Help with Markings
 

Calling all Navy marking experts--- Following photos are of what I believe to be Naval markings on my 1939/42 S/N 3404 (no Suffix). I'm pretty sure the marks on the rear grip strap are Naval, as they have the "M" under the bird thingy. But what do the marks under the bbl and on the front grip strap mean?? "N417"? Any help or comments muchly appreciated!!

Ronnie http://forums.lugerforum.com/lfuploa...1togglemks.jpg
http://forums.lugerforum.com/lfuploa...97unterbbl.jpg
http://forums.lugerforum.com/lfuploa...arstrapiia.jpg
http://forums.lugerforum.com/lfuploa...frontstrap.jpg

Hi Ronnie,

I don't like being the bearer of bad tidings, but I would have serious reservations about the authenticity of the markings on your pistol.

Generally speaking (there are a few exceptions, *very* few) N property numbers are on the rear grip strap...and it is a pronounced capital N, boldly struck, with the property number beneath it. I have seen a few that had a 2 digit property number adjacent to the N (Which stands for Nordsee Flotte, or the North (Baltic) Sea fleet. This tells you the gun was issued from the Naval Depot at Willemshaven.

But back to the markings. They are not of the right size or composition to be correct, in my opinion. And the Eagle M is unlike any authentic one I have ever encountered. The marking of grip straps with the eagle M stopped during the G-date production, so having the mark on a 1939 piece is out of the ordinary. The composition of the stamp looks like no Eagle M I have seen on a navy Luger.
I suspect someone who wasn't z'ackly sure of what he was doing tried to elevate the value of an otherwise nice 1939 Luger.

Tom A.

The Eagle M looks phoney and I am no expert. Just looks bad. The swastica has little curled ends. I know Tom knows what he is talking about...Always bad to have to tell someone these things. Jerry Burney

I have seen this same proof many times, it is a
contract purchase proof that is found on specific units such as police,postal,RLB, and naval. In this case seeing that the luger is North Sea marked it is a naval contract purchase.
This is a very nice variation to have. Chuck Duke

Ronnie,
* Not seen one like this before. Time for a few questions if you don't mind.
* What are the acceptance stamp pair on the right receiver?? sE/63, sE/655, or ??
* Does the frame have the Mauser hump at the rear of the ears??
* Are the grips numbered 04 inside and/or are they acceptance marked with a sE?? Are they Mauser grips in shape & form??
* Does the barrel S/N agree with the receiver S/N in shape, size, font of the numbers? Is the barrel acceptance sE/63, sE655, or ??
* Is the mag Navy marked?? What type..blue or tinned colored tube and alum. or wood base plug??
TIA,
Bob

Bob,
Thanks for your questions--- I'll try to do the best I can.

1. The acceptance stamps on the right receiver are two large E/63's followed by the Eagle proof.
2. I have read of the "Mauser Hump", but have not been able to figure this out. :confused: Hopefully one of you can educate me on this.
3. I don't think the grips are original to the pistol, :( and appear to be Erfurt s/n 19. Couldn't tell you the diff between Mauser grips and others.
4. Re: the bbl. The acceptance stamp is SMALL E/63 on the left side, and Small eagle proof on the right. The bbl S/N and receiver S/N match well in size and font. I would say that there is a difference in the blue from the bbl and the receiver. The bbl is brighter and higher polished than the receiver.
5. The mag is NOT navy marked. It is blue, Alum base S/N 4542, looks like a "t" suffix,with small E/63 acceptance mark.

Hope this helps.----

Ronnie

Chuck Duke says: I have seen this same proof many times, it is a
contract purchase proof that is found on specific units such as police,postal,RLB, and naval. In this case seeing that the luger is North Sea marked it is a naval contract purchase.
This is a very nice variation to have. Chuck Duke

Chuck, could you please point out where we might see this proof published anywhere? Costanzo does not seem to be as familiar with it as you are.

This mark is phoney baloney for a number of reasons.
The Nazi's never placed the swastica in a teardrop. It was always a perfect circle on acceptance marks.
The Navy M was always in a capital letter, never in lower case. The n was often in lower case but not the M.
The swastica is always perfectly formed, the one shown is not crossing in the center exactly and there are little curly ends. Not right my Friends.
So Chuck, please let us know if I am wrong. I love to be proven wrong and if so, you will get a sincere apology. Jerry Burney

All,

I did a literature search as well as examining my personal collection and talking with other members of the Navy Luger Cabal.

Consensus: Ain't no way this is righteous.

Life is like that sometimes, I am sad to say.

Tom A.

Evan, can you tell us where or why you beleive it is good? (and not meaning to put you on the spot)???

If you have other serial numbers of guns like this, I'd like to hear that?

Thanks,

Blayne

Jerry, Tom, Blayne, I had a postal worker rig, the dagger dress bayonette and luger the same proof mark was on the weapon, but with a P S under the eagle. The same was true with the RBL rig I had under the eagle was a RBL. If you look in the Kenyon book on page 42 check out 3 similar proofs # 49 50 51. 51 is the tear shaped
proof. The slide proofs that were on my weapons were proofs # 46 47 48 . Chuck Duke

Ronnie,
* See the attached URL for a post on the "Mauser Hump".
http://forums.lugerforum.com/cgi-bin/lugerforum/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=00 0112
* Almost got a line on this one.
* After seeing the picture/explaination at the bottom of the attached URL post, can you now respond whether your S/N 3404ns has a "frame hump" or not.
* Also, is the inside of the frame "in the white" or blued??
* One last thing: Is there a number or numbers on the inside of the side plate?? What are they??
Thanks,
Bob

Hmmm,

My bet:
-Kenyon did a lousy drawing of these 3 marks.
-Someone tried to boast the gun and made a lousy copy of Kenyon's lousy drawing
-The result is this gun....

All in all, I think this gun has markings of Mauser, USA, Inc. :)

Hope I'm wrong, though.

I am assuming the Kenyon book you are speaking of is Lugers at Random? This book has such lousy photo's I sold my copy many years ago. I am trying to find another just to have it in my library for occasions like this.

Could anyone scan and post these marks Chuck is talking about? I would love to see them. Jerry Burney

take a look in our technical section, all the markings are there. I really dont see anything like that marking in there. Proofs Page 1
Proofs Page 2
Proofs Page 3
Proofs Page 4
Proofs Page 5
Proofs Page 6

Thor, Thanks, but I have Costanzo's book and can look at every mark known to man but for some reason chuck thinks these specific marks in "Lugers at Random" Pg. 50-51 substantiate his position.

Can anyone scan this and send it to me or post it here? I would appreciate it.

Many thanks Ted, Jerry

Page 50 and 51 in my LAR are about a 1899/1900 SWISS so I am lost.........as usual!! Okay, I read the post, I will get you a close up of those in about 30 minutes, I am salt bluing a Black Widow at the moment! :D
HERE you go, click on each medium size picture to see a LARGE one!
<a href="http://members.rennlist.com/lugerman/Proof2samp.jpg" target="_fullview"><img src="http://members.rennlist.com/lugerman/Proof2samp.jpg" width="400" alt="Click for fullsize image" /></a>
<a href="http://members.rennlist.com/lugerman/Proof1samp.jpg" target="_fullview"><img src="http://members.rennlist.com/lugerman/Proof1samp.jpg" width="400" alt="Click for fullsize image" /></a>

Now I remember why I sold this book....

Jeez Chuck, you are putting me on right? You are trying to tell me the Eagle L,F and C proofs have anything to do with the spurious Navy marking we are discussing? You think there is a teardrop here somewhere? These crappy drawings have led you on my Friend....I have many Eagle L items and the swastica is always placed in a perfect circle as is the rest of these, K,F, and C. Besides which the Eagle is nowhere near the same.

If this is the best you can come up with I am afraid there is little more to discuss concerning this marks authenticity. It isn't right in many ways. I believe it is an attempt by the Americanish hobby Society to rip some poor guy off.

Chuck, Care to back up and tell me again why this is authentic? Jerry Burney

Ted, I thank you so much my Friend for taking the time and trouble to post these pages. It has been more than enlightening to me.

Jerry, I would do almost anything for you brother, but there is no way in heck that I am jumping out of that airplane! You guys are braver than me!
The thought scares the living daylights out of me! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

Guys...

Wasn't the Duke's page reference page no. 42...?

I am away from my library...so cannot help until Thursday...

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

Proofs 49, 50 and 51 are from page 42

Ronnie,
* In the intervening period while you examine your pistol against the last set of questions I posed, let me give an interim update:
- The three digit N417 is far too early for a 1939, 42 code Mauser P.08. A three digit Navy property number would predate the "K" date pistols and would be more consistent with the Weimar Reichmarine period of 1929-1933. Typically an Eagle/M or E/MIII would be pantographed on the frame's left upper panel during this period IMHO.
- I suspect the frame has no "hump" as it should in 1939. The frame's grip surfaces appear to be "rust" blue. The receiver, toggle train, & barrel appear "salt" blued more consistent with a 1939 dated Mauser pistol. The non matching wood "Erfurt" grips seem more consistent with the frame's Weimar period of Mfg.
- No Army nor KMarine 1939, Code 42 Mauser P.08 have been reported in the "No Suffix" block. The overall S/N range given by Jan Still in Third Reich Luger for this date/code is 200r-8250z.
- Only 400 Code 42's were procured by the Kreigsmarine in 1939...mostly in the "y" & "z" block.
- Large sE/63's are not unknown on KMarine "z" block examples reported. Certainly a minority combination as sE/655's predominated this late in 1939 examples.
- The frame's pantographed sE/M appears to have no halo and appears to post date the frame's age significantly. Style/Font having not been authenticated by the P.08 collecting fraternity(Cabal & other) causes serious questions.
- The bore diameter marking seem off center to the barrel's S/N. I do not ever remember seeing a Marine property number marked on a barrel until seeing this one. The barrel's S/N font seems to differ, relative to the digits "3" & "4", to the receiver's numbers although the picture's angle makes it difficult to confirm this. Your report however is noted.
- The presence or absence of "halo's" around the "N417" markings is difficult to assess given the "white" highlighting.
- Army "t" block Mag appears to be 1937 vintage w/ the small sE/63 acceptance.
* Given the disparity of items noted, wartime rework acceptance by a Naval Arsenal Inspector appears unlikely.
Respectfully,
Bob

Bob, I appreciate your intelligent scholarly writeup about this pistol and it's markings. It makes for interesting reading. Thanks.

Ted, I am sure your courage cannot be called into question. Jumping out of an airplane is exciting but there are amny more things in life that demand greater bravery. Leading a moral life, providing for your family, doing what's right. It's a jungle out there and all of that makes jumping out of an airplane childs play.Thanks again my Friend, I owe you one.... Jerry Burney

Jerry, maybe I did not explain clearly. I had proof #50 on 2 lugers. On the first luger proof #50 had the letters PS next to it. On the second luger proof # 50 had the letters RBL nex to it. My opinion is that the PS stood for postschutz (postal) and the RBL stood for Reichsslufscutzbund (state air protection league)
The explanation in the book states that proofs # 49,50, 51 indicate a contract production weapon.
I don't know how this relates to the supposed navy luger other than that proof marks were similar. Just my opinion,Jerry you may now unload your weapon and put the safety on. Your friend Chuck

Jerry,
* Thanks a bunch. Truly appreciate your thoughts.
* Hope your rehab is going well. Trap shooting buddy of mine had two knees done sequentially. Took slightly more than a year; but, he's prancing around now like a 20's Flapper. Stick with the physical "terrorist's" regime & it will all work out partner!
* Brevity is a virtue; however, not my strong suit. Just another night on the Net cracking the ole books @ Luger U. Convinced one mistake avoided by someone will make it all worthwhile.
* In fairness to Ronnie, I have exercised an educated guess on a few key items. We should allow him some time to respond. However, the story on this puppy is rapidly unfolding & the Forum's brain trust have the fat lady three arias after mid-opera's intermission.

Chuck,
* Can you post either Luger's year date, toggle markings/Mfr, general S/N range, marking location(s), or any further definitive details??
* Probably missing something; but, the only examples I recall having both the Army acceptance stamps of #46 & #47 coupled with the commercial Proof of #48 are some Dutch Banners & 1940 Police Banner's diverted to the Army.
* Can't say I have ever heard/read/seen of any sE/PS or sE/RBL marked P.08's in any Luger reference book/venue over the last 35 years.
* I'd have less concerns if you told me these PS & RBL rigs had small caliber pocket pistols. The 9mmP was usually reserved for front line Military troops. Even the Police were quasi-military & they had to take the leftovers.
* But, hey, I'm always open to learn & virtually no-one has seen everything.
Respectfully,
Bob

Knowledgeable compatriots--
Excuse the silence. I've been across the state trying to make a living. I'll try to absorb the posts since my absence and reply. Thank you ALL for your incisive input!!

Ronnie

I stick with my original reply.
These marking are bogus.
Tom A.

Ronnie,
* See the attached URL for a post on the "Mauser Hump".
http://forums.lugerforum.com/cgi-bin...topic;f=2;t=00 0112
* Almost got a line on this one.
* After seeing the picture/explaination at the bottom of the attached URL post, can you now respond whether your S/N 3404ns has a "frame hump" or not.
* Also, is the inside of the frame "in the white" or blued??
* One last thing: Is there a number or numbers on the inside of the side plate?? What are they??
Thanks,
Bob

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva"> </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Bob,
Thanks for your patient prompting of this unlearned neophyte---
Answers (albiet late) to your post above are as follows.
1. No, no frame hump. I guess I was looking for something pretty overt, but this is fairly subtle to my untrained eye. After comparing it to a byf 41, I can see the difference.
2. The inside of the frame is "in the white". I do know what that is.
3. There is the number "39" inside the side plate, and almost exactly on the opposite side of the last two digits of the s/n

Also of interest to me, is that the initials "MBH" just in front of the lug on the bottom of the receiver. These are pretty small, about 1/8 or less Wonder what those mean?
I now realize that this pistol is probably "boosted", by the addition of spurrious marks. But, HEY, that's what this forum is about, or at least I thought it was. To increase everyone's knowledge!!! It's great to have several folks come down on both sides of this issue. I am in no way dissapointed in what this has brought. Win some, lose some. Still it's a nice Luger. Perhaps next, I'll post the pride of my meager collection. Yes, a Navy!!

MANY THANKS TO YOU ALL!!!

Still learning in West Texas!!!

Ronnie

Excellent learning thread wasn't it Ronnie. I appreciate your willingness to learn from one of your own guns, :)

Thanks and hats off to you bud! :)

Ed

This has been a great thread. I hope we all learned something from it. I know I have.

I know these can get heated up a little and I hope no one got their feathers ruffled...

Just trying to nail down accurate information. Jerry Burney

With reference to the swastika and the little 'ends' this is a representation of the Sonnenrad, or Sunwheel, style of the swastika. It is an ancient Norse representaion of the sun. This Sonnenrad was found quite often on various early Nazi pieces of equipment, the early SA enlisted mans belt buckle, the early Luftwaffe Officers dress dagger and other items.
http://www.portal-ns.com/thecensure/text12.htm
http://www.johnsonreferencebooks.com...stwar/9883.jpg
http://65.160.172.250/buckles/b091.jpg

Herb, Interesting point but where does this lead us to in terms of the stamp found on this pistol?

Are you saying because of this Hakenkreuz made into a(sort of) sonnenrad that this legitimizes this stamp?

Personally, I don't think it is a sonnenrad at all but a crappy job of making the swastica.

The cross lines were not made exactly on center and were too far to the edge of the teardrop circle and consequently our hobbyist could do nothing but curve the ends. The ends of this swastica are also out of proportion to the body, way too small to accurately be a sonnenrad.

If we couple the early sonnenrad with the lateness of the stick wing Eagle we end up with quite the Frankenstein emblem.

Let me know your thoughts...Jerry Burney

Jerry, I did not post the sonnenrad to attempt to indicate the marking was correct but only to point out that the "legs" on the swastika were probably not in error and that they did in fact represent another form of the swastika. What puzzles me about the whole stamping is the cost involved in having a die made of that complexity, finess and to fit the curvature of the barrel, that is a lot of money just to attempt to fake something, there are a lot of easier and cheaper ways of going about it. Is it real or fake, who knows, strange markings do pop up now and then.

Herb,
You know you bring up a point that has me puzzled too. I'm sitting here having cherry cobbler with a dollop of vanilla, questioning why someone would go to the expense. Looking at the marks, they are NOT shabbily done. Very fine lines, and evenly etched into the metal. Tho not very deep.
So now I'm wondering just how much a decent 1939 chamber marked 42 would be worth, as opposed to one "boosted" to some imaginary Navy unit/mark. Not that it makes any difference at this point, just curious as to what they thought might be accomplished in an increase in value.
Then the other thing behind that, I've been thinking of sending it to Thor----. Or, should I keep it as the curiosity it is? <img border="0" alt="[ouch]" title="" src="graemlins/c.gif" /> What's the group's opinion??

This is giving me a headache in West Texas

Ronnie

Send it to Thor! hahahahha! Send it to Thor!
http://members.rennlist.com/lugerman/Thormilk.jpg

Herb, OH! OOPS...It is my guess, and without a close inspection of the metal etchings, I could not say for sure, I don't think this was put on there with a die at all, but engraved.

There are machinists with computer engravers out there where a copy can be scanned out of a page on a book and neatly engraved, any size you want.
Curvature would not be a factor, nor would the expense of a die.
As for escalating cost concerning the placement of a spurious mark, I would guess it could be as much as a thousand dollars without stretching credulity. Whatever the market would bear in the heat and dim light of your normal gun show.
I suspect that John Sabato or Ron wood or someone else out there in our membership could expound on this subject that is more knowledgeable than myself.

Herb says; strange markings do pop up now and then. Herb, I suppose this is true but not that often and so out of the norm for the stick Eagle. This was pretty much set in stone and one of this variation is wrong in so many ways it would be one of a kind and span a decade of different styles.

I vote you send it to Thor and rub out all traces of this horrible disfigurement.Bring this pistol back to what it once was.
...But then, that's just me. Jerry Burney

Gentlemen,

This thing is ABSOLUTELY phony-baloney (My nicest discriptor for such foolishness).

Tuition at Luger University can be costly; it can be *much* more expensive when you try to prove a nonworking hypothesis, and especially when one decides to ignore history, research and the freely-given advice of many who have lots of knowledge and experience in the field.

This is the case here.

Even allowing the extremely unlikely probability that the markings were legitimate, the ones cited are department acceptance ("Proof") marks. They are NOT grip strap markings; they would be on the right side of the receiver. This is basic stuff, folks.

It is logically impossible to prove a negative; I shall end my conversation on this topic by stating that anyone who pays a premium for this piece is an example of the old axiom about a fool and his money.

Tom A.

Ronnie,
* Commend you for sticking with this thread & responding to my latest set of questions. This has been an excellent example to study and learn from. As you have been into P.08's for a long time, I suspect you knew this already.
* While at this stage it may seem anti-climatic, it is always difficult to convey to a fellow collector troubling news. This example is spurious IMHO. I hope I'm wrong; but, even if I am, this piece would always raise more suspicions than it would satisfy.
- The lack of a hump on the frame indicates the frame at least predates 1937 and is inconsistent with the 1939 upper cannon assembly.
- The "in-the- white" finish inside the frame coupled with the probable "rust blued" exterior indicates the frame predates the 2nd variation 1937 Mauser P.08's.
- The sideplate's "39" is not consistent with the proper inside side plate number expected (35) for a 1939 S/N 3404ns. This plate likely came from a third P.08.
- Interim report observations are confirmed. Now given the pistol's inconsistencies, the e/M lacks that much more credibility as noted by Tom A, Jerry, Blanye, etal. Appears Gerben had a bead on this one too.
* Why you ask?? "MBH" probably knows. Wonder if that stands for "mucho big hombre"? Anyway, a 4-5 times asking price might explain the rationale MBH had in mind.
* I know Thor can do wonders; but, I doubt Tom is into creating a "Humped frame" out of this Weimar handle. The inside well marks or subtle machining differences between DWM & Mauser might just be the next tip off.
* So, as a fellow Texan, I'd recommend you just enjoy this puppy by popping a few rattlesnakes out there & keep 'em west of El Paso for me... OK?. Since I haven't seen any rattlers in these here parts east of you, I know you are already doing a fine job between cobblers.
Thanks,
Bob

I bought this luger in Oct 05 at a small Texas gun show. Very interesting to find it in this discussion. I think I understand the discussion on the eagle. Also the grips look the age of the gun, but are a little thick. i.e. the checkering stops before it reaches the metal. Do many grips do this.

Richard,

Did you buy this at a shooter price...?

No, I paid the price for a luger without the Navy markings. Then I found it on luger forum. I still find it interesting. I collect Regimental Beir Steins and have a couple of fakes just to show the difference.