G Date with DWM toggle - need help
 

I recently picked up this G Date 1936 Luger...probably my only chance to own one. It is a combination of anomolies, but the price was right and it came with an original A. Fischer 1941 dated holster (which will look good wrapped around my BYF41 Black Widow).
1. The Toggle is DWM, BUT has the correct s/n. Checking the literature...Still, Third Reich Lugers, p.27, note at the bottom of the page..."two G Date Lugers with DWM Toggle are reported" and he references Harry Jones in Luger Variations p.193 as showing a picture of one. So, what are the odds that this DWM Toggle is original to this gun?
2. The mag looks to me to be absolutely correct, original and matching.
3. I cannot decipher the s/n suffix under the barrel.
4. Several of the small parts are mis-match...could they still be original to the gun?
5. There is an import mark and "germany" hidden up under the frame above the trigger on the right side.
6. Looks like an old refinish...if done since import why wouldn't they have removed the import mark? (legal issue?)
7. The grips have a "repro" look to them, however the last two of the s/n is stamped on the backs and they fit like a glove.
This one may turn out to be a kind of "orphan", but it's sure pretty (and you know how I fall for the pretty ones...the 1912 Erfurt...oh yea, and my wife!)
So here's some pictures to hopefully shine some light on it.
I appreciate any and all comments...Steve

Boy, I see things that concern me but I'm no G date guy. At the risk of erroring, I would comment that the mag. is a number re-stamp, and I agree that the grips look suspect. If they are numbered correctly inside, then that suggests something a bit more troubling. I'd like to see better photos of that front suffix and the surrounding area, as it looks a bit odd in the photos.
Not sure if the G date guns should have the Mauser hump.
Lets hear from the other guys...
dju

It looks restored to me, but many times pictures can be deceiving...

A K date would be closer to first production, a G date is 10-15 thousand in?

The magazine looks funny to me, but you said it looks good. Maybe shined up?

David and Ed...I've looked closer at the bottom of the mag and there very well could be a grind and re-stamp. I was swayed by the other markings. the tube is bright...looks like stainless...in any event I'm going to see GT next week and he will figure the mag out.
Yes, it was refinished, but it looks fairly old but now that I look closer, the re-finish is clearly after the import stamp...which is "VEGA SAC CA 9MM" with "germany" also.
I'll take some new pics tomorrow in better light and post them.
This was only represented as a shooter, not a collectable...my investment is $1095 delivered with holster and unmarked tool.

Not a bad price IMO...I would have inspected the G more closely...It's been filled in with some kind of whitener, but I notice it has no halo...I don't know enough about G/K dates to know if that is significant or not...But the corners are nice and square, not rounded like an etching or electro-pencil would be......It's a nice G... :)

Steve,

In this forum there are plenty of people more expert than me, but let me say that it is a very nice looking Luger, probably restored, and with new grips, still if you paid what you considered a "right price" it's ok, and if you want to use it as a shooter... safe shooting.

Congratulations in any case for your purchase.

Refinished or not, it is a nice shooter, with nice accessories, for a reasonable price in today's market IMHO.

Renumbered? I would have to study it much closer to give an opinion on that...

Believer the mag was originally for a K date. Bill

Many thanks to all responders...based on your comments and my hitting the books, I believe the picture is clearing.
A true G Date should be in the range 930a to 5000 f. Looking at the picture of the mark on the front of the frame (see new pics below), it looks to me like someone tried to change/obliterate whatever suffix was there...not good news.
However, the G over the chamber looks OK to me, but the comment about halo could be telling.
Bill, yes, I came to the same conclusion about the mag after looking at Costanzo and Still...looks to be a K Date mag...the box/37 specifically K Date only. I can't explain the Scriptic S in two places. Also looking at the closeups (below) of the center s/n section of the base looks "messed with" as in grinding marks. Also, I think it's bright Nickle plated, not stainless.
I've added pics of the grips and I think they speak for themselves...I've not seen s/n stamps like that before (large), but have only seen maybe a dozen.
So, the bottom line in my mind is pretty much what you guys came up with...a nice looking mis-matched shooter with an interesting story which we will probably never know.
I think we can seal this case and again, thank you all for your comments...great bunch of guys! Steve

G- date grips are usually not numbered.
The acceptance of the clip is a fake.
The numbers on the frame seems not correct- they should be the same as on the barrel.
The frame has another color than the rest of the gun and so on...

VERY pretty, and servicable pistol, regardless. Some interesting history behind all the parts. Grips are obviously new. But I would still like to have it!

Regardless, you will have the only one like it at the shooting range. Enjoy!
dju

Klaus...yes, not much question about the grips...and the fakery of the mag. However, the numbers on the frame and barrel do match...both 6616. The problem is no suffix that is readable. Also, I don't detect any color difference between the barrel, receiver and frame. It has clearly been refinished and the barrel/receiver would certainly have been done together...not much chance of color difference.
Here's some new info: the tool that came in the pouch of the A. Fischer 1941 holster is marked "byf41" on the little vertical tab at the big end. I can't find any reference (STILL, Gortz & Sturgess etc) that document this kind of tool marking...is this yet another "boost"? (see pics below)

Sorry, never seen a tool marked in that way with that font in that location...

Marc

Klaus...sorry, I mis-understood about the color match...frame vs. all the rest. So the barrel/receiver is not at issue...got it this time. If you look real hard and close in hand, there may be a slight difference, but until you pointed it out I would not have picked it up.

Marc...yes, pretty strange. I didn't even think to look at that location and assumed it was a commercial un-marked. It was only by accident that I finally saw the stamp.
All in all, this is one mixed up confused little puppy. But it sure has been fun trying to figure out what has been done to it and what is real and what is fake...probably be working on that for some time. Steve

I vote that tool to be highly suspect. Laughably suspect, actually.
Also, would one of you G date owners compare that G to yours? Is it the correct font AND location?
The problem is that once you find something that has been boosted, like the grips for example, then absolutely everything else becomes suspicious. And since it ended up selling at a reasonable shooter price, why all the skullduggery?
dju

David...here's a G Date (not mine) that is currently listed on GunBroker (for $3,400 start). It has a very good picture of the "G". To my eye it looks very similar to mine.

that tool marking is a sure sign it is either faked or has fake markings

but its a repro tool IMO

I think Klaus is pointing out that the font & style are subtly different...

But the price was right (again, IMO) and it is a handsome Luger... :thumbup: