as unreachable.

I hate being such a pessimist when you are so optimistic. Is it ok to ask for a general outline of a proposal to effect a change to the current thinking? Or not! I don't want to hi-jack ithacaartist's Thread. I wrote this before seeing spacecoast's Post #26 above. I like his proposal.

In closing let me say the first conventional identification I would like to see fade away is "Black Widow". I hate that term and won't use it. I saw it light heatedly mentioned that the ones with wood grips be "Brown Recluse". Things like that, though unintended, can catch on.



Jack

It would be a very interesting and welcome book indeed!

Roscoe

Instead of "saying" that Still failed with his commercial designation, we could all start using the
corrected "convention".

Same goes for the other misleading descriptors- stop using them; and use the more appropriate ones.

We don't need to know what they "all" are to start; "Black Widow" can be debunked if called out by the scores or hundreds of members here; so can use of 1920/23 commercial be replaced with more appropriate descriptors.

We are part of the problem if we are lazy, just give up, and hide behind convention.

JMHO. :)

Don, I for one agree with you 100%. The "Devil", as they say, is in the details, or just how to get the word out. If everyone on the two Forums began using "correct" terms we'd also have to have a two tiered Lexicon, one for use on the Forums and one for use elsewhere, as most people outside the Forums would have no idea what is being talked about, as is the case now. .

Since there is no list of proper terms, Forum members can't begin using what doesn't exist. What would be the proper term for a 1906 Commercial? I know it's not correct, but what is?

I went to Gunbroker and entered "Alphabet Commercial Luger" and got nothing. I found "Alphabet Commercial" used in quotes in the title of an auction on the Gun Auction web site. They began the description with a lengthy explanation of what "Alphabet Commercial" (their quotes) means, as the term doesn't speak for its self, at least as they see it in their minds and the minds of others.

I'm not stating a position, I have no position. I don't even see this as a genuine problem. But, if some one comes up with a workable practical solution I'll join in. However, until that time, everyone understands "1920 Commercial", not many understand "Alphabet Commercial," and that's after 27 years of exposure. There is nothing disrespectful about that, it's just a fact.

Jack

New Model Parabellum. In use for more than than a decade.

--Dwight

Thanks, Dwight. I always thought of "1906 Commercial" as a definition for "what is a New Model Parabellum". Less verbiage. But, you are right.

Jack

It would remove a lot of confusion to standardize some terms. A glossary of such could also include variations identified by descriptively accurate names. People have gotten together before, put some thought into it, and created such things (the Constitution comes to mind) in attempts to make sure everybody is on the same page and communication is clear as possible.

These days, we can communicate much more easily than relying on letters, phone calls, and the occasional gun show or visit. Seems like a good time to do something about it.

Consider that text, even with pictures, may not even be the most effective medium in which to lay all this "book" out. I have a notion of one big graphic. It would be based on a timeline and have branches/bars that represent variations in manufacturer, contract, configuration, or whatever you like laid out on the timeline, and relating to each other and keyed as such in a visual manner like color, cross-hatching, etc..

/crazy uncle stuff

It might take a little effort when typing, but letters and numbers are cheap online- so
why not "alphabet commercial(formerly identified in error as 1923 commercial";
or "new model parabellum(often referred to as 1906 model).

"Black Widow(a fantasy/marketing name for an all blued Mauser P.08 with black grips)"?

Each time we use the correct terms, we make a little progress. JMHO.

When searching online, I just use "luger"; one never knows how anyone will describe something special; occasionally I toss in "Lugar(sic)". :)

I could go along with that.

:roflmao:

Ron,

I went back to some source material and reminded myself of some data. The dating in this commercial range is dependent on the August 1913 order which mandates the stock lug in all P08 production; and the institution of the flat recoil spring well by 1915. From the limited reporting in hand, one cannot say with confidence whether these pistols were made in 1913 or 1914, with a slight bias toward the possibility of 1914.

Under the circumstances, "grip-safety P08 commercial" seems to be the most comprehensive collector designation.

--Dwight


Edit: Strike all of this. I checked commercial navy sn 71406 (six pistols after the last grip safety entry, 437 pistols before the first flat recoil spring well entry); it has a spur in the recoil spring well. This confidently places the grip safety pistol production in 1914.


I still stand by "grip safety P08 commercial", because the grip safety pistols include both stock lug and no-stock-lug examples.

Btw everybody the stock lug was mandated in P08 production in August 1913. A strike against the "1914 Commercial" designation.

--Dwight

Striking works for me...I'm going to stick with 1913 Commercial :)
Ron