M1914 Navy Luger...

Big Norm · 10-25-2004, 09:48 PM

Pete,
I totally agree with you. After I posted my message, I noticed the shallowness of the date on the chamber. But if the restorer is good enough to do this good a job of the restoration then he would be good enough to know to not blue the white on the adjustible rear sight. All in all, I have to say that given the conditions of the sale, the starting price and that the pictures are inadequate, I would avoid this gun. I wouldn't like the situation even if I had the gun in my hands. Sometimes you just have to walk away. All this also goes for the artillery that this guy also has up for auction.

But I also have to admit that I have recently personally seen some guns that are of this period that look pretty good. Jerry Peters has a 1908 commercial navy and a 1917 artillery that look like they just came out of the box. Doug Smith has a 1902 "Fat Barrel" that he got from RIA that had me drooling for an hour after seeing it. I also have a couple of WW1 and WW2 Lugers that still have the "Sperm Whale" oil or varnish of them. I have a Swiss "Cross-in-Shield that has this finish still on the straw. But when I took the gun out in the day light, I noticed that the straps had some wear on them. Not a lot, but enough to justify more wear on the straws coating.

Malcolm,
don't worry about being a newbie. Your two cents is worth as much here as anybody else's. But in this unique instance, I would like to say that accepting a 1917 but not a 1916 because of the lack of wear deserves a small comment from me. In 1918, there were a number of model 1914's produced. They were produced to complete a 1916 contract and, therefore, they were given a 1916 chamber date. But with this one exception, your logic is good.
Big Norm

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

10-25-2004, 09:48 PM	#11
Big Norm RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: SE Michigan Posts: 1,864 Thanks: 1 Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts	Pete, I totally agree with you. After I posted my message, I noticed the shallowness of the date on the chamber. But if the restorer is good enough to do this good a job of the restoration then he would be good enough to know to not blue the white on the adjustible rear sight. All in all, I have to say that given the conditions of the sale, the starting price and that the pictures are inadequate, I would avoid this gun. I wouldn't like the situation even if I had the gun in my hands. Sometimes you just have to walk away. All this also goes for the artillery that this guy also has up for auction. But I also have to admit that I have recently personally seen some guns that are of this period that look pretty good. Jerry Peters has a 1908 commercial navy and a 1917 artillery that look like they just came out of the box. Doug Smith has a 1902 "Fat Barrel" that he got from RIA that had me drooling for an hour after seeing it. I also have a couple of WW1 and WW2 Lugers that still have the "Sperm Whale" oil or varnish of them. I have a Swiss "Cross-in-Shield that has this finish still on the straw. But when I took the gun out in the day light, I noticed that the straps had some wear on them. Not a lot, but enough to justify more wear on the straws coating. Malcolm, don't worry about being a newbie. Your two cents is worth as much here as anybody else's. But in this unique instance, I would like to say that accepting a 1917 but not a 1916 because of the lack of wear deserves a small comment from me. In 1918, there were a number of model 1914's produced. They were produced to complete a 1916 contract and, therefore, they were given a 1916 chamber date. But with this one exception, your logic is good. Big Norm