Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Tinker
Albert, I just don't understand how your bringing up Sturgess in so many of your postings helps your theories? I don't know the man, never met him and never met you.
The excuse for not finishing your book is that you are gathering together data is an old, lame excuse and one I have seen numerous times after the person has died and the family wonders what to do with this semi-finished manuscript. You have been working on this book for what, 5 years? 10 or is it 15 years? What are you waiting for?
I don't believe some of your theories because you don't provide concrete paperwork or provide documentation from other guns. I have never said that your theories could not be correct, but simply that you base it on conjecture, just as the present theories are based.
If the crossed rifles were a marketing ploy, just as the american eagle was, then that hurts the theory that DWM and the gov'ts were involved in the reason behind the crossed rifles. If you go on the assumption that Bulgaria / Russia, they didn't ask, just as the US gov't didn't ask for the crest on the chamber, as no precise measurements were taken, given or asked for. If you take that into consideration, then the crossed rifles is just a marketing ploy for a 'commercial' market and not some gov't request.
Do you have any idea how many 'geladen' and Geischert marked lugers came to america? Now why would they have new made lugers come to america that had the german language instead of in english? Shouldn't all new made lugers instead have SAFE and Loaded on them? Perhaps because they had a lot more frames and extractors already marked, just as they already had bulgarian extractors marked. DWM simply didn't care, DWM made lots of mistakes or omissions, sales were more important than some precise wording for commercially sold guns to Russia.
|
Edward,
I mention Geoff in a number of my comments because there are people like you who consider him so important in the collectors society when a number of people do not know what caused his reputation to tumble. His name and reputation has some stains like Ralph which is not as revealing because less is known about Geoff than compared to Ralph. He tries to use his 'holy' position and pompous English background to create a special image of himself, and he prefers to only exposes himself through his various publications which contain a number of errors. He will never admit that he is wrong, so he deserves the attacks that he receives. It seems that the size of his collection which he mainly acquired in one large sweep from Henk Visser in the early 1990's is what impresses collectors, but they should also learn what other rubbish has gone though his hands before saying 'Wow'. If it was not for his wealth and his 'proper' English attitude, I wonder what he would stand for in different times and circumstances?
In regards to my manuscript on the Mauser C96 which I have been working on for about 15 years, you do not need to worry about it never being made into a book - I am still young and in good health, unless your health is going in the opposite direction. I intend to make my book on the Mauser C96 a 'bible' on the subject and I have access to all the finest pieces in the world including to the first two Spur Hammer prototypes. I have learned from various experts how to properly present information based on sound historical facts and traditions, and not make similar errors like on the 'M1906 Russian Luger' and the 'Swiss-Anglo B/L pistols'.
When concrete information is not available, of course, conjecture is all that remains - As thet they say, believe what you want. However, in the case of the 'M1906 Russian Luger' theory, what can the critics provide? NOTHING - Just any excuse or weak opinion to keep it alive.
Considering the the great length of this topic being debated, I am surprised how the critics do not yet understand about the characteristics and differences of a contract and a commercial pistol. Usually, contract pistols need to be made under specific and/or strict guidelines provided by a foreign government. You tell me why the M1906 Russian Contract Luger has these strange markings that has confused collectors for decades? Is this 'curve ball' suppose to happen with a contract Luger (or a Mauser C96 pistol)? How come we do not see these odd occurences with the Portugese Lugers delivered around the same time frame? Just simply learn that the crossed rifles likely mean an infantry connection just like an anchor means navy. Now, you figure out some kind of connection between the infantry emblem on the chamber and the Russian Empire. I believe that the Tsar of Bulgaria being an infantry leader in his nation carries more weight than any empty 'Russian theory'. If you say the DWM made mistakes and omissions, they probably occurred with pistols sold in different commercial markets, but I have yet heard of a serious careless mistake dealing with a foreign contract. And do not forget about that M1902 Russian Luger Carbine with the same (contract) crossed rifles on the chamber!
Albert