More questions than answers (long)

[Navy]

All,

Let me preface this by saying that I am on the road and will be so for the next 2 months or so, therefore I have no access to my reference library to check things. Right about now, Goertz and Walterâ??s book on Navy Lugers, with the data it contains on how many Navy Lugers were shipped and when would be helpful, but it is, alas, 750 miles away. Having said that, I was conducting some rudimentary analysis on the Navy database that is developing nicely thanks to a number of members of this forum, and I noticed some things that seemed unusual if not outright counter-intuitive. I am referring to correlation of serial numbers, property numbers and issue sequence.

As someone who has spent a â??long time in the chow lineâ?� of military service and who has been a collector for going on 50 years, there are certain things that I tend to expect as the normal order of things. Among these is that production serial numbers are assigned sequentially in ascending order. We older collectors have often counseled others to consider the reported serial number ranges for variant Lugers, based on an assumption that certain variations would be found only within certain defined serial number boundaries such as the Test Eagle and GNR pistols. There are, of course, exceptions to this notion. The several blocks of numbers that Mauser â??reservedâ?� during production of the Câ??96 which resulted in some features appearing on pistols that are out of sequence comes immediately to mind. However, I know of no similar practice at DWM during their manufacture of Lugers.

One also assumes that, based on many years experience in the U.S. military, the German Imperial Navy employed a similar system: unit property mark numbers would also ascend sequentially from lower to higher assigned as controlled items are received by the organization. Logically, there should be a parallel. When a new item of equipment is being issued to a military organization, as item serial numbers increase, there should be an increase in the property number: ie, SN 23 is received by the unit and is assigned property number W.K.12; it should logically be followed by SN 24, or the serial number next received, with property number W.K. 13 to be assigned. Two implicit and unstated assumptions that underlie this idea are: pistols were procured in generally the same sequence as produced ( by serial number blocks) and they were issued in generally the same sequence as procured,a â??first in, first outâ?� approach to inventory management.

With 1906-1918 Imperial Navy pistols, I am finding that this is simply NOT the case in numerous instances. It has been long accepted that the German military used the serial numbering scheme, 0-1000 for the first thousand pieces in a yearâ??s production and then beginning at 1a for the second thousand, 1b for the third thousand, etc. What I am finding is that property numbers assigned by the receiving units do not follow an ascending order parallel to the serial numbers. Indeed, the database is suggesting that among some units, issue sequences were almost random and there may have been instances of duplicate property numbers. Additionally, I am finding is that property numbers assigned by the receiving units do not follow an ascending order parallel to the serial numbers.

An example:

Werft Kiel Property Marked pieces reported:

SN: 130 Property Number W.K. 8536
SN: 939 Property Number W.K. 518
SN: 972 Property Number W.K. 82
This group is in inverse order of serial number to property number (low serial number; high property number).

Likewise, Gov Kiau Property Marked Pieces reported:

SN: 3173 Property Mark Gov Kiau 8
SN: 3386 Property Mark Gov Kiau 4

And among II Torpedo Division Marked Pieces Reported:

SN: 7738 Property Mark II TD 766
SN: 7869 Property Mark II TD 453
SN: 7948 Property Mark II TD 465
SN: 8654 Property Mark II TD 1097

We observe an ascending property mark sequence that parallels the serial number but does not correlate on a 1:1 basis. There are several potential explanations:

1. Issues were made from several production runs, accounting for the disparity between serial number sequence, and the pistols were property numbered as they were received.
2. Issues were made sequentially from a production run and property numbers were assigned that were â??re-issuesâ?� of numbers that had been previously assigned to a piece that had been washed out of the system.
3. A combination of 1 and 2 above.

A second oddity is apparent when serial number â??clustersâ?� are examined. For example:

SN: 972 Property Mark W.K. 82; then 32 pistols later: SN: 1004,Property Mark W.W. 1251; then 46 pistols later, SN: 1050,Property Mark W.K. 3

So in a serial number range that represents 78 production pistols, we have two different units receiving the pieces and the property numbers on the Kiel pieces completely out of sequence with their respective serial numbers.

Another example:

SN: 4438 Property Number W.W. 758
SN: 4486 Property Number I.S.B. 60

In this example, within a production range of 48 pistols, we see 2 separate units; also note the range of 3434 pieces between the two Werft Wiliamshaven pieces (SN: 4438 and the previously mentioned SN: 1004) yet their Wiliamshaven property numbers are only 493 numbers apart.

To further complicate matters, the serial numbers of two additional II Torpedo Division pistols seem to be atypical from the others reported from this unit. Consider the following two pieces probably produced the same day and nearly 1300 property numbers apart.

SN: 584 Property Number II TD 1119
SN: 598 Property Number II TD 2412

And the following two pieces:

SN: 3640 Property Number II TD 2317
SN: 4547 Property Number II TD 78.

907 pieces apart in production, yet 2239 apart in property number sequence, and in inverse order to boot!

So one might conclude that the production serial number and unit assigned property number are independent variables. Yet, SN 5125 and 5126 have sequential Wiliamshaven property numbers and are owned by the same individual, for what it is worth.

Granted, these are preliminary observations from a limited data set; however, it appears that one of the major tools we collectors have used over the years -serial number ranges and property numbers- for preliminary identification and authentication of variations-may be questionable.

I would be very appreciative to hear from anyone who has knowledge of any documented issue sequence or any policy from the Admiralty that governed such matters. Well-reasoned and logically defensible opinions are likewise welcome.
Tom A.