LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post

John D. · 09-27-2004, 07:52 PM

Well.....

Now Iâ??m scratching my head.... Let me tell you why.

On my 1940 HK â?? the â??Gâ? is slightly different - as is the "S". The rest of the characters match exactly, as does the OAL height and width of the die â?? BUT â?? there is definitely a very slight difference in the â??Gâ?/"S". This 1940 in the photo has providence, and I know it is correct, and others in my collection also â??matchâ? this same die.. More on this in a moment....

So â?? I took a â??walkâ? through the photoâ??s in Gibsonâ??s book and my own collection. In Gibson - I want to note two pages and two examples. Page 88, 2nd picture from the bottom of the page. Itâ??s the same â??Gâ?/"S" as on my 1940.. Next, flip to page 171 â?? serial # 10038 â??1938â? (just over 100 from my 1940) â?? and the same die as the â??1940â? shown aboveâ?¦. Now â?? in looking at my 1938, earlier then either of these two examples â?? it follows exactly what Gibson notes as â??GESICHERT - Die Type Bâ?, as do the rest of my production examples â?? with the exception of my late 1944, 1945 and two of my Post-war examples (various frame years). HOWEVER, several of my other post war HKs follow my â??1940â? stamp..!!?????

Interesting.

Was it â??die wearâ?? I donâ??t think so â?? as the â??Gâ? (moreso the "S") is slightly â?? almost imperceptibly different. But they are, in fact â?? â??differentâ?. You have to look at one example â?? then the other in person. Another â??dieâ?? Very possible. Were there two dies used at the factory? Even more plausible. Were there very minor differences between the two (or however many were used?)? My guess is â??yesâ?.

Sid â?? my thanks for asking the question! Iâ??d be really interested in what year and die was used on yours as wellâ?¦!

This will be fun to pursue at the research level â?? very similar to some minor HK manufacturing differences that were overlooked in earlier published research â?? that can help an HK collector actually verify the year an HK frame was made (more on that in the future)â?¦

My thanks!

John

(P.S. Gerban

â?? No â?? this is still very different then the Simson die

)

09-27-2004, 07:52 PM	#6
John D. Administrator & Site Owner LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Little NE of Somewhere... Posts: 2,651 Thanks: 471 Thanked 513 Times in 127 Posts	Well..... Now Iâ??m scratching my head.... Let me tell you why. On my 1940 HK â?? the â??Gâ? is slightly different - as is the "S". The rest of the characters match exactly, as does the OAL height and width of the die â?? BUT â?? there is definitely a very slight difference in the â??Gâ?/"S". This 1940 in the photo has providence, and I know it is correct, and others in my collection also â??matchâ? this same die.. More on this in a moment.... So â?? I took a â??walkâ? through the photoâ??s in Gibsonâ??s book and my own collection. In Gibson - I want to note two pages and two examples. Page 88, 2nd picture from the bottom of the page. Itâ??s the same â??Gâ?/"S" as on my 1940.. Next, flip to page 171 â?? serial # 10038 â??1938â? (just over 100 from my 1940) â?? and the same die as the â??1940â? shown aboveâ?¦. Now â?? in looking at my 1938, earlier then either of these two examples â?? it follows exactly what Gibson notes as â??GESICHERT - Die Type Bâ?, as do the rest of my production examples â?? with the exception of my late 1944, 1945 and two of my Post-war examples (various frame years). HOWEVER, several of my other post war HKs follow my â??1940â? stamp..!!????? Interesting. Was it â??die wearâ?? I donâ??t think so â?? as the â??Gâ? (moreso the "S") is slightly â?? almost imperceptibly different. But they are, in fact â?? â??differentâ?. You have to look at one example â?? then the other in person. Another â??dieâ?? Very possible. Were there two dies used at the factory? Even more plausible. Were there very minor differences between the two (or however many were used?)? My guess is â??yesâ?. Sid â?? my thanks for asking the question! Iâ??d be really interested in what year and die was used on yours as wellâ?¦! This will be fun to pursue at the research level â?? very similar to some minor HK manufacturing differences that were overlooked in earlier published research â?? that can help an HK collector actually verify the year an HK frame was made (more on that in the future)â?¦ My thanks! John (P.S. Gerban â?? No â?? this is still very different then the Simson die )