1945 Hk # 13069...

[Pete Ebbink]

This one was purchased at the recent Rock Island Auction.

Sales ad did not call it a refinished piece, but it did not call it "original" either...

Ad text :

"Near mint. Retains about 99% of the various colors of blue, slightly reddish on the barrel and fire on the magazine release which the hardener ran past straw. The straw colors are light but show no wear. The grips are sharp. The action is excellent."

It is serial # 13069...

Does anyone think this one is original finish...???

[drbuster]

Pete, the hole in the
milled toggle looks too small to be of original HK manufature. Looks more like a Mauser part.

[Rod WMG]

Well, maybe I'm naive, but to me "mint" refers to original condition. That may not be legally binding or true, but it is an ethically pure definition, I'd say.

[Pete Ebbink]

This is the Randall Gibson "testimonial" write-up that accompanied the auction ad for this # 13069...

It indicated that Gibson authenticated this luger as a 1945 in 1995 even though he has # 13069 listed in his HK book back in 1980 as a 1944 dated HK...

What the hay...???

Text From Auction Ad :

"There is a large file of correspondence regarding this pistol, all of which concludes that of the handful of specimens known only five or six have a chance of being real. This was included in that tiny group. It is dated ""1945"" over the chamber and has the typical ""HK/ANCHOR/KRIEGHOFF/SUHL"" marking on the toggle link. All of the proof marks, ""eagle/2"", of various sizes are associated with Krieghoff. The magazine is an ""FXO"". A two page letter from Krieghoff Luger expert and author Randall Gibson, dated June 28, 1995, is included and the consignor reads as follows: Dear Mr. D'Agostino: I have examined the captioned Luger pistol and compared it with the 1945 date which is in my collection: SN 13158. I also did this previously in August, 1990, when Norman Smith acquired it from Ralph Shattuck. In March, 1990, I compared SN 13069 with SN 13090 in Shattuck's collection. I have also examined individually SN 13080 and SN 13122. SN's 13109, 13155 and 13156 exist in known collections but I have not examined them. I can find no fault with 13069. It conforms in every respect to the 1944 weapons production (1945 dates and a couple of 1944 dates in the 13,000 range). You seem concerned over the barrel in SN 13069 being of a different color. This is due in part to the barrels receiving finer polishing than the receivers. This is true of SN 13158, and for that matter all 1940 and later dated examples to which I have compared SN 13069. This is logical as the barrel lends itself to being polished in a lathe while the receiver cannot be finished in this manner. The barrel on SN 13069 has a faint reddish cast to it which does not bother me at all. I have observed this on other Krieghoff Lugers. The extractor in SN 13158 is decidedly red. There is a strong possibility that the barrels were blued after polishing and had a red tint to them due to too much heat in the blueing salts or an improper mixture of the salts themselves. When the barrel was fitted to the receiver the whole unit was blued, thereby re-blueing the barrel causing it to have a darker hue than the receiver. I do not know exactly the chemical/heat/process reaction, but the phenomenon has been observed on other Krieghoff Lugers. With regard to the absence of the ""thumbprint"" on the rear of the frame, the answer is simple. I have not observed a 1945 date with a thumbprint. With best regards, Randall Gibson. "

[Navy]

Surely you can't be implying that there is an error in a reference book? Oh horror of horrors!

Tom A
Snark generator turned off

[Pete Ebbink]

Tom,

Would this be a piece you would buy...???

[Navy]

Nope; nada, no way.

Tom A

[John D.]

Good move, Tom... Wait for the right one to come along....

Just my $0.002..!

JD

[Navy]

I was born at night; but not last night.

Tom A

[Tom Whiteman]

Does anyone know what price it went for?

[drbuster]

Tom W., I don't know what the final gavel down price was but the bidding was competetive near the top of the estimated range. We'll have to wait the six weeks to see it posted on the web site. But in the meantime, keep an eye out on our retail luger web sites to see if this piece shows up. I know that pieces won from the April 2005 auction appeared less than 10 days after the close of the auction.

[John D.]

Originally posted by Tom Whiteman
Does anyone know what price it went for?

Yes.... It went well above it's current market value - or so I am told (disclaimer ).

John

[Pete Ebbink]

Gibson seemed to think this one was pretty real and authentic back in the early 1990's (if one believes the "testimonial" write up provided with the auction sales ad...).

Does one conclude, now, that this one was totally refinished since the Gibson assessment and is now totally a restoration piece...or is this a newly, "made-up" 1945 that someone foolishly (or purposely) used a duplicate # 13069 upon...???

Tom A./John D., What do you guys see that you do not like...other than maybe finish...???

One pretty advanced collector on the new NAPCA web site (for members only) has indicated that he believes there are actually no true, authentic 1945 HK's in existance...and religates the 1945 HK's in the same company as the Spandau lugers...

What is a new collector or the luger student to think...???

[lugerlou]

Pete, not to dispute the provenence letter by Randall Gibson or his good work on Krieghoff research there is quite a few things that bother me about this particular luger.

First and foremost I am no HK expert and do not intend to portray that.

When you look at this particular luger you begin to wonder why Krieghoff would depart from the norm on a few HK characteristic machining techniques.

Given that the photo's present and lighting plays a significant part in comparing 1944 HK lugers with this one is putting oneself out on a limb.

The toggle knob and the apparent lack of the countersunk hole is troubling at best. The pins appear to be blued rather than fire blued and the ejector appears to be strawed.

Also the ramping of the ears looks to have irregularities and not the smooth lines apparent on a HK.


Without looking at the luger up close and personel and given the limited photo's available on line I have serious reserves about this particular luger.

To warrent calling this piece a outright fake would be an prejudicial act.

I certainly hope that given the dollars involved the luger is solid.

I would also like to add that with the recent round of reworked pieces sold at this auction house R.I.A. has a long way to go as they are loosing credibility in the international luger collecting community.

Misrepresenting a piece such as this 1945 HK would be a serious blow to the luger collecting community at large.

[Pete Ebbink]

Cannot tell for certain...but...

1. The "G" in the stamping of Krieghoff on the front toggle is not as square/blockish as I recall it should...it appears to be in too round of a font. The little cross-bar in the middle of the "G" does not appear long enough and does not appear to have the right shape, either...

2. The "L" in the stamping of Suhl seems oddly long and exaggerated...not sure it that is proper...

Unless...this one has the Die Type C-4 that Gibson shows in his book on pages 84-85...which are on the 1944 production lugers...so maybe this one was a 1944...modified at some point in time by the ever greedy Waffenfabrik-USA to the more rare 1945 configuration...do not forget...Gibson reports # 13069 as a 1944...not a 1945...

[Dwight Gruber]

Does anybody know Mr. Gibson to ask him about it??

--Dwight

[Jan C Still]

There is no question that some of the 1945 dated Krieghoffs are fakes. Parts of a faked 1945 dated Krieghoff were found in a disabled Luger mechanics shop. This Luger mechanic had been in business for many decades.

I do not consider myself a knowledgeable Krieghoff collector. However, discussions with expert Krieghoff collectors indicates that all the 1945 dated Krieghoffs may be fakes. They are all in the 13000 serial range along with some suspect 1944 dated specimens. All that I have examined or seen in photographs are in new to almost new condition. In my opinion, any serious collector would have to question if any of the 1945 dated Krieghoffs are correct. It would be interesting to compare one that is a known fake to one that is considered to be original. Considering the high price, finding the fake to examine may be a difficult task.
Jan

[Navy]

A very knowledgable and long time Kreighoff collector once told me that all 1945 Kreighoff's had one common trait: They were made out of 100% Unobtanium.

Tom A

[John D.]

To add my final $0.000001 on this....

Tom, not all 1945s are bogus. I'm more inclined to agree with Jan's comments. For example - I know for a fact that there was/were example(s) of 1945 Chamber dated HKs in the factory when it was "liberated".

As well - I think it's dangerous to assign certain serial number blocks to the "fake" 1945s (and some of the 1944 2nd variation) - however, if my observations are correct on the 1945s I've been fortunate to see - I would agree that certainly they appear more within the 13000 range.

HTH,

John

[Navy]

Hi John,

The 45 dated chambers puzzle me as both a collector and someone who has dealt with weapons system acquisition in the military.

Based on what we know about the Kreighoff order fulfillment process (Guns assembled from pre-made components as ordered by OKL), it would seem that for Kreigs to have 1945 chamber dates, their would have had to have been a Luftwaffe order -possibly issued in '44-that was being filled. T
This 1944 scenario doesn't work, however, given the small number of 45 dates known; likewise, a later order doesn't work. because of the virtual dissolution of the German military in early 1945. So perhaps the following question needs to be addressed: what part of the Luftwaffe, in early spring 1945, was sufficiently intact to need and order pistols?

I will do some order of battle research and post findings.

Tom A