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

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