Curious about halo's
 

I was taking some close-up pictures of a navy luger I have. Looking at the navy proof marks on the left side of the receiver It appeared to have been double stamped on one of the proof stamps. Is this common on proof stamps? Also looking at the halo's on the serial number on the underside of the barrel. They just don't really look right. Shouldn't a halo be uniform around each number? And the more I look at the ones on the barrel, it looks like there was a stamp applied over what appeared to be the original stamping. It makes me wonder if the barrel was re-blued and re-stamped. I am just curious what the thoughts were out there on these. Its amazing what you can really see with a good close-up picture of items.

Attachment 41543
Attachment 41544
Attachment 41545

It is not terribly unusual for dies to create a "ghost" strike when hit hard, as the die would tend to bounce and come back down onto the metal slightly off where it was originally struck.

That being said, I too worry about what I'm seeing on the barrel. It looks like the serial number was "freshened" using a slightly different font of numbers. Artificial "halos" were then added to make it look original. The C/M proof also looks buffed and not at all sharp by comparison.

I say a reblued barrel, which was then freshened to look original.

Hi Glenn, Double struck Navy inspection marks are not unusual, and the barrel serial could possibly be legit, halos are notoriously difficult to judge from photos. However, when this gun was on a certain notorious dealer's website last year, I judged the magazine to be force matched.
Regards, Norman

The C/M's look fine to me. These stamps were applied by hand and commonly exhibit imperfections due to broken dies, angle of strike, force of strike, etc. I've never seen a P.04 with two C/M's that are exactly the same. The C/M's on P.04's are applied prior to bluing and do not exhibit halos. The P.04 stampings on the barrels, depending on the model and serial suffix, on the other hand, were applied after bluing and should exhibit halos. IMHO these proofs and serial number look correct to me for a model 1914 P.04 Navy.

I don't know much about these pistols, so this is just a question... These guns were hand fitted at the factory, and I'm sure that most of that needed to be done before bluing. Wouldn't the serial numbers be applied before the bluing then? It seems like it would have been difficult to keep track of the parts through the finishing process if they were unnumbered.

If you look carefully. There are over-strikes on ALL THREE numbers on the barrel serial number. These were done with slightly smaller numbers than the originals and do not perfectly match up. They are very clear, at least to me.

I understand what you are saying. I checked the photo again and the white grease does obscure some of the double strike on the serial numbers but there is a halo present around the barrel C/M proof. I don't know the provenance of this particular pistol but it appears that Norme does. Perhaps with that knowledge, this would be questionable. Based on face value of the photo, the double struck serial number does not bother me.

The barrel serial #'s on the earliest Navies, the 1906 n\s, we're struck before bluing, on all subsequent guns, like the 1916 in question, after bluing, and they should show halos.
Regards, Norm

To me, the C/M looks worked/buffed--there are no sharp edges such as the re-struck serial. The halos on the latter look chemically induced to me. They appear to be small spots of something dabbed on, to remove/lighten the bluing. They should be most intense in the material closest to the strike, and fade away in a gradient. These have edges that are visible, and are of uniform tone. Makes my spidey sense tingle...

looking at the gun even more closely now, I see all kinds of things that just don't look right. The barrel I would say is definitely either a replacement or it was taken off and re-blued. The alignment marks on the barrel to the frame don't line up. The serial numbers definitely have been re-stamped. And looking at the C/M on the side of the barrel is obviously been buffed over.

Also looking at the front toggle piece it looks like it may have been buffed over and the halos look like the barrels halos. All other halos on the gun are pretty much uniform around the numbers where they have halos.

I took some close-up pics for Norm and see if he can tell if its a force match. But looking at it myself it looks like it may have been sanded on. Looking at a straight on profile of the bottom piece, it almost has a wedge shape. And the colors are almost 2 tone.

The more and more I look at this the more my stomach just hurts. The downfalls of buying on the good old internet.

Let me know what you good folks think. Aint no point in hiding anything. I value the opinions of the members on this website. So let me have it. :thumbsup:

Attachment 41547

Attachment 41548

Attachment 41549

Attachment 41550

Attachment 41551

Attachment 41552

Attachment 41553

Attachment 41554

Attachment 41555

More Pictures

Attachment 41556

Attachment 41557

Attachment 41558

Attachment 41559

Attachment 41560

Attachment 41561

Attachment 41562

Glenn,
The added photos give a better "picture" of the entire gun. The upper receiver looks original and "un-messed with". Unfortunately, with the additional photos of the barrel, I have to change my original opinion, especially the photo of the Navy firing proof on the left side of the barrel. The barrel has been messed with. Return the pistol and get a refund.

Joe

I thought the double stamps could be a result of the "bounce" alanint was talking about, but in that last picture it looks like the "7" is actually restamped with a different font.

I totally agree with the different font. The closeup pictures tell the story. Just looking at it straight on it looks good. Good thing I decided to play around with taking some closeup pictures.

Thanks for the comments.

My "bounce" comment only refers to the overstrikes on the side of the receiver, which look OK. The barrel, on the other hand, I believe has been altered for all the reasons posted.

Glenn,

Here are a couple of photos of a P.04 Model 1914 "1917" Dated that I used to own for comparison. Notice that the C/M's and proofs on the receiver and barrel were struck deep, which seems fairly common with this model. Notice the Imperial Navy proof on the breech block of the toggle train. (I'll get back to that). You can see halos around the S/N on the barrel even though the original finish was worn.

I had this Luger for a few years when I decided to take photos and cleaned the white grease out of the stamps. Surprise! I discovered that the breech block had been replaced. The Imperial Navy proof and S/N on the breech block had been electro penciled and then filled in with white grease to conceal. Needless to say I took a hit when I finally sold it because I was honest about the Luger's originality. I stay away from Model 1914 Navies now.

As Luger collectors we will all have to pay our dues to "Luger U". This was my tuition and hopefully my last. Navy Lugers are a virtual minefield. You really have to pay attention to all of the details. Case in point, my first opinion on your Luger with limited information. That was my mistake.

Best regards,

Joe

Yeah! I guess you live and you learn. I guess the positive side of it is, I got a good navy luger that I shouldn't be to worried about shooting. The barrel is in pretty good condition and the whole toggle mechanism is pretty nice feeling. I guess I'll just put some rounds through it. I'm sure it will be a conversation piece at the range.

I have been eyeballing another, police luger on line. But after this go around with this one, I'm a little nervous about jumping into another one from the internet.

Glenn,

A bit of a tough break, but I agree, you will enjoy shooting this 6" pistol. Personally, I'm collecting shooters right now--they all have to work for a living. Down the road I may acquire some that I can clean and polish, fondle and admire, then return to their thrones in the safe! It takes the edge off, sort of, to have some shooters first. If you can't return this one, don't take the hit by reselling right away, because it will appreciate in value nonetheless. Meanwhile you can feed it some ammo and experience the sensations of 100 years ago...

Internet gun purchases can be a crap shoot, but with some standard courtesies extended by a seller, one can have a little reassurance. A three-day non-firing inspection period should be OK with any legitimate seller. All you'll be out is some extra shipping and maybe a transfer fee or two, instead of being stuck with an "as Is/no returns" gun.

Good things to look for in an ad would include lots of clear pics of the item, and an absence of the phrase "I'm no expert..."

Oh I don't think I will re-sell anytime soon. I mean overall the gun looks good. I have had it almost a year now and never really noticed all the funky markings until just the other day. I got a new camera for work to take really close-up (Macro) pictures of damage and corrosion mechanisms for my reporting. So I played around with picture taking on this navy luger when I finally realized that this doesn't look right. And now here we are. I have been wanting to shot it but didn't want to damage something. But since its already been re-worked somewhat, what the hell. Its going with me to the range on my next trip. It'll be fun!

Hi Glenn, I wouldn't be so quick to write off this gun. Much of it looks legit to me, and I can't think of any scenario that would explain why anyone would over strike the barrel serial numbers with the SAME numbers. Can you scrub out all the white lacquer from the numbers and marks, using a toothbrush and solvent, like Hoppe's #9 or BreakFree, and then retake the photos? For what it's worth, the magazine base looks better than my notes would indicate, please also post photos of the stake marks near the top of the tube.
I'll be away from home for most of the month and don't have access to my photo library and can't post comparison photos.
Regards, Norm