Banner stamp error or irregularity
 

Under very close examination, the 'banner' stamp logo on my 1937 commercial v-block Luger has an odd irregularity, or defect. The E in banner has a fine line down the outer edge, touching the three horizontal lines of the letter E, making it look like a squared 8 or B. Has anyone ever seen this before, or is there a known stamping irregularity, in a similar manner as the Erfurt crown's broken out portion ?

does it appear to be inscribed contemporaneously
 

with the primary logo ?

The gun looks straght in almost any kind of light, but in the flash of the camera, it looks like the toggle has a different color cast ....

Besides the E defect, the R looks mis-struck as well.

I don't know if the picture tells whether the stamping is all of one age, but it seems fine from any regular viewing distance.
In regular even light, it does seem to be a bit darker-deeper on the right, but I think that is just because of the extra number and closeness of stamp lines. Under a magnifying glass, the depth of the stamping is pretty even everywhere.

It sort of looks like a mis-strike to me. Like maybe the stamp was hit twice, but slightly our of place ? But then wouldn't the entire stamp be like that ? .... I am pretty much ignorant of stamping methods, but have heard of roll stamping, so maybe a stamping error like this could happen with a roll stamp ?

Has anyone seen this kind of thing on a bona-fide Mauser banner Luger ? or is it a sign of inept forgery ?

On a commercial Luger, made before the war, at the supposed height of quality and careful workmanship at Mauser, I would think they would not assemble a part with this sort of stamp defect, but that's just me guessing. If it is somehow a true Mauser banner stamp, and passed unnoticed or allowable, then would it be more valuable, like a mis-struck coin ?

I am guessing everyone is checking their Mausers' 'banner' logos ......

Alx, I'd check the Banner closely under high magnification for chissel (engraving) marks. If engrave rather than stamped, probably a forgery. TH

Alx -

I think if you try Luger Doc's suggestion you will see that this logo is a fake.

If you look at the little blocks below the word "MAUSER" you will see that there are six of them. If you look at the blocks 4 and 5 counting from left to right, you will see a verticle line through them. This is not right.

If you look at the center part of the letter "E" you can see that the line extends into the letter "R" and this is not right.

The letter "R" is odd, probably because there was not enough room to insert it inside the logo. It is a spacing error, which occured when the Logo was being created by a booster or faker.

I agree with you that something like this never would have left the Mauser factory. And in my opinion, it is clearly bogus.

You are doing the right thing by asking the experts for their input.

I would be interested in seeing a Mauser toggle from someone who is confident that theirs is genuine... :)

Here's the banner on my 1942 Luger:

http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/a...e/_DSC2053.jpg

Looks like a shifted die double-strike to me. Kind of like the double die errors on some coins. I suspect it is probably a factory error and not a fake. The whole right side of the stamp has anomalies, not just the E and R.

The letter shape and perspective as if projected over a radiating field looks very different on my Banner toggle...

Marc

Alx, how long had you owned the gun before you noticed it? My point being that it is possible for something like this to have been assembled and pass inspection. 25 years in QA has taught me that. I think it's probably a one-off.

I agree with Ron, remember we are dealing with a roll die, as it starts to engage the toggle any shifting will be noted in the first part of the stamp and that is primarily were we see the distortion.

Even if originally rejected that toggle would be a prime target for reuse later in time and might show a difference in color as a result.

Just some thoughts

Vern

It's hard for me to believe that a forger who could get the first 2/3rds so good then completely wreck the "ER".

Looks like a factory error to me.

Jack

I'm thinking that the reliefs on the sides of the toggle don't look as deep as on mrerick's...like maybe it was ground/sanded/milled down to remove an old emblem and the new one put on...

Jack, if a forger did the outline first and then the insides, it might get squeezed at the end...

Not saying it is a forgery...Just throwing out theories...

My observations
 

I hear you, but if the forger engraved or somehow stamped the banner freehand, there's no way he would make all the errant strikes in the trim boxes (highlited in yellow).

The extended stroke of the midwing on the "E" (highlited in red) would be another MAJOR errant strike or cut (how likely are these amateurish mistakes on an otherwise brilliant forgerey?).

If the forger produced a roll stamp that was inaccurate, there's no way he would have not noticed the extra metal on his die which would impress that extra wing and the mars on the trim boxes... he simply would have cleaned the extra metal from the die.

I'm not up on banner lugers... is this a valuable example? In what condition is the rest of the pistol?

Could a forger have made a balls on accurate die, then doublestruck it himself? Sure! But why not believe just as (or more) likely it happened at the factory?

Just my thoughts,
Jack

My theory:

Someone located a matching (61) toggle for his pistol, removed the original marking (probably an S/42 or byf one), and decided to strike a 'new' Mauser banner. The banner shifted during the striking and voila.

If this was done at the factory, it would have been done during August Weiss' lunch break. He would not have accepted this :)

Hi Gerben, The S/42 and byf marks are struck pretty deep. I can't believe they could be removed without trace. Regards, Norm

The argument against an older marking having been scrubbed off is that this would have also affected the matching part number. In this case the top of the toggle surface is perfectly even with a deep number stamped. This would not be the case if they had removed any metal forward of the part number.

I say factory mistake, which is suble enough to have been missed by QC.

(I don't think any inspector anywhere looks at gun markings more minutely than this crowd! 8^)

It may also be significant that Alx has stated: "looks like the toggle has a different color cast"

Notice that along the top edge of the logo there is a double pointed torpedo shape (I do not know what else to call it). Notice the distance from the left edge of the logo to the left tip of the torpedo. Now notice the distance from the right tip of the torpedo to the right edge of the logo. See how these two distances, which should match simply do not match? Unless this is a matter of photographic perspective, then these differing distances can not be accounted for by the use of a roll die. The distances in the factory roll die itself would have been perfect as shown in the example provided by Marc.

However, it would be interesting to look at the condition of these lines under higher magnification. Notice how jagged the top outline of the logo appears to be? This is exactly what one would expect if a Pantograph had been used to create this logo rather than a factory roll die.

Quite a mystery.

But the "DWM" scroll on my commercial is fairly shallow...I don't know where I saw it, but .006" comes to mind...You could sand that off with wet & dry sandpaper...

It's hard to believe that anyone would go to so much trouble for a Mauser banner...Is a banner worth an extra thousand over say a DWM scroll??? If a good condition DWM was worth $1000 and adding the Mauser banner made it worth $2000, then it might be worth faking... :confused: