1917 Navy at Simpson's?
 

This 1917 Navy Luger looks obviously refinished; it is fitted with a magazine that bears the logo "MADE IN ITALY". Am I missing something that justifies Simpson's calling it "97% blue, 95% straw, excellent bore, very good grips, 6'' barrel, matching, correct magazine"?

Yeah, it appears someone in Galesburg is getting a bit sloppy. Based on my look at the top view, I can't see how this piece is anything close to 97%. And the mag, well I guess it would be correct if it were accompanying one of them ultra-rare Eye-talian Navy contract pieces.

Tom A

If you look closely at the bottom of the barrel in the flange receiver area you will see that the receiver is beat up but the barrel is not. It just does not work that way in real life.

You may want to note that there are two barrel alignment marks, one is from the manufacture the other placed there when the barrel was installed improperly.

This gun may not even be a NAVY.

97/95 % with original mag; well I am sure it is exactly the way they received it and it really has just lost 3% of its finish since that time and that is the mag that came with the gun. :rolleyes:

Vern

The magazine is a modern Mec-Gar brand and they commonly put the concentric circle type mag bottom on them... they "look" like a Navy mag bottom but are made of plastic.

Simpson's used to be the paragon of Luger honesty. Now they have to be watched with the same scrutiny as some of the more infamous dealers. What a shame. That Navy is totally misrepresented. The sales pitch may have been written by the weekend janitorial crew, certainly not by the folks we have known and trusted all these years.

I agree with Ron. This piece is definitely not 97%. I don't think it is refinished unless it was done at the factory in the 1920's. I say that because of the halo around the GERMANY under the barrel. Maybe Simpson's is just getting overwhelmed with merchandise and they are rushing to get it out on the internet. I hope this sort of thing doesn't become more common so as to destroy the public trust.

I sent a link to this thread to Bob Simpson with the note that someone in his organization was getting sloppy and Simpson's reputation would suffer as a result.

Tom A

Thanks Tom... Brad Simpson is a member of this forum, but I don't know how often he drops by to read...

I won't comment on the mag. Simpsons labeling it as matching has to be a joke. But I really liked Verns comment about the damage in the flange/receiver area. I missed that while I was looking at the "4" in the serial number under the barrel. Isn't the German "4" of that era supposed to have an 'open' head on it?

Someone commented on the toggle top and said that the the strawing and the bluing was not of the high percent that Simpson stated. That seems to be true. Personally, I look first look at the 'Locking Bolt' on Lugers that I am examining and this one looks pretty good. Looking at strawing and bluing and trying to rate it is kinda subjective. Especially in photographs. You have to physically examine a gun and make your own decisions. The thumb safety does not appear to have any strawing on it. If this gun as been reblued, they did a pretty good job, based on the pictures.

I tried to focus on the proof marks on the side of the receiver and just decided that I am not smart enough to get a clear picture. I have always had a little bit of trouble with Simpsons displays. Maybe someone else can do better.

I have to admit that Verns comment that this may not even be a navy really set me back on my heels though. I hope that someone will make additional comments on that. If I get my motor home fixed up and the anti freeze out of the water lines in time, I'll go to the upcoming OGCA meeting and take a peek at this gun (if Simpson brings it and if he is even there this time). Oh God! Gas is $4.25/gal and I want to take a motor home!!!
Big Norm

I thought for sure that by now someone would have mentioned the "42" on the barrel instead of a Crown/M proof. Matching yes, original no. I think it is a real Navy, but was refurbished for export in the '20s when it received the GERMANY stamp.

Ron!!! It sure does look like a 42!!!!! :roflmao:

I thought it was just a blotched crown/M, this made my whole day :)

You might be right, this might be a refurb Navy from the 20's or much later, the thought had occurred to me with the Germany stamp.

I don't like the extra alignment mark, that means the barrel has at least been off the gun.

Talk about needing to look a gun over in person! This is sure one of those guns.

Well, I would have to pass on this one or they would have to agree to pay postage both ways and refund my 3% credit charge or better yet pay me a 3% charge just to look at it---:roflmao:


Vern:

Vern,
You are correct that the barrel has been off the gun...it wasn't on the gun in the first place, it is a replacement. The 42 is a spare parts mark (I think Mauser, but I am really not up on those "repro" items :))

I think that we owe a bite of a thanks to Michael for bringing this gun to our attention. Maybe he saved someone some money.
Big Norm

Re: Simpson's, a newly posted 1917 Navy no. NA-09 has what appears to be refurbished grips Note the area adjacent to the grip screw & lack of any sweat staining on a 91 yr. old gun. Is $6250 the new norm for a 97% unmarked '17 without a matching magazine ? I don't wether to laugh or cry but inclined to the former.Anyone join me?

This is what happenes when you start a business, care about it and it's reputation then turn it over to a paid manager.

Oh Vern! Don't forget to add in their 15% restocking fee!

Jerry Burney

Oh yes the restocking fee. I paid their restocking fee on a Swiss I returned that was way overrated . Never again! Bill

RGMCE

NA09

If you are considering this gun look closely at the strawing and compare.
I don't want to make judgment based on a fussy picture but there could be some issues with originality. Make sure before you buy!

Vern

Vern, thanks for the caution however I wouldn't consider buying it given the grips & re-strawing evident. While the frame & receiver show expected patina I'm not sure of the barrel as it lies in a different focus plane , hence slightly out of focus & not well lit to compound the problem. Their photographs, like many others, are only useful for general evaluation, not diagnostic analysis. I believe it's overpriced for a original finish gun let alone a refurbished one. That was the point of my posting. I'm not laughing at this sorry state of affairs affecting collectors. Best regards, Dick McEvoy