Interesting 1908-14 Navy

Big Norm · 03-03-2007, 02:19 PM

Vern,
its hard to comment on the points that you made because the photography of this gun is so very poor. The barrel does appear to be more black that the customary beautiful blue/blue that you would find on an Imperial Luger. But the seller would just come back and say thats because of the lighting. Sometimes the only way to tell is to take the gun outside in the sun light and compare to a known original Imperial bluing. Thats where the coloring would really stand out.

The front sight looks to be the sight that should be on a navy Luger. The barrel ring in picture 9 appears to be flush to the frame. My original navies show a step should be there. But again, we are dealing with bad photography.

I am not proficient on Mauser frames except that the rabbit ears would have the characteristic "Mauser hump" on the back. I don't see it on this gun.

Much has been made of the rear sight on this thread. I don't think that we can say much about it beause that area was over exposed by the camera and the camera angle may distort the point that others were trying to make. The pictures of a repro vs an original on this thread can greatly help the buyer, but we really can't say from the pictures that the seller supplied. But the toggle knobs look original.

I wanted to say something about the chamber where the date normally would be. The sellers pictures look like a date may have been filed off. But I looked at a couple of my navies and that area is a bit rough on them too. Physical examination would be necessary.

What this is getting down to is what I wrote in my start-up post, the long frame vs the short frame and the appropriate application on the navy proof marks vs commercial proof marks. Even the proof marks can't be commented on because they have been filled in with white lacquered pencil. Plus, the photography thingy. When the buyer gets this gun, he will have to physically examine this gun with an experienced Luger guy looking over his shoulders. He will have three days to physically examine this gun and get his money back, less S&H. Personally, I have enough doubts about this gun to not touch it. One mistake is one too many. Stay tuned, you just may find this gun back on the market.
Big Norm

P.S. Stay tuned, to this thread. I'll be using it to experimentally try to put pictures here. I discovered lots of things that I could do while I was fooling around the first time. But it was 3AM and I was getting foggy brained.

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

03-03-2007, 02:19 PM	#1
Big Norm RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: SE Michigan Posts: 1,864 Thanks: 1 Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts	Vern, its hard to comment on the points that you made because the photography of this gun is so very poor. The barrel does appear to be more black that the customary beautiful blue/blue that you would find on an Imperial Luger. But the seller would just come back and say thats because of the lighting. Sometimes the only way to tell is to take the gun outside in the sun light and compare to a known original Imperial bluing. Thats where the coloring would really stand out. The front sight looks to be the sight that should be on a navy Luger. The barrel ring in picture 9 appears to be flush to the frame. My original navies show a step should be there. But again, we are dealing with bad photography. I am not proficient on Mauser frames except that the rabbit ears would have the characteristic "Mauser hump" on the back. I don't see it on this gun. Much has been made of the rear sight on this thread. I don't think that we can say much about it beause that area was over exposed by the camera and the camera angle may distort the point that others were trying to make. The pictures of a repro vs an original on this thread can greatly help the buyer, but we really can't say from the pictures that the seller supplied. But the toggle knobs look original. I wanted to say something about the chamber where the date normally would be. The sellers pictures look like a date may have been filed off. But I looked at a couple of my navies and that area is a bit rough on them too. Physical examination would be necessary. What this is getting down to is what I wrote in my start-up post, the long frame vs the short frame and the appropriate application on the navy proof marks vs commercial proof marks. Even the proof marks can't be commented on because they have been filled in with white lacquered pencil. Plus, the photography thingy. When the buyer gets this gun, he will have to physically examine this gun with an experienced Luger guy looking over his shoulders. He will have three days to physically examine this gun and get his money back, less S&H. Personally, I have enough doubts about this gun to not touch it. One mistake is one too many. Stay tuned, you just may find this gun back on the market. Big Norm P.S. Stay tuned, to this thread. I'll be using it to experimentally try to put pictures here. I discovered lots of things that I could do while I was fooling around the first time. But it was 3AM and I was getting foggy brained.