1916-1917 Navy Receiver Proofs

Johnny Peppers · 07-16-2002, 08:57 PM

Pete,
No offense taken. In the 15 or so years that I have owned the pistol it has been looked at by collectors more knowledgeable and who have been collecting and studying Lugers longer than I. There has never been any doubt that it is absolutely correct. This was my reason for making the pistol available to anyone that wanted to examine it, or sending scans of the pistol to anyone that would like to see any part of the pistol. No matter what should be or should not be, the markings on this Navy were stamped after the pistol was blued. Maybe it would be a learning experience for all. Very few things in collecting Lugers are absolutes.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

07-16-2002, 08:57 PM	#20
Johnny Peppers User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Calion, Arkansas Posts: 1,042 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Pete, No offense taken. In the 15 or so years that I have owned the pistol it has been looked at by collectors more knowledgeable and who have been collecting and studying Lugers longer than I. There has never been any doubt that it is absolutely correct. This was my reason for making the pistol available to anyone that wanted to examine it, or sending scans of the pistol to anyone that would like to see any part of the pistol. No matter what should be or should not be, the markings on this Navy were stamped after the pistol was blued. Maybe it would be a learning experience for all. Very few things in collecting Lugers are absolutes.