[Dwight Gruber]

Howard,

Since you ask, my own feelings toward this gun have not changed--that is, feelings of suspicion and uncertainty.

Ken Grosnick appears sincere in his belief that the piece is original. Nothing he presents approachs the level of provenance. In that sense, this is the perfect example of Buy The Gun, Not The Story.

Could it be real? We are in a collecting era of Lugers coming 'out of the woodwork' , guns originating from veterans coming available due to their demise--guns coming out of the attic, the closet, the dresser drawer, which may not have seen the light of day in 50 years. Guns, certainly, which have not been known to collectors. There will, no doubt, be heretofore unknown variations, both minor and major--the sheer numbers of Lugers produced virtually guarantees this.

However, there are long-established practices regarding verification of guns like this--comparison to other known examples (both Lugers and otherwise), research into the documents and records of the era in question, research into the known practices of the organizations involved, detailed examination of the marking and its application. The photos presented are too low resolution to even make out the marking in detail, and the marking has been filled in with white making it impossible to determine how the mark was applied.

Ken's conclusions about the armory practices of the SS-VT do not rise beyond informed speculation, with no more substantiation than the opinion he would counter.

It is a disservice to the collecting of Lugers and the reliability of the body of knowledge underpinning the hobby, to accept The Story without applying rigorous method, particularly in the case of a potentially significant Luger as the one presented here.

Spandau Lugers, as a comparison, come to mind.

Ken does say one thing which relates to something which has been on my mind.

"...the Luger in question was originally purchased by me more than twenty five (25) years ago, together with a variety of original SS insignia and other German WWII artifacts, from the son of a deceased WWII veteran. And while it is always possible that the deceased veteran, or his son, somehow arranged to produced this firearm, would it make sense for them to then sell it to me for the small amount of money that I actually ended up paying for the entire lot of items I purchased?"

I have noticed a propensity of collectors to claim that a Luger has been in a known collection for a period of time, indicating that it has been around and known long enough that boosting or fakery has not been applied. The figure of 30-35 years is a common benchmark. In this case, the gun was purchased some 25 years ago.

That would have been 1980.

There is no accounting for what might have been done to this, or any Luger, in the 35 years since the end of the war. We do know that modifications of Lugers have been applied since the early '50s, things which were at that time innocent--renumbering of magazines, or making matching-number guns--which today vex us so. Length of ownership is no guarantee, particularly when the original owner is no longer around to verify.

The last part of the quote, about the unliklihood of the veteran or his son producing such a piece and then selling it cheap, also deserves comment.

It is not hard to imagine another scenerio for the marking on this gun. I do not even mention it here as speculation, only to suggest an equally plausable, equally unfounded, alternative.

This veteran brought back a variety of wartime artifacts including SS memoribelia. Imagine that, sometime in the early years after the war, he decided that he would like to have his Luger "fit" that collection--for any number of possible reasons. So, he has someone apply the marking. This is done in all innocence, no thought of 'boosting' the gun for future profit (although lilely not talked about)--no thought of selling the gun at all. When his heirs eventually do sell it, it is still innocent--they are unaware of the potential value of such an authentic piece, and so let it go as a very nice Luger. The awareness is a collector awareness, and comes later.

Without real provenance we cannot know.

I must note here that, lest I sound negative and judgemental about this Luger: I have never examined it; I cannot see anything in the pictures which begin to let me assess the marking itself; it comes from an era of history which is not my area of study and of which I have but superficial knowledge. I lack the qualifications and information to determine this Luger's authenticity.

So what are my feelings about this gun now? Deeply sceptical.

Sorry for another lecture, you did ask...

--Dwight