[Ron Wood]

Alvin,

â??Any comments?â? Yes, a few.

Point 1 â?? This is your most insightful comment â?? â??So, might not [be] a big issueâ?. It isnâ??t. All changes in the Borchardt from beginning to end were largely cosmetic. Some were a little more significant than others, but not enough to impact basic functioning of the arm, so it really didnâ??t matter if #95 Loewe or #2095 DWM was used for the Swiss test.

Point 2 â?? The riveted magazine leaf spring died in the starting blocks. It lacked a solid follower and was unreliable, so Borchardts were marketed from the get-go with the double spring and follower. The patent of 10 October 1896 covered a holdopen for the toggle that would block the line of sight when the magazine was empty. The illustration for the patent showed the double coil spring, but had nothing to do with the double coil arrangement, which had already been implemented because of the failure of the flat spring arrangement. With respect to â??Why didn't DWM show Switzerland their latest and best...â?, the Loewe pistol represented the best version of the Borchardt for demonstration. When DWM production began, several minor modifications were made to simplify manufacture: a) The fine stepped and pinned front sight of the Loewe version was replaced by a simpler solidly machined pyramidal sight; b) The pattern of the side plate was made more simple and largely eliminated the â??schnabelâ? on the leading edge; c) Most significantly, the adjustable rear sight of the Loewe version was replaced by a fixed sight. So by presenting the Loewe #95, DWM was demonstrating the most sophisticated, adjustable sight, model. Probably #95, being an early production piece, had been used for other demonstrations and probably was pretty finely tuned for proper functioning.

Now letâ??s address your â??few possibilitiesâ?:

(1) You are essentially correct; all enhancements were made before #95. The patent of 10/10/96 has already been discussed above and didnâ??t have diddlysquat to do with production numbers.
(2) In 1897, and subsequently, Georg Luger was an employee of DWM. Therefore he demonstrated what he was told to demonstrate and had no particular ax to grind. In fact, it is very likely the criticism of the Swiss test regarding the â??action lengthâ? that prompted his initial consideration for modifications to the Borchardt design.
(3) Nearly every time an example of an early firearm shows up that has an oddball or out of sequence serial number, someone will put forth the theory that there was a â??separately numbered seriesâ? (I have been through this ad nauseum with pre-production Lugers). Please be assured that after myself and other collectors have been tracking Borchardt serial numbers for nearly two decades, there is absolutely no evidence of anything other than sequential serial numbering throughout Borchardt production. There are a couple of flyers, but like this #19 they are easily identified as bogus.

â??Nuff said?