Early 9 mm Commercial on Proxibid

[ithacaartist]

'08 configuration. Not in Commercial Data Base. High quality pics that are fairly uninformative... Inaccurate description (unit marks? lol). The pitting makes it the kind of mutt I'd buy as an interesting shooter. Alas, the budget...

https://www.proxibid.com/DWM-Luger-P...03900#topoflot

[gunnertwo]

I don't see a grip safety making the 1906 version. The lack of knowledge shows regarding the "unit markings" under the barrel (9mm markings) It has the commercial BUG proofs and does not have the hold open added. I think it's around 1910 vintage. I think you should try a bid, nothing ventured nothing gained, as they say.

G2

[Ron Wood]

Really early 1908 Commercial.
Ron

[Doubs]

According to G&S, page 605, at about serial number 39100 of the '08 commercial series, they stopped stamping the last three digits of the serial number on the receiver stop lug and went to a new system. For a five digit serial number, the 2nd and 3rd digits were stamped on the receiver ring in front of the lug. The 4th and 5th digits were stamped on the lug. Thus the last four digits on the full serial number were on the receiver ring and lug.

The subject Luger should be stamped in that way. I also think Gunnertwo is correct that it was made about 1910 and Ron is correct that it's an early 1908 commercial..

[ithacaartist]

My mistake about the '08 configuration, sorry! I'll edit.

[spacecoast]

Saw that one too. Unfortunately it would cost you at least 900 bucks with the premium and it's not in great shape. I picked up a later one several years ago that IS in nice shape for only a little more. But, if I didn't own one already I would be tempted to bid at least the minimum.

[Yakman]

This pistol appears to me to be a very low serial numbered Commercial clone of the P.08 Luger pistol. There are other 1908 Commercials that are not the exact clone of the P.08; barrel length, caliber, American Eagle, etc. which I find interesting, but not much has been written about them. I'm talking about the Army's P.08 not the '08 Navy.

Using Simpson's inventory of '08 Commercials as a guide, this gun's price is still within an acceptable range, but just barely, even considering Proxibid's Buyer's Premium. To be a good deal the hammer price needs to be no more than a thousand dollars. I don't know, but the bid increment probably jumps to one hundred dollars after a one thousand dollar bid.

This Proxibid gun's condition could be better, but at the right price it could be a desirable low serial number 1908 Commercial variation. At any rate, someone is going to buy it, I hope it goes to someone who can appreciate it.

Jack

[Dwight Gruber]

Originally Posted by Yakman

This pistol appears to me to be a very low serial numbered Commercial clone of the P.08 Luger pistol. There are other 1908 Commercials that are not the exact clone of the P.08; barrel length, caliber, American Eagle, etc...

Not a clone, just not a military contract pistol. The P08 military contract stipulates that DWM was to produce P08s for officer private purchase, outside of the military inspection chain and contract delivery (and so outside of the military contract serial numbering, as well). DWM accommodated this by numbering these P08s in the commercial numbering sequence and with commercial proofing.


The P08 is, by definition, a pistol in 9mm Parabellum with a 10cm barrel length, without a grip safety. A Parabellum pistol originally with a different barrel length or caliber is not a near-clone, it is, by definition, simply not a P08. There are no P08s reported with authentic American Eagle receivers.


--Dwight

[Yakman]

Doubs, I can't find that information using your reference. Are you using the red or green issues of G&S? I'm using the green.

Jack

[Doubs]

Originally Posted by Yakman

Doubs, I can't find that information using your reference. Are you using the red or green issues of G&S? I'm using the green. Jack

My set are the red books. It's found in chapter 10 under "New Model and DWM Commercial P.08 Numbering".

[Yakman]

Dwight,

I'm not sure, but I hope you haven't totally missed my point.

Except for your first sentence, pertinent, but with which I respectfully disagree, I will take the rest of your two paragraphs as general information meant for the crowd, as they do not relate to anything I've said in the two sentences you quoted.

To my disagreement: The Proxibid Luger, subject of this thread, is a clone. It is a "a person or thing regarded as identical to another" the Dictionary definition of "clone". In this case the only difference is in the markings, unless one wants to be anal-retentive about it and find fault in not including those details when describing the gun as a commercial clone of a 1908 P.08. In that case only the next gun off the "production line" could be considered a clone, and really not even then if one considers the serial number will be different. See how ridiculous this can be?

I don't think "clone" is an improper term to use in an informal conversation when referring to an object's lookalike. "Lookalike" is a synonym for "clone". I consider a Model 1914 Commercial a "lookalike" for the 1914 P.08, and therefore a "clone", for example.

I hope you don't find my difference of opinion offensive. It's certainly not intended to be.

By the way, did you ever sell that "1920 Arty "? I noticed you changed the mag.

Jack

[Dwight Gruber]

Jack,

I completely reject your conceptualization of "clone" as regards the P08. The entirety of my response absolutely relates to your entire commentary. No offense involved; I will not belabor it further. I will note that there is no such thing as a "1914 commercial."

The commercial artillery is still for sale.

--Dwight

[Ron Wood]

Originally Posted by Dwight Gruber

...I will note that there is no such thing as a "1914 commercial."
--Dwight

How about 1913 Commercial, with and without grip safety?

[Dwight Gruber]

Originally Posted by Ron Wood

How about 1913 Commercial, with and without grip safety?

Ron,

I have an aversion to dated commercial collector designations. They carry no evolutionary information relative to their official origins, e.g. New Model Parabellum vs. "1906"--the actual DWM blueprint designation is "Selbstlade Pistole 1904"; they frequently mislead a collector with erroneous date information, e.g. 1902 carbine, 1902 fat barrel, 1914 commercial, '23 commercial; and they tend to proliferate wildly, e.g. 1914 commercial, Bill Reupke's 1916 commercial designation based on the inception of the rebated sear bar, and Aarron Davis's wildly inflated variation list, etc.

In the commercial database I have found it necessary to create a simple distinction between P08s with and without stock lug: 08C designates non-stock lug pistols; P08 designates pistols with stock lugs. This is made clear in the database key.

To your actual question, "grip safety P08 commercial" works just fine as it avoids a date and encompasses the examples both with and without stock lugs.

--Dwight

[Dwight Gruber]

Originally Posted by Ron Wood

How about 1913 Commercial, with and without grip safety?

Ron,

I went back to some source material and reminded myself of some data. The dating in this commercial range is dependent on the August 1913 order which mandates the stock lug in all P08 production; and the institution of the flat recoil spring well by 1915. From the limited reporting in hand, one cannot say with confidence whether these pistols were made in 1913 or 1914, with a slight bias toward the possibility of 1914.

Under the circumstances, "grip-safety P08 commercial" seems to be the most comprehensive collector designation.

--Dwight


Edit: Strike all of this. I checked commercial navy sn 71406 (six pistols after the last grip safety entry, 437 pistols before the first flat recoil spring well entry); it has a spur in the recoil spring well. This confidently places the grip safety pistol production in 1914.


I still stand by "grip safety P08 commercial", because the grip safety pistols include both stock lug and no-stock-lug examples.

[Yakman]

OK Dwight, I really don't think we are at odds, I think we a talking past each other. Every thing we are talking about are collector constructs. The terms collectors use to identify various "models" are colloquial terms, part of a Lexicon, used to form mental pictures of, say, a particular Luger in the absence of the real thing.

I asked you about your "1920 Arty" in wrongly stated terms, but because of what I just stated above, you knew exactly what I was talking about. You might not agree with it, but you understood it and that's the point.

Getting to identifying the Proxibid Luger, subject of this thread, I won't push "clone", as I don't consider the word a part of the most used Lexicon, anyway, but I will have to use some of its synonyms to help form a mental picture.

I'm hopeful we both agree that the original P.08 is most readily visually identifiable by its absence of a grip safety and stock lug, short frame, and 100m/m barrel. Were not talking about markings, yet.

The proxibid gun has all the above mentioned features. I posted "This pistol APPEARS to me to be a very low serial numbered Commercial clone of the P.08 Luger pistol." (Strike the "clone" and insert "lookalike".) The pistol pictured looks like, or APPEARS to be, a 1908 P.08 configured Luger. Does the "1908" seem redundant? Without it there is nothing to help form an image of a P.08 that has no stock lug from one that does. If I were to describe this gun to you in casual conversation I could say it is configured as a 1908 P.08 and you would immediately have a mental picture of it. If I were to go on and say it is commercially proofed and numbered you would have it exactly.

To your other point of no near lookalites. I have a Luger that had all the outward appearances of a P.08 except that it has a 120m/m barrel of obvious .30 cal. Upon closer examination it had no hold-open, was commercially numbered, and had an American Eagle (AE) over the chamber. Is it a P.08? No! Is it a 1908 Commercial? Yes! And from a distance, it was its P.08 outward appearing features that drew my attention. The P.08 features, not the 100m/m barrel, lots of Lugers have 100m/m barrels. Only the barrel kept it from appearing, at a distance, to be a P.08. To me that's enough to describe it as "near".

By the way, who said anything about a P.08 having an AE over the chamber?

Also, I enjoy discussions with you and reading your offerings, you have interesting points of view.

Jack

[Dwight Gruber]

Originally Posted by Yakman

...By the way, who said anything about a P.08 having an AE over the chamber?

Originally Posted by Yakman

…There are other 1908 Commercials that are not the exact clone of the P.08; barrel length, caliber, American Eagle, etc…
Jack

--Dwight

[Yakman]

As an explanation of these discussions, I believe them to be on topic as they are intended to give reason to the description and identification of the subject Proxibid pistol.

Dwight, in reference to your Post #15, please explain how you interpret my quote "There are OTHER 1908 COMMERCIALS that are NOT the EXACT clone of the P.08; barrel length, caliber, American Eagle, etc…" as referring to a P.08. I gave an example of an O8C, to use your reference, having all three exceptions to a P.08. There is no reference to a P.08 having an AE over the chamber. The frame is 100% the same as a P.08, only the barrel differs. When referring to it I will say "near" and will expect a reasonable listener to understand my reference.

From your Post #16 you make it clear that your opposition to a date as a designation of model or variation is based on a personal bias and not convention, convention is where all this comes from. There is no arbiter in matters of convention when it comes to designating Luger models or variations. It is conforming to convention that makes possible the conveying of ideas. Bucking convention only leads to confusion. I'm not saying one has to agree with it. As an example,trying to correct an obvious error in identification 27 years ago bucked convention and still, after 27 years, leads to confusion and has to be explained every time it's used in place of the conventional terms. I'm not taking a position for or against the attempted change, I'm just saying one cannot buck convention, especially with bias. The erroneous term "Black Widow", a marketing term, has become part of the Lexicon through convention, let's see someone try to change that.

By the way, as to saying there is no 1914 Commercial, convention says there is.

Respectfully to Dwight and all Forum readers.

Jack

[Dwight Gruber]

Originally Posted by Yakman

...please explain how you interpret my quote "There are OTHER 1908 COMMERCIALS that are NOT the EXACT clone of the P.08; barrel length, caliber, American Eagle, etc…"...

"There are P08 commercials ("clone" is a nullity) whose barrel length or caliber have been altered, or which have been fraudulently altered to represent an American Eagle pistol."

Originally Posted by Yakman

From your Post #16 you make it clear that your opposition to a date as a designation of model or variation is based on a personal bias and not convention, convention is where all this comes from. There is no arbiter in matters of convention when it comes to designating Luger models or variations. It is conforming to convention that makes possible the conveying of ideas. Bucking convention only leads to confusion...

Following Jan Still's example of revising the understanding of commercial Luger production culminating in the Alphabet Commercial collector designation, I intend to change the convention.

--Dwight

[Yakman]

Dwight, I'd like to comment on your Post #15 to Ron Wood. Since you didn't make it privately to him by PM, but in the open Forum, I figure you welcome comments.

I agree dated commercial collector designations carry no evolutionary information relative to their official origins. However, I say that is neither necessary nor their purpose. Their purpose, from my point of view, is to provide a shortcut to a mental picture of the subject Luger, that's all. The excess verbiage adds nothing to the conversation that can't added later if called for.

In my 63 years of Luger collecting I have never been mislead, or knew anyone who had, with erroneous date information, e.g. 1902 carbine, 1902 fat barrel, 1914 commercial, '23 commercial. With each one of the examples used I get a full mental picture, the purpose of the conventional use of these shortcuts. Further details can be discussed when all know they're on the "same page".

I see Bill Reupke's 1916 Commercial designation based on the inception of the rebated sear bar as only a further refinement of the 1914 Commercial, itself a further refinement of the 1908 Commercial to indicate a stock lug and hold-open, replicating (a synonym of clone) a 1914 model P.08, except for commercial serial numbering and proofing. I haven't said anything here you don't understand, you just don't agree with any of it, which is ok.

I do want to add, much of your research and opinions have already entered into convention and there will be more to come. Your efforts are much appreciated and I am sure I am joining a huge crowd when I say that. Thanks,

Jack