WARNING - boosted "Navy" 1908 Commercial on Gunbroker
 

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=530300860
Didn't sell, so it was relisted
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=531894478

This pistol, an otherwise nice 1908 commercial, has been defaced with a pantographed fake Imperial Navy acceptance mark.

The accompanying legend / description isn't even internally consistent.
It starts by calling it a "1908 Commercial DWM German Army" and continues below the picture with a description for a "'36 S/42 Mauser"

I'm always impressed by PIA's listings on their site, although not particularly in a favorable way. Lots of flash and extraneous material to embellish their story, as opposed to documenting or backing up their conjecture and speculation--lovely old pic of ships, etc. Every pic of the gun is an impressively-staged beauty shot, but I'm wondering how they stay in business with an operation that seems more to be run by interior decorators than by firearms experts.

The dagger is 100% original.

It's not a ground-down bayonet but an trench knife.

Don't know this stamp being a fake or not. But it's not pantographed, it's a stamp. There is a picture in PIA web site.

Hi Alvin, It's not possible to tell if the C/M mark on this gun is stamped or pantographed from the low resolution photo on the PIA website. Fortunately this gun has been examined in hand by an acknowledged expert, the original poster of this thread. If Mike says it's pantographed , then it's pantographed.
Norm

I looked at the high resolution photos on the PIA site and the mark is a bit of a puzzle. The "M" is without a doubt pantographed, however the crown appears stamped. Looks like someone has a crown stamp but couldn't come up with an M stamp of the proper size.

Hi Ron, Despite PIA's statement to the contrary, their photos are not high resolution and can not be enlarged to show detail. Here is a true high resolution photo of a correct 1908 Commercial Navy and PIA's photo.
Best regards, Norm

Alvin, to put it simply, you don't know what you are talking about.

I have held it in my hand and examined it with a lighted magnifying glass, it is most assuredly pantographed.

I stupidly set aside my concerns about PIA and purchased this pistol around two years ago. I did so based on the same information from George that he posted in this thread: the pistol was from the estate of the noted Navy collector Tom Armstrong and had not been messed with by PIA. At the time, the one picture with a different background that clearly shows the C/M was not on the website and the markings were filled in white.

When I received the pistol I was immediately suspicious of the C/M, so I carefully removed the white substance with a soft toothbrush and a bit of gun cleaner. Without the white it was glaringly obvious it was a fake, so I photographed it and sent a message saying I wanted to return it. I copied George as a courtesy, since he had told me he was the one who consigned it to PIA on behalf of the estate.

Then it got ugly. Etowski said to send it back, but he was irate that I had removed the white and said I had damaged the guns value by publicly saying it was a fake. At that point, I had only communicated with PIA and George, who I had been told was the agent for the estate. Once he got it back, Etowski said I had damaged the gun by removing the white, hurt its value by telling the world it was fake (which I had not done) and denying I could prove it was a fake. According to his terms, he will only accept a gun isn't correct if an acknowledged expert says so, and in this case his only expert would be Krauss. He also said he had no knowledge of pantographing. While he was at it, he also claimed I stole a copy of the photo by opening the frame and scanning it.

In the end he withheld a 20% restocking fee unless I would sign a very long non-disclosure agreement. By signing it I would have agreed that I damaged the gun by removing the white, reduced its value by claiming it was a fake, and destroy all copies of any photos I had taken, along with a lot of other onerous language. Clearly written to make it impossible to sign.

So, I paid my "stupid tax" for dealing with a crook like Etowski in the form of a restocking fee and learned a few lessons.
- Never buy anything from PIA
- Just because a well known collector owned it doesn't make it any better.

Hi Mike, I never asked you, but did you examine the C/M on the trench knife as well? I personally am not persuaded by the photo, just because a soldier (or sailor) is wearing military equipment in a studio photo does not mean that it was issued to him. It was the practice at the time for studio photographers to provide props to make their subjects look more martial.
Best regards, Norm

I find the PIA crown to be "nesting" too low within the M, giving the impression that the M was added later and not all part of the same stamp.

Hi Norm

I was so excited and then disappointed by the pistol I really didn't pay that much attention to anything else. My assumption when I purchased it was that someone had enlarged a CDV or other studio photo and assembled a set to resemble the items in the photo and fabricated a matching story. I'm pretty sure the belt and buckle are correct, but I never looked close enough to see if the buckle had its tab, or if any of the leather had makers marks and/or dates. I did compare the knife to photos in a German book of bayonets and sidearms, as well as searching every German website I could find on WWI edged weapons. It certainly seems to be an authentic Kampfmesser, however the only ones I can find are not associated with the Navy. I also enquired with several European collectors, none of whom are aware of such a knife with Navy acceptance.
Given the ease to find information on the Navy edged weapons we see in all the photos, and the lack of photos or information on a Navy knife like this, I agree with you the one in the photo is most likely a studio prop and the knife in the PIA sale was boosted when the rig was assembled.

If you look carefully at the knife in the photo and the one included, I don't think the are the same. The one in the photo seems to have a more distinct "bird beak".

This is probably redundant, but the two C/M marked mags, the C/T marked tool and the M stamped on the holster, all look faked to me.
The belt buckle looks like the real deal but it's been polished, which is a shame.
Best regards, Norm

Mike -- Sorry to hear this story. On my collecting, two sellers refused returning. That's very bad experience.

Norme -- Thanks for the side by side picture. That makes identification much easier.

I agree on the bird's head difference of the knife in the photo vs. in the PIA ad, but wasn't sure if that maybe was just a result of loose clothing.
Anyway, an interesting post to be sure.
Buyer beware...
dju

Unfortunately similar things happen everywhere.
Not longer that a month ago a big gunsop specialized on collectibles was advertising an original 1911A1 US&S. When I asked for some more pictures it prooved to be a "fake"!, I was amazed, so I rang the gunshop, and the owner answered that they had it from "a general of the Army and well known collector..."
Obviously I didn't buy it, but somebody else did it just a few days later.

It didn't sell, so he's trying again

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=531894478

New year, same old fake
 

Relisted yet again http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=536135869

I don't see a stock lug. Do you see a stock lug? Maybe it is a hidden stock lug... :confused: