LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post

Navy · 09-15-2004, 05:56 PM

Norm and all,

As a part of my presentation in Chattanooga, I proposed a "new" taxonomy for Navy Lugers that is based on the conventions used in weapons system acquisition vice the "collector speak" we use today.

I did this for a couple of reasons, the main one being that the terminology used today among collectors is BOTH obtuse and incomplete. It is unnecessarily arcane and simply does not address all the variations that are extant and were displayed in Chattanooga.

Accordingly, for those who were not present (and that should be the *vast majority* of the forum), here is what I propose as a more complete taxonomy:

Old Term-Model 1904 New Term-Prototype
Old Term-Model 1906 (all versions) New Term-Transitional Model 1.0, 1.1, 1.2
Old Term -Model 1908 New Term-Final design 1.0
Old Term- Model 1914 New Term- Final design 1.1
Old Term- Model 1908 Commercial New Term-Limited Procurement 1908
Old Term-M1914 Commercial New Term-Limited Procurement 1914

I would posit that this taxonomy is simpler and is all inclusive where the current terminology ignores the last two categories, presumably because of their rarity, and is inconsistent with both history and weapons system procurement practices.

Anti-flame shields in place.

Tom A.

09-15-2004, 05:56 PM	#10
Navy RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Dc 'burbs in Virginia Posts: 2,482 Thanks: 0 Thanked 16 Times in 10 Posts	Norm and all, As a part of my presentation in Chattanooga, I proposed a "new" taxonomy for Navy Lugers that is based on the conventions used in weapons system acquisition vice the "collector speak" we use today. I did this for a couple of reasons, the main one being that the terminology used today among collectors is BOTH obtuse and incomplete. It is unnecessarily arcane and simply does not address all the variations that are extant and were displayed in Chattanooga. Accordingly, for those who were not present (and that should be the vast majority of the forum), here is what I propose as a more complete taxonomy: Old Term-Model 1904 New Term-Prototype Old Term-Model 1906 (all versions) New Term-Transitional Model 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 Old Term -Model 1908 New Term-Final design 1.0 Old Term- Model 1914 New Term- Final design 1.1 Old Term- Model 1908 Commercial New Term-Limited Procurement 1908 Old Term-M1914 Commercial New Term-Limited Procurement 1914 I would posit that this taxonomy is simpler and is all inclusive where the current terminology ignores the last two categories, presumably because of their rarity, and is inconsistent with both history and weapons system procurement practices. Anti-flame shields in place. Tom A.