Slow Day....

[John D.]

Well â?? I finally have most of my work done, and just about finished installing the hardwood floor on the first floor. And the kitchen cabinets are now hung â?? so I have the afternoon FREE!!!


Anyway - I get asked quite a bit off this Forum why I donâ??t post pictures here of any of my Kriegs.. Well the truth is â?? I donâ??t have a lot of time (and Iâ??m not especially great with a digital camera). Anyway, since today is a slow day â?? below is a picture of one of my Krieg RIGS I thought you may enjoyâ?¦


Itâ??s a â??36â?� Krieghoff with itâ??s 1936 dated â??HKâ?� proofed shoulder holster. While I know there is a lot of controversy about whether shoulder holsters were ever issued, this one definitely came from the factory. Who the original recipient was, we can only imagine. And why was a shoulder holster â??proofedâ?� by the factory? Weâ??ll probably never know.


A little about the Luger (I could write a LONG note about Kriegs - but won't bore you all is that HK â??36â?� chamber dates were produced at the beginning of the 1936 production year â?? and the reason, some believe, that there is only a â??double digitâ?� rather then the full year, is that the dies were not ready for â??1936â?� at the factory. So, it appears that the first 500-600 1936 produced Krieghoffs may have been hand engraved by the factory as only â??36â?� until the full â??1936â?� dies arrived (the previous year HK produced the â??Sâ?� date â?? rather then having the numerical chamber date).


This piece is one of those double â?? digit â??36â?� in 99%+ condition. There is a slight wear mark on the muzzle end from carrying in a holster â?? but otherwise, it is a perfectly matched "36" Krieghoff in almost â??as newâ?� condition. The strawed parts still retain their â??goldenâ?� hue and are very good as well. To note, this particular Krieghoff has the â??course brownâ?� grip pattern rather then the finer â??Ritzmannâ?� grips more frequently encountered in the recorded â??36â?� series.


Anyway â?? enjoy..!! It only took me about 3 hours to try to get these darned pictures:-) Iâ??ll post others Kriegs from my collection if folks would like (and I have another â??slow dayâ?� to practice with my camera )..!!






http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/36-3.jpg

[Dok]

"I'm not very good with a digital camera"... yeah right... and if you believe that, he has a bridge to sell you!


Well this pic just became a Luger of the Month - complete with wrote up no less!!!


Glad to here about your floor and kitchen, can see it clearly... well done!


Dok

[Thor]

Aint she PURTY! Thanks John and DOK!! Nice picture! ~Thor~

[John D.]

To DOK - yep, that darned fist floor is almost done!!! We actually have a stove, refrig and dishwasher!! YEA!!! As for Luger of the month - I'll pack up some other pics of this piece for you, if you'd like - and you can include those as well if you want to as well as what to look for on a "36"..??. Maybe a close up of the holster proofs and some detail on the Luger as well... Let me know, OK??? (BTW: if you are ever looking for an opening photo and you want a Krieg - I can probably help you out )


To Thor.... Thanks Thor!!! JEEEZZZ - seriously, it took me about 40 pics to get this one (I was playing with light and background..). Maybe I have it figured out now, but I doubt it!!! ...


Can't wait for the WOL meeting!!!

[schwob]

"A thing of beauty, is a joy to mans heart", and so is this Luger->! Your camera work is only great.

[Dok]

[Bart]

Impressive!! What a great looking Luger. Thanks for sharing.

Bart

Thats a beautiful Picture of a "Luger Beauty"

You have proven yourself fully compitent with both Camera and Gun.

ViggoG

[Hugh]

Very pretty gun and holster!


I know how hard it is to get the "right" picture! You can take 50 and the best might be the 1st or the 49th. It is hard to get it to look real and wonderful.


Always good to see other guns from the forum.


Ed

John, I had always heard that the S code, vise K for 1934 & G for 1935, was the consealment code for 1936. This would make your 36 date, at least midproduction for that year. Since KH did make about 100 G dates, why would they use 2 letter codes for the same year? The KH guru, Randall Gibson also calls S codes, 1936 production in his book. Check it out.

[John D.]

I should have stated "beginning of the 1936 production series" rather then year. My apologies.


Second - I think you'll find that the recorded Serial Range of the "G" date was 100 - but I also believe that Gibson estimates a total production of 50 G dated Lugers for 1935 year production not 100 actual Lugers. However, to clarify your point - the G date is *not* used in the same year as the "S" series nor the "36" or "1936" ("G" dates are not used within 1936 production year).


Kenyon states that HK switched to chamber dating rather then chamber codes at approximetly the same time as other manufacturers (who also had G and S series (and K series for non HK Lugers). Therefore overlaps in chamber marking (from a "code" to a diget) during the same year would be expected and certainly not uncommon.


HTH..!

[bill m]

Hi John,

I really do not understand this statement.


"Kenyon states that HK switched to chamber dating rather then chamber codes at approximetly the same time as other manufacturers (who also had G and S series (and K series for non HK Lugers). Therefore overlaps in chamber marking (from a "code" to a diget) during the same year would be expected and certainly not uncommon".


As far as I know, Krieghoff was the only manufacture that overlapped a code with a digit. Simson had an S code on the toggle which was for 1934 which ended their production. They were intermixed with the blank chamber dated Simson's.


Mauser had the K-dates for 1934 and the G-dates for 1935 and according to production estimates, started 1936 with a chamber date. There is the normal production assembly-transition period, but not a intermix or overlap of the G-date code and the 1936 four digit Lugers.


So isn't Krieghoff unique with this over lapping of codes and digits.

[John Sabato]

We want to see them all... and from all angles.


This one IS a BEAUTY! Great Photo Job!


-John

[John D.]

Bill M. Notes:


"..Mauser had the K-dates for 1934 and the G-dates for 1935 and according to production estimates, started 1936 with a chamber date. There is the normal production assembly transition period, but not a intermix or overlap of the G-date code and the 1936 four digit Lugers..."..


Hi Bill...


Yours is a terrific question/comment (as you probably guessed )! On the "letter code" versus the "diget" - Krieghoff's certainly are not that clean in their "breaks" - as apparently Mauser was with a definite block changeover as you note.


While Kenyon calls the "S" code on HK's the "1935 Year Code" (inferring a 1935 production date - pp. 318-322 "Lugers at Random"), at the same time - Gibson refers to it as the "1936" (See his Synthesis). (as an FYI - Jan Still defers to Gibson's production dates in his "Third Reich Lugers".)


So, if you subscribe to Gibson's view - then yes, letters were intermixed with "digits" for the same production year. If Kenyon is correct, then the "S" was the code for denoting the 1935 production HK Lugers - and then the answer would be "no", letters and digits would not be intermixed in 1936 - but two different chamber letters were used in the same year by HK ("G" and "S" which certainly doesn't make sense either!!)???


However, all seem to agree on the sequence of the chamber marking - "G", followed by "S", followed by "36", followed by "1936".


As you know - Gibson was fairly adamant (based on the serial number ranges and the total HK's made during these years), that in fact the "S" was a 1936 production Luger. If that is true - then your comment of "So isn't Krieghoff unique with this over lapping of codes and digits." would be true as well... However, if Kenyon is correct ("S" is 1935 manufacture) - then HK had both the "G" and the later "S" dates in the same year - but didn't mix codes and digits - as all "1936" production would either be marked "36" or "1936" on HK Lugers...


Thoughts? Comments?? (BTW: Great thread!!!)

[John D.]

Try this one - it was a "reject" photo from yesterday.!!




http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/36-7.jpg

[bill m]

Hi John,

My copy of Gibson's book has a copyright date of 1980 and Kenyon's has a copyright date of 1969. Kenyon's is a great book but more of an overall informative book, where Gibson's is more dedicated to Krieghoff's. Gibson has 11 years longer to obtain serial number and compile specific data on Krieghoff's where Kenyon did not have this information back in 1969. This has been covered before, but as new information and data is gathered, it sheds more light on these subjects. I feel Gibson's book is more current and contains more up to date information, although Kenyon's book is great, and has good introductory information, it lacks the most recent facts and opinions. Still's book reflects Gibson's information, as it was just more correct and more current. I like all the books, and the pictures and information is helpful from all of them, but I feel the newer books contain more correct information and by using the older books opinions, it just confuses some of these subjects. For instance, some of the older books have great information and pictures, but refer to the dated S/42 Mausers as going from 1936-1940, which isn't correct. Another example is Mauser Police Banners with dates from 1939-1942, which isn't correct as they started with a 1938 date. So, after all this rambling, I feel the newer books have more research done and are more current, and correct, and I think Gibson's book is correct as to the "S" representing 1936 rather than 1935. So, I feel Krieghoff is unique as the only manufacture that combined codes and digits in the same year.

[John D.]

Hi Bill...!!


Bill writes "..Still's book reflects Gibson's information, as it was just more correct and more current..."


Actually - I did notice something in Still's book this weekend, which I haven't had a chance to pursue. Maybe you noticed this as well....??


In Still's production chart for Krieg's, for example, it appears that he has different (updated?) reported serial number's for the various years. The year that caught my eye specifically was the "1938" production date (a total of 50 HKs produced). Gibson has 17 reported serial numbers - but Still is showing 19 (I think it is 19 - I don't have Still's book at the office - but it was a few more then Gibson..).


Anyway - it reinforces your point as to the evolution of information - but also raises the question of where this "new" information is coming from and where it is being collected or how it is disseminated?


As to the 1935 or 1936 manufacture of HK "S" codes, I couldn't agree more that Gibson's work is *much* more extensive and up-to-date on the HK variation. That being said - there is something that has always gnawed at me about the "S" code dates all together. Let me explain - and I'd really value your (or anyoneâ??s!!) insight/comments...


It was in 1935 that the government did away with the need to conceal the dates of manufacture altogether, as began their period of open re-armament. I'm not sure if this was by decree or how that "order" was handed down (which may shed some light on this discussion) - but it strikes me as peculiar that Krieghoff - given that nature of their position as military contractor - would *not* be in a position to independently/arbitrarily mark an "S" rather then the year chamber date in compliance (especially as it was in 1935 that this government policy changed (the year before the 1936 production date â??Sâ?� code.)).


To further confuse the issue - since the "36" was an intermediate marking phase, it seems apparent that HK was trying to comply with the digit series chamber markings. However, why would they even bother with the "36" rather then keep the "S" until the full 4-digit dies were available â?? if indeed, both variations were produced in 1936 (â??Sâ?� and â??36â?�)?


One of the theoretical answers could be that the "S" chambers were struck in 1935 (before the decree and in anticipation that letter chamber markings would continue to be used the following year). Given the high degree of interchangeability of HK pistols - it is not out of the question that the final assembly did occur early in 1936, but from these parts manufactured/struck in 1935. (This would be somewhat counter to how Gibson portrays the overall production and serialization of HK Lugers, I believe!).


Itâ??s questions/anomalies like this very subject that I find fascinating about HKâ??s!!!!


Jeez â?? I wish they used â??born on datingâ?� back then I really do appreciate your thoughts and comments on this..!!

[Big Norm]

JohnD,


Great pictures! What camera did you use? Do you have any particular info to pass on that would held us do as good as you did?

Big Norm

[John D.]

Hi Big Norm..!!


OK - I'll help out as much as I can - as it really has taken some time to get pics that I like enough to post. Maybe some of this info can help out the rest of the folks, too..


The camera is a Nikon Coolpix 950.. The setup on "manual" mode is a tad intimidating - but I set "white balance" to automatic - but forced the flash to set off (even though there was enough light that it didn't want to fire)...


For background - this will make you chuckle - but it's true.. Jen and I were assembling the kitchen cabinets earlier yesterday, but found that the 36" cabinet that will hold the sink counter-top - can't have the back attached (as the backboard would interfere with the plumbing). Anyway, that back piece is a 1/4" white mason board about 36" x 24". I'm looking at that usless white backboard, and about to throw it out, when I wonder if it would be a good photo surface (heck, I've tried everything else!).. I mention it to Jen - who laughs, as she has seen my try to get good photo's for months on just about every surface in the house (table-tops, red velvet, a tile floor, carpets - you name it...!!!)...


So, later in the day - Jen has to do some "errands", so I get to try taking photo's without her laughing at me while getting everything set up


The lighting was a mix of sunlight (from the side), incandesant lights (from the top) in addition to the flash on the camera (as a "fill) - and all the pics were taken with the white Board on the floor and me standing about 3' - 4' above the "set-up". The only thing I wish I had was a "tripod", so the pictures could be a little clearer.


Once you get the pictures off-loaded to your computer - take a photo editing program (I used a simple one - Microsoft Photo Editor) and slightly adjust the brightness and GAMMA correction up a few notches until the colors match fairly closely to the Luger and cut down the "blue hue" from the incandesant lights....


Now - if I can only repeat this same proceedure when I take the rest of my pictures!!!


Hope This Helps!!!