[Ron Wood]

Albert,
Interesting commentary. Most of your broadside is aimed at Geoff Sturgess, so other than my observations on the chamber marking (more on that later) I’m not sure which “some of your points and opinions” you are addressing to me. For example, your direct address to me “Do you really believe that pistols (which were purchased by the Swiss government) had to go back to DWM for modification…” is odd in that I never made any such assertion (but although I didn’t espouse that premise, there is compelling evidence in its favor).

I have no interest in joining the fray, but I will say that I do not find your opinions and conjectures any more compelling than those of Sturgess. Where did you get 1-20 as the serial number range of the 1899 Swiss trials guns? Serial numbers 5 and 6 are known to be 1898 guns so might one logically assume that 1, 2, 3 and 4 were also 1898 prototypes? Although #19 and #21 are similar, #19 is unmodified and has the original preproduction thin trigger that was one of the objections stated by the Swiss Commission. Consequently, #21, one of the “assumed” Commission “gifts”, has been retrofitted with the ultimately approved production type trigger...perhaps an indication of the aforementioned return to DWM for retrofitting/modification? Your own #18, which I understand is a bone of contention between you and Sturgess (hence your unbridled animosity), also exhibits post trial modification in that although it retains the square toggle joint interface, it has the production type reinforced rear sight, production style trigger and 1900 style wide lateral abutments on the rear toggle link. Your gun looks good to me from the photos, but if I were to subscribe to your line of reasoning, I would declare it of dubious pedigree (which I don’t).

Your comment “assuming that it is a correct pistol” does strike a responsive note. I wish the photos in the Kessler auction were of higher resolution, particularly of the serial number on the toggle. That was one of the downfalls (one of several) of #20 on the Rock Island Auction; the font was not consistent with other early pieces.

I will admit I find Sturgess' research a lot more scholarly than your totally unsubstantiated thoughts on what DWM would or would not have done. You state “it is reported that serial #21-#26 were British Test Trial pistols”. Reported by whom? If you are quoting Sturgess in an effort to debunk his thesis, at least do it accurately. His British Test Trial list is #18 (yours, which Sturgess indicates was modified for the British trials…see my comments above), #23, #25, #26 and #30. Number 21 isn’t included in the mix.

You state “It is my opinion that those pistols given to the Swiss Commission were in a separate serial range after the 1899 Test Trials using old and new parts in stock”. Really?...based on what? You are correct; it is only your opinion, regardless of what convictions you have regarding its validity. It is only pure conjecture, not a solid foundation for your assertions and not a substantive argument countering Sturgess’ account.

Almost all of your fourth paragraph is personal opinion (which is OK as long as you acknowledge it is not based on concrete evidence or documentation). Your dialogue is rambling and the quoted serial number sequences are incorrect and inconsistent. You very well may have a valid case, but I suggest you calm down, properly organize your thoughts and present a more cohesive and compelling argument. In your zeal to vilify Sturgess you are attempting to paint me with the same brush…and as much as I have enjoyed our friendship to this point, I am not sure I appreciate that.

On a final note, getting back to the chamber marking, have you personally examined #19 to determine that it does not have the “dot”? How do you know that #10 does not have the “dot”…it has been heavily modified as a prototype M29 (now numbered V1 and maintained in the Swiss arsenal collection)? Another M1899, #15 also in the Swiss collection, has been made into yet another M29 prototype, V3, and it does have the “dot”. And if you read the Kessler auction write-up it clearly states “pantografiertem Schweizerkreuz mit Zentrierpunkt in der Mitte”. Oops, I forgot…you claim you do not read German (although I firmly believe you have more than sufficient intellect to decipher German if you have the desire and take the time to do so). Allow me to translate: “pantographed Swiss cross with [a] centering point in the middle”. They are all wet about the pantographing, but their reference to a “centering point” (“dot”) is unmistakable. Your assertion that “that a German engraver in the DWM factory from that period would have been able to engrave any design on a curved surface without having to use an indexing “dot” is no doubt true, but is irrelevant since the chamber markings are not engraved but created with a punch or die.

In short, you have ticked me off and I am too old and grumpy to take your disagreement with another individual and let you lay it off on me.
Cheers, and have a good day.