G Mauser Luger on Auction Arms
 

There is currently a very pristine G date on Auction Arms (#5954472). Upon questioning the seller, I was informed that the serial number had the suffix "i". Checking in Third Reich Lugers of Jan Still, one learns that over 54000 G types were made in 1935, the highest suffix being "f" (page 16). Any thoughts out there about this apparent abberation? After all, anyone interested in this piece might have to fork over $2K by the time the gavel comes down!

The serial number is 9440 (?). The Waffenamt Marks shown are for a late G-Date or 1936. The Proof Mark (Fine Tailed Eagle) is for a late G Date (D, E or F Block) or an early 1936 (F thru about L Block). The serial number is too high to be a G-Date F-Block, so if it's a legit G-Block it has to be either a D or E Block.

It's difficult for me to believe that anyone could mistake a "d" or "e" for an "i".

The color seems way too light, but that could be a photography glitch.

If I were bidding on this Luger I would insist on a photo of the script letter. If it isn't a "d" or "e", I would run away as fast as I could!

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />

Frank, further contact with the seller brought forth the correction that the suffix is indeed the letter "d". The finish appears just too good to me (IMHO) not to be restored, but the seller insists it's not messed with but can one be certain?

Doc, if I may call you Doc, I said, the color appears to be too silvery. But that could be the photography. The photos do not show enough detail to look for the tell tale signs of refinishing. The photo of the top would indicate some polishing, but the whole photo is blurred, so it's tought to tell.

The Waffenampt and Proof Marks are lightly struck. That is pretty normal, but it also could be a sign of refinish.

The seller has a pretty good record, so if he knows Lugers, it may be legit. Note, if he knows Lugers, it's tough to mistake a "d" for an "i"!!!

I agree with Frank. The finish just does'nt look right. The close up of the proofs, appears that it has been bead blasted.(frosted texture). This is a method of some what duplicating rust blue. Gives that satin look by using very fine glass beads.It will also slightly restore or deepen stampings,proofs,etc., that have been made shallow by polishing. I would be suspicious.

Ron

Does anyone know what the stamping on the extractor is...?

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

Ron & Pete, the photos are so blurred I can't tell. The extractor may have the S/N "40" but I don't know for sure.

Ron, bead blasting could have been used, but it's tought to tell!!

All I can say is BEWARE!!

:confused:

It has the look of cold blue.....

Just for my 2cts AVIOD

Appreciate all the input. Yes, Frank, you can call me "doc" anytime! By the way, the high bid is up to $1K.

Frank,
Way to flush that suffix out pardner!! Great analysis.

IMHO:
- I'm w/ Herb....too good!
- This is just one of those pistols you see today that begs to be disassembled into its 54 some pieces and studied at length with a high power glass, a flashlight, the nose, and every other trick known. All the while asking " How'd they do that so good" and "How'd it survive WWII and 68 years like this?"
- Little or no high edge wear, all blue barrel/muzzle band & sideplate island, soft frame & island edges, pictures which lack displaying the critical wear & tooling spots, soft(maybe blurry) chamber "G",...., where did Thor put his mark this time?
- Guess if Heer Weiss could make one this good under Army production quotas, Mauser would not need a commercial Banner division.
- Going to take all of three days to Inspect, a bundle of questions to the Seller, and lots of friends. But, if this is all original...Wow!
- Count me leery & in search of "halo's".
Respectfully,
Bob

Thanks, Bob, I always respect your learned opinions, and I totally agree with what you said so well.

Bob, be sure to post a photo essay on the piece while you have it apart!... for future reference.

Thanks!

John & All,
* My apologies if the impression was given I was a bidder/buyer of this piece. :( I do not go by the handle "wargunfan". Besides, my modest 5887c "G" example might get jealous if she knew I was Auctioning around for an upgrade and rust all over the safety deposit box! :rolleyes:
* I hope with Analog's good feedback & an intense questioning/examination by Wargunfan, no unexpected surprises will occur when the shipment package is opened. Hopefully, the new owner will be cognitively & emotionally pleased. Then he or she can join our circle to convey a detailed analysis and more comprehensive/improved photos. :D
* While frequently "I'm known not to fully understand everything I definitively know about a subject", the hue of the sideplate alone makes me jittery. <img border="0" alt="[icon501]" title="" src="graemlins/icon501.gif" /> Fortunately we have been graced with Lloyd's contemporary "G" date S/N: 1772c post to compare. <img border="0" alt="[king]" title="" src="graemlins/r.gif" /> Let's hope any disparity in S/N 9440d is in the "photographic" effect for Wargunfan's sake.
* Time will tell.
* Anyone know wargunfan??
Respectfully,
Bob

Well put Bob!! I too hope Wargunfan is pleased with the new addition!! :)

Hi,
Read this thread with interest and then went to the pictures and looked. Really do not know how anyone could give a thumbs up or thumbs down on this piece from the pictures. Not enough detail to make any kind of an accurate judgement in my opinion. From what I could tell it looked like the straw was okay, and it looked like it has some blue wear. Looks to me like just poor detailed pictures. -- Bill

Hi Frank -- How ya been?