LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post

Ron Wood · 04-24-2002, 05:27 PM

I go along with Bill. G.T.'s post is excellent and well written. Probably ought to be captured as a standard for the Forum.

I also go along with Bill's comments on craftsmen. Ted Green's (Thor) practice of marking his work is great. He has chosen to mark his finished works in the magazine cutout in the bottom of the grip. There it is readily visible but does not detract from the elegant good looks of the Luger. He strikes the markings deeply enough that it would take the removal of an obvious amount of metal to erase the mark, which could only be corrected by welding up that area and refinishing again. Anybody who could do that could have accomplished the re-finish in the first place.

The creation of a Navy rear sight is a daunting task. To make it authentic, the entire rear toggle link will have to be fabricated. If a sight that "looks" like a Navy is to be made and then dovetailed or drilled and tapped to attach it to the existing link, then that is an obvious modification and easily distinguished from the original. If the entire link/sight assembly is the goal, then I would suggest marking it with small but elegant mark on the portion of the sight that is exposed when you elevate the sight to the 200-meter postion (i.e. on the bright metal between the 100 and 200 markings). Once again, this accomplishes an indelible "brand" that could not be removed without major difficulty and not damage the sight or the "200" mark. Finally, might I suggest that a standard "reproduction" mark be adapted by the skilled craftsmen that are contributing to our hobby. Ted's three dot punch is simple and effective, but something else could be considered. If this mark was standardized, the "newbie" could be made aware of it's existence through this forum and other media. This will not protect them from the rip-off artists that do not incorporate the mark, but it will alert them to the presence of reproduction work by honest and honorable craftsmen. I fully sympathize with collectors who have spent years and lots of money to acquire authentic Lugers. They are justifiably proud of their collection (and fiercely protective of its value) so it is understandable that they would be enraged by a sudden glut of fakes (I said fakes not reproductions) that would seriously undercut the value of what they have spent so much time, effort and money to put together. There is room for both sides in this arguement, it just will take some cool heads to sort it out.

That is much more than 2-cents worth, sorry.

04-24-2002, 05:27 PM	#10
Ron Wood Moderator 2010 LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Santa Teresa New Mexico just outside of the West Texas town of El Paso Posts: 6,986 Thanks: 1,065 Thanked 5,088 Times in 1,674 Posts	Re: Nice post! I go along with Bill. G.T.'s post is excellent and well written. Probably ought to be captured as a standard for the Forum. I also go along with Bill's comments on craftsmen. Ted Green's (Thor) practice of marking his work is great. He has chosen to mark his finished works in the magazine cutout in the bottom of the grip. There it is readily visible but does not detract from the elegant good looks of the Luger. He strikes the markings deeply enough that it would take the removal of an obvious amount of metal to erase the mark, which could only be corrected by welding up that area and refinishing again. Anybody who could do that could have accomplished the re-finish in the first place. The creation of a Navy rear sight is a daunting task. To make it authentic, the entire rear toggle link will have to be fabricated. If a sight that "looks" like a Navy is to be made and then dovetailed or drilled and tapped to attach it to the existing link, then that is an obvious modification and easily distinguished from the original. If the entire link/sight assembly is the goal, then I would suggest marking it with small but elegant mark on the portion of the sight that is exposed when you elevate the sight to the 200-meter postion (i.e. on the bright metal between the 100 and 200 markings). Once again, this accomplishes an indelible "brand" that could not be removed without major difficulty and not damage the sight or the "200" mark. Finally, might I suggest that a standard "reproduction" mark be adapted by the skilled craftsmen that are contributing to our hobby. Ted's three dot punch is simple and effective, but something else could be considered. If this mark was standardized, the "newbie" could be made aware of it's existence through this forum and other media. This will not protect them from the rip-off artists that do not incorporate the mark, but it will alert them to the presence of reproduction work by honest and honorable craftsmen. I fully sympathize with collectors who have spent years and lots of money to acquire authentic Lugers. They are justifiably proud of their collection (and fiercely protective of its value) so it is understandable that they would be enraged by a sudden glut of fakes (I said fakes not reproductions) that would seriously undercut the value of what they have spent so much time, effort and money to put together. There is room for both sides in this arguement, it just will take some cool heads to sort it out. That is much more than 2-cents worth, sorry.