1939 42 Rig
 

I have the opportunity to buy a complete matching rig. I have looked at the gun and it appears all original. It has two matching mags, 39 holster and 655 tool. The gun is a double 655 proofed. It is in the 3100 s/n and "X" letter suffix block. The only thing that I have a question about is the extractor. It is the plum finish but does not have a s/n stamped on it. The gun looks right and everything else matches.

I examined it closely with a manifying glass. The only marking is on the left side part that goes down in the bolt that reads "geladen". There is no evidence that it has ever been stamped with a s/n. The wear is consistent with the rest of the bolt and plum colored. The gun matches completely, grips, pins, etc. It is in excellent plus condition with only a slight bit of wear on the barrel and side plate from going into the holster. The bore is mint. It also has that asterick on the barrel that has been so controversial.

Photos would be nice of all markings on all components to give you a fair assesment. How are the magazines marked; with number and suffix exactly like on the pistol, with one showing a "+" or are they numbered with the serial and then "1" and "2"?

I would also like to see photos of the mag. bottoms, along with photos of the gun, of course. This is the sort of high end package that benefits from boosting, so be very careful. I'd guess that the extractor has been replaced.
I assume that the seller has priced the rig on the high end so they should not object to some photo scrutiny.
dju

Holster aficionados will want pics of the holster, too - showing any markings on the back, how straps (F&R) are attached, stitching, any obvious repairs, etc...You may need to go over the backside with a magnifying glass to pick up any faint stamping impressions...

As to the extractor...IMHO, any 'soft' part that may have broken in the past and replaced/repaired should not detract from the value of the piece...These are parts that could have been repaired/replaced by depot maintenance and should/could be considered as part of the history of the piece...Just MHO... ;)

Link to pictures.

https://picasaweb.google.com/1065426...eat=directlink

I'm seeing two completely different fonts on the mag bottoms.

Tha breech block appears to not be numbered or proof marked.