Bogus '04 pistols

[Navy]

All,
Here is a reply I got from Jan Still concerning some comments I made on this forum. I think his comments are completely appropriate and as usual, on the money. This dialogue, on this forum was NEVER intended to disparage Jan's wonderful work of a lifetime and I hope that no one on the forum or elsewhere took it that way.
Following is a direct quote:

"Thanks for supplying the 9 photographs (1-9) and two cards of rubbings (A & B). Your cover note states that â?? Their contents speaks for itself.â?� For the most part these photographs and rubbings do not contain previously unpublished or unknown information and their discussion on this Forum will not be adverse to anyone. What do these 9 photographs and two cards with rubbings tell us.
Photographs 1 and 2 are of the same1904 Navy Luger, serial number 51, shown in Imperial Lugers (1991) on page 165 and 166. These photographs are dated Aug. 82 and are marked â??Nr. 51 LEE SCHREIBERSâ?� These photographs indicate that this Luger was in the same condition in 1982 as it was when photographed by Sturgess for Imperial Lugers in 1990.

The photographs 3 to 9 show a Luger in the process of being made into a replica 1904 Navy. Most or all of these photographs are of the same Luger. It is in the white.. The photographs show the exact same C/M added above the lanyard and to the bottom of the barrel. These proofs have the crown well down into the M and the crown leans to the left. These proofs are markedly unlike those on 1904 serial number 51. The proofs (C C/M C/M)on the left receiver have the crown just above the M and are stamped with a different die than the proof above the lanyard and on the bottom of the barrel.. There is nothing in the photographs of the 1904 Navy in the process of being fabricated (3 to 9) to indicate a connection to either of the 1904 Navy Lugers shown in Imperial Lugers ( page 165,166 serial number 51; and 167 serial number 772). It is probable that all of these photographs (3-9) are of serial number 48 described below.

The note on photograph 7 (shown below) indicates that this is Paul Westenbergerâ??s (deceased)Luger, serial number 48. This Luger was made up for Westenberger by a known craftsman. It was never a secret. When I was researching Imperial Lugers Tom Knox informed me about it. He said that Westenberger said that he knew he could never afford an original 1904 Navy and had a replica made up. At the time this was general knowledge. Reportedly the barrel was made from a turned down rifle barrel. Any proofs applied to this replica barrel are clearly bogus. Which, clearly establishes that the proof on the bottom of the barrel shown below (figure 1) is a replica or fake. Originally the frame had a 4 digit number and the first and last digits were removed to leave the â??48". Paul Westenberger did not live to see this project completed. (Tom Knox 1989 and 2003) The serial number â??48" does not appear in the data base on page 162 of Imperial Lugers because it was a known replica.

Card (B) shows rubbings from Tom Knoxâ??s Navy Luger, serial number 772. This Luger is shown on page 167 of Imperial Lugers. It has no proofs, has 60 degree knurling, a square end to the extractor, has been refinished, an improper toggle lock, the barrel profile undulates, and is almost certainly a replica. At the time I put itâ??s photograph in Imperial Lugers, its owner (Tom Knox) and I believed that it was an arsenal refinish/rework. I did not realize that it was a fake until after Imperial Lugers was published. This realization was not a secret. I pointed this out when I was a guest speaker at one of the National Automatic Pistol Collectors Association conventions. I have stated to any number of collectors that any 1904 Navy over serial number 200 is certainly very suspect and probably a fake.

Card (A) shows rubbings from Lee Schreibers (deceased, now in the collection of Dr. Sturgess) 1904 Navy Luger. These rubbings show the square pattern toggle knurling, the proof above the lanyard, the front frame serial number â??51", the right receiver proofâ??s C C/M, and the crescent shaped extractor end. Expert and World known Luger collectors John Pearson, Don Rousseau, Robert Hogan, Robert Simpson, Doug Smith, Dr. Sturgess and Charles Whittaker consider that these are characteristics of a proper 1904 Navy. They all vouch for the credibility of this Luger. I have recently discussed the credibility of this Luger with Pearson, Rousseau, Smith and Whittaker. All considered it original and were credulous that someone implied that it was a fraud.
The exact same rubbings that you sent to me (A, serial number 51) were published in AUTO MAG (Volume 19 page 138) over 15 years ago by Jim Cate. He states â??I offer these to the membership because it has been well established that Leeâ??s 1904 navy luger, # 51 was the only completely original factory unaltered example known.â?� See Cates original comments published in AUTO MAG below (figure 2).

This is a good opportunity to modify a list of reported1904 Navy Lugers shown on page 162 of Imperial Lugers. Observations and information gleaned since Imperial Lugers was published indicates that this data should be modified. This data base shows 10 reported 1904 Navy Lugers between serial number 273 and 1148. These serial numbers should be deleted from this list. Also, Charles Whittakerâ??s, serial number 79, that is identical to serial number 51 (except unaltered safety) should be added.

Tom thanks for supplying the photographs. It has prompted me to clear up some obselete data in Imperial Lugers, restablished the credibility of 1904 Navy serial number 51, and will help fellow collectors better understand and appreciate the importance of these rare 1904 Navy Lugers.
Jan"

Unfortunately, I could not figure out how to attach the pictures.
In any event, I want the world to know that my comments were in no way an impeachment of Jan's work; rather they were a caution to be very careful in dealing with rare and pricey Lugers.
Tom A.