1893 Loewe Borchardt

[Ron Wood]

Alvin,

I probably should just let this thread go, but I am a glutton for punishment. Number 19 in the auction is a late production Loewe as I have stated before. Number 27 is the earliest known production Loewe (immediately following the pre-production series, which ended with #25) and is pictured in the October 1993 issue of Deutsches Waffen-Journal. Forget about the patent drawings, they are just drawings and unless you have the text to go with them, you will have no idea whether what is in the drawing has anything to do with actual production. They are stock drawings that are modified to illustrate the particular item for which the patent applies. For instance, the 1896 patent is for a stepped follower on the magazine that was supposed to act as a hold open. The fact that Walter used it to illustrate the double spring magazine has nothing to do with the double spring. Borchardts were never fabricated with two lanyard attachments. It only existed in the patent drawing.

In reviewing my records, I did find one more Borchardt, # 8, that is recorded as having no stock lug, but I do not have any additional information whether it was made that way or if it was removed. To the best of my knowledge, and that of others more knowledgeable than me, Borchardts were made with a stock lug from the get-go.

The "supposed shape" of #19 would be like every other Loewe Borchardt, stock lug and all. But a "real" #19 would not have the sear bar that is shown on the auction Borchardt, it would not be marked on the right side of the receiver "System Borchardt Patent", it would not be proofed, and the sear spring would be secured by a small screw and not in a groove in the receiver.

Least I have not made myself clear, let me state again THE BORCHARDT #19 IN THE JULIA AUCTION IS A LATE PRODUCTION PIECE AND COULD NOT HAVE A SERIAL NUMBER 19. You guys trying to come up with justification for it being legitimate is precisely why it was boosted. There is historical reference to #19, so that is most likely why someone decided to use that serial number to renumber this otherwise beautiful gun. Not content with having a potential $25-30K sale, they were hoping that the uninformed buyer would swallow the possibility of it being a very early piece with historical provenance and cough up an additional $10-15K for the rarity.

Yes, it has been masterfully re-done, but either the "mechanic" was unaware of the differences in pre-, early- and late production Loewes and figured a "Loewe is a Loewe", or he figured a potential buyer wouldn't know the difference and swallow it hook, line and sinker.