LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post

Kyrie · 07-12-2001, 06:50 PM

Hi Bill,

Yes sir, I understand you are an adherent of the school of thought espoused by Jan Still on the 1920 Lugers. However, please be aware that this school of thought, like that espoused by Charles Kenyon, is 90% guesswork and opinion based on observed samples. Neither school of thought is fact, or even uncontested opinion. I would therefore suggest to you, both respectfully and cordially, that sentences and phrases such as â??This is a fact.â?, â??I am correctâ?, and â??You are totally wrongâ? would be wisely avoided

I would also suggest to you, again most respectfully and cordially, that if you espouse Jan Stillâ??s school of thought, you use his terminology to do so. I make this suggestion because if you were to do so I think you will make an interesting discovery. The school of thought espoused by Jan Still does not account for a great many of the Lugers we know of as â??1920 Commercials.â? Specifically those Lugers with non-standard barrels (7.65 Parabellum, of various lengths), Imperial dates, acceptance marks, and proof (frequently partially removed), military style and placement serial numbers, and usually but not always marked â??Germanyâ? or â??Made in Germany.â? These Lugers are one of the more common of Luger variations, and their omission from Jan Stillâ??s theory of Luger production in the 1920â??s is one of the major hurdles he must overcome to have his school of thought more commonly accepted.

The subject of new manufacture (e.g. made completely form new parts) versus refurbished (e.g. made from a mixture of Imperial Era and newly made parts) is a separate issue from the controversy of Kenyon versus Still. Still even acknowledges that some of the Lugers he classifies as the various 1920 variations may be found with reworked Imperial Era parts. On this, at least, he and Kenyon are in agreement.

Your Luger that you reference as a â??1920 commercialâ? (serial number 6439 M) and indicate is â??of new manufactureâ? may or may not actually be new manufacture. If you examine the barrel extension very carefully you may well find the barrel extension is out of round due to the removal of an Imperial Era chamber date, and a number of the small parts may show slight thinning where an Imperial Era serial number was removed. Many pistols that at first glance appear to be new manufacture will, upon close examination, be found to contain a number of re-worked Imperial Era parts. The first contract 1923 Finnish Luger of mine pictured in the Ownersâ?? Corner is an example of just this.

All of that said, Iâ??m aware that we will continue to disagree. And I suspect we have reached the point where it would be best to â??agree to disagreeâ? and move on to other topics. Itâ??s not like there arenâ??t other areas worthy of discussion

Best regards,

Kyrie

07-12-2001, 06:50 PM	#9
Kyrie User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 757 Thanks: 0 Thanked 212 Times in 101 Posts	Re: 1920 Commercial Lugers Hi Bill, Yes sir, I understand you are an adherent of the school of thought espoused by Jan Still on the 1920 Lugers. However, please be aware that this school of thought, like that espoused by Charles Kenyon, is 90% guesswork and opinion based on observed samples. Neither school of thought is fact, or even uncontested opinion. I would therefore suggest to you, both respectfully and cordially, that sentences and phrases such as â??This is a fact.â?, â??I am correctâ?, and â??You are totally wrongâ? would be wisely avoided I would also suggest to you, again most respectfully and cordially, that if you espouse Jan Stillâ??s school of thought, you use his terminology to do so. I make this suggestion because if you were to do so I think you will make an interesting discovery. The school of thought espoused by Jan Still does not account for a great many of the Lugers we know of as â??1920 Commercials.â? Specifically those Lugers with non-standard barrels (7.65 Parabellum, of various lengths), Imperial dates, acceptance marks, and proof (frequently partially removed), military style and placement serial numbers, and usually but not always marked â??Germanyâ? or â??Made in Germany.â? These Lugers are one of the more common of Luger variations, and their omission from Jan Stillâ??s theory of Luger production in the 1920â??s is one of the major hurdles he must overcome to have his school of thought more commonly accepted. The subject of new manufacture (e.g. made completely form new parts) versus refurbished (e.g. made from a mixture of Imperial Era and newly made parts) is a separate issue from the controversy of Kenyon versus Still. Still even acknowledges that some of the Lugers he classifies as the various 1920 variations may be found with reworked Imperial Era parts. On this, at least, he and Kenyon are in agreement. Your Luger that you reference as a â??1920 commercialâ? (serial number 6439 M) and indicate is â??of new manufactureâ? may or may not actually be new manufacture. If you examine the barrel extension very carefully you may well find the barrel extension is out of round due to the removal of an Imperial Era chamber date, and a number of the small parts may show slight thinning where an Imperial Era serial number was removed. Many pistols that at first glance appear to be new manufacture will, upon close examination, be found to contain a number of re-worked Imperial Era parts. The first contract 1923 Finnish Luger of mine pictured in the Ownersâ?? Corner is an example of just this. All of that said, Iâ??m aware that we will continue to disagree. And I suspect we have reached the point where it would be best to â??agree to disagreeâ? and move on to other topics. Itâ??s not like there arenâ??t other areas worthy of discussion Best regards, Kyrie