Can you identify this proof mark?

[Aaron]

I can't find this proof mark in any of the references. It's on a 1918 Erfurt, and appears to be a droop eagle over Mg5. Anyone recognize it?

[Lugerdoc]

Aaron, According to Costanzo's WOL Proofmarks, this would be the marking of the 5th Machine Gun Crew training facility. TH

[Aaron]

Sounds logical. Somehow I missed it in Costanzo. Thanks. Incidentally, this marking is found on the Erfurt I am selling with the Erma .22 conversion unit.

[Dwight Gruber]

Without being able to counter with anything rational or concrete, I would regard Costanzo's interpretation with scepticism.

--Dwight

[policeluger]

DG, why do you cast dark shadows over Costanzo's fine work when you have no sound logic in doing so....really not like you as your Luger investigation work is with few equals ?

[Dwight Gruber]

Howard,

Cosanzo's documentation of the physical marks on Luger pistols is without parallel, and probably will never be eclipsed.

As I have studied and researched Lugers, I have found that Costanzo's interpretation of many of these marks has been superceded by research and documentation which has been forthcoming in the more than 30 years since his book was published. In the 21st century, many of his speculations appear to be without foundation and, frankly, often do not make any sense.

Costanzo is one of the references I use most frequently, and which I have come to regard sceptically. That is, when I open it, I use it as the beginning of a search for meaning, rather than the end. I use it in conjunction with other sources, thereby learning about Costanz's book itself as well as the topic under consideration.

Note, that I regard hsis analysis of this mark with scepticism, not that I reject it out of hand. When I saw it, a number of thoughts came to mind. I am not at home now, so I cannot pull out Costanzo's book and see the actual configuration of the mark (which in this case is somewhat obscured by whitening). I also cannot read his comments: is this mark found in one of the places in which he describes it? Does he give a date range?

As this mark is an eagle rather than a crown, it is unlikely to be an Imperial mark. The form of the eagle suggests the Weimar period. Was there in fact a "5th Machine Gun crew"? Did they have a training facility? Is this unit identifier in a format which would be used by either the Imperial Army or the Reichswehr? Is the stamp itself in a format or position which would have any meaning in either of those orgnizations?

As I consider the possibilities, I wonder what else it might be? What characteristics do this mark share with other Luger markings?

Heers Zeugamts stamps are found in several different formats. Although complete stamps are seen--e/HZaJt18, Heers Zeugamt depot #18 in Ingolstadt (Jngolstadt), for example--they are often found abbreviated, without the HZa, in smaller-size stamps. The eagles above the inscription are not consistent, and sometimes the eagle is not present--Su25, the Heers Zeugamt depot #25 in Spandau, for example.

This makes me wonder if there is a Heers Zeugamt with the initials Mg? As I am not on my home computer I cannot research this at the moment, either.

Perhaps my initial comment was a bit glib, or perhaps it was a little too early in the morning to produce this more fully considered answer. The wording is representitive of the fact that I cannot research more thoroughly at the moment.

Anyway, this is representitive of the thought process which occurs to me whenever I reference Costanzo.

--Dwight

[Ron Wood]

Magdeburg?

[policeluger]

Have a good visit with the folks, we will continue this when you get home.

[George Anderson]

Like Dwight, I think it might be a late Weimar acceptance stamp or even T.R. period up to the mid thirties. A careful examination of the pistol might reveal whether it has been reworked in any way.

[Ron Smith]

I think Dwight's scepticizum may be well placed. Imperial machine gun unit markings that I have observed are all stamped in uppercase, as M.G..

I have not seen , nor know of, any Weimar machine gun unit marks. As Ron points out Mg. indicates Magdeburg on police Luger markings.


The 4th Reichsheer Div. "Infantrief�¼hrer" (Infantry Command Staff) was stationed at Magdeburg (10th , 11th and 12th Infantry Regts.) So, I would doubt that it is a Reichswehr unit related mark. No units of the 5th Div. were stationed at Magdeburg.

Ron

[Lugerdoc]

Dwight, I agree that the style of eagle is Weimar, vise the later period Nazi era eagles shown in Costanzo for higher numbered (presumably later) MG crew training centers. In my mind this would be more of a school marking, rather than an army unit. TH

[John Sabato]

I have looked at the mark with great magnification and have to wonder whether or not the "g" may be a poorly formed number "9"...

Opinions my friends on my theory? or what it might mean if the character were a "9" ?

[Aaron]

I have closely examined the marking under great magnification on my pistol, and there is no doubt that it is a "g". I will try to photograph the detail more clearly.

[Dwight Gruber]

Aaron,

As long as you are going to the trouble, it might be worthwhile to remove the 'whitening' from the mark.

--Dwight

[Aaron]

Removed most of the whitening and used a +4 magnification lens over my normal macro setting. Is this better?

[Ranger-CPT]

Aaron, I completely agree with Dwight in regards to Constanzo's unparalleled documentation of proof marks but lacking in correctness in accurately identifying them (is there one marking in the entire book where he admits not knowing the meaning of?). This stamp is the marking of HZa Magdeberg without a doubt. I have a particular interest in Hza markings, and have never seen this variation before, but everything about it adds up (number/letter configuration, placement on pistol). I have a broomhandle Mauser with the later straight-wing eagle Mg10 stamp on the grip back-strap. Also, this is a post-1933 stamp and indicates the pistol could have been reworked all the way up to 1937 (when the straight-wing eagle came about). Thanks for sharing it with us. Ryan

[Dwight Gruber]

Aaron,

Thanks for the new picture, a good confirmation of exactly the style of eagle. Tom has already noted that this is a much earlier eagle than the e/Mg stamps #143-146 and #162-63 examples in Costanzo.

Howard,

I'm back to my own digs, my own computer, and my library. To follow on a bit, I would start with Costanzo and then query the people who are doing current research on the topics--Ron Smith for Reichswehr unit information (and Klaus Schad, if he were still participating), and Ranger-CPT for Heers Zeugamt information. I'm glad to see that they have both responded.

Having praised Costanzo for his documentary acumen, it must be pointed out that his representations of HZa markings (found generally between #84-#99) fall short of the mark. Many of the letters are portrayed as capitalized in places they are not, and some letters are mis-identified--#89 is a good example: HZAJL18 for the stamping we recognize as HZaJt18. It should be noted that some of these HZa stamps are very difficult to read, and the Jt (Jingolstadt [Ingolstadt]) is easily misinterpreted as JL.

Having noted this discrepancy today for the first time, I will now look more closely and confirm with other sources whenever I see all caps in Costanzo's marking representations.

Ranger-CPT,

On markings #86 and #99 Costanzo notes that the terminal letter/number combination representations are unknown.

--Dwight

[policeluger]

DG, You seem to have a general distain for Costanzo's work, just not here on this proof, but have expressed your dislike/distrust before on his work. Of course new information will arise, great studies will come forth from his work as it did from the likes of Datig, but to cast scepticism without offering proof just rubs me a bit wrong, what will be said of your upcoming works in 10 years and how much of Costanzo are you using without giving him credit. His works are a great foundation for us today, if you question the proof in question, why disrespect great works before you without offering a firm argument based on fact....it is not the proof I have a issue with, it is your blanket unsupported thread that get to me....but you know I always value you opinion, well most of the time, and one of the few I trust with the collection list/information....edit you book carefully, misspelled words will bit you as perhaps Costanzo's HZ/HZa have done.

[Ron Smith]

Howard,

It is my understanding(based on hear-say) that Costanzo himself has stated that many of his definitions were a "best guess" using the evidence at hand at the time. And has admitted that he could be incorrect on some of them.

I do not agree with the few, who have written off his entire book as supposition and make it up as you go. Armchair quarterbacks always have critques, but very little in the way of contribution. Dwight has always offered educated and well researched reasons for doubt in his analogies of Constanzo's translations.

In my opinion, Costanzo's work is a very valuable contribution to Luger collectors. Even if some of it is dated and inaccurate, it stimulates research in finding the correct translations. If you look between two wrongs, you can often find a right.


Ron

[Ron Smith]

An addendum;

Holmes and Watson went on an outting to relax and escape the stress of work. After sitting around the campfire sipping brandy and enjoying a cigar they decided to turn in for the evening.

After settling into their sleeping bags. Holmes asks, "Watson, are you awake?"

Watson sleepily replies, "Yes Holmes."

Holmes, "Watson look up, and tell me what you deduce."

Watson turns and looks up. "Well, I deduce the trees in their natural beauty."

Holmes, "No Watson, beyond that."

Watson, " Beyond that, I deduce the stars of the Milky Way".

Holmes, "And what else?"

Watson, "The universe? The Heavens?"

Holmes, "Watson!...where in hell, is the tent?"


Stimulation can often make you see things that you've overlooked...