any information about this 1917/20 unit marked erfurt would be appreciated

[Ron Wood]

How bad could I do? After all, I have as much experience as our Commander-in-Chief.

[ithacaartist]

Originally Posted by Ron Wood

How bad could I do? After all, I have as much experience as our Commander-in-Chief.

And the one before him, as well...

[klaus 3338]

May be one will be so kind and translate my little answer
Etwas irritiert, aber auch amüsiert, habe ich die Beiträge bis hierhin verfolgt.
Vorab möchte ich sagen, dass mir alle Beiträge der Mitglieder gefallen und mein Interesse am Hobby wach halten. So gilt mein Respekt auch erst einmal allen Mitgliedern in gleicher Weise. Ein paar Mitglieder stechen aber durch ihr Wissen und der Breitschaft, dieses Wissen zu teilen, aus der Masse heraus. Um es ganz deutlich zu machen möchte ich Ron Wood hier in die vorderste Reihe rücken. In seiner Bescheidenheit und sicher auch durch seine Lebensweisheit wird er diese Stelle in vorderster Reihe weit von sich rücken, aber was wäre ein Forum wie dieses ohne Mitglieder wie ihn?
Nun zu der Stempelung 1917/20. Ursprung dieses Stempels wird die "Vorschrift für die Stempelung der Pistole 08 nebst Zeichnung" aus dem Jahr 1910 sein. In dieser Vorschrift wird so ziemlich alles bezüglich der 08 geregelt; sie wurde mehrfach geändert und ergänzt.
In den Anmerkungen finden wir unter Position 4. die Erklärung für das Doppeldatum.
Die Jahreszahl wird in Zahlen mit 3,2mm Höhe und 9 mm Breite geschlagen, die des zweiten Datums in 2,1 mm Höhe.
Hülsen aus Vorratsbeständen, auf denen das Anfertigungsjahr nicht dem Jahr der Fertigstellung der Waffe übereinstimmt, erhalten hinter dem unstimmigen Anfertigungsjahr in Bruchform und Höhe von 2,1mm die Berichtigung des Anfertigungsjahres.

Um Einwänden voraus zu kommen: Es gibt in Deutschen Archivalien keine Unterlagen, die darauf hinweisen, dass dieser Passus in der Reichswehrzeit übernommen wurde. Allerdings bin ich mir in Anbetracht meiner Erfahrung ziemlich sicher, dass es so war.

[sheepherder]

Originally Posted by klaus 3338

May be one will be so kind and translate my little answer

From Google Translate -

A little irritated, but also amused, I have followed the posts up to this point.
First of all I want to say that I liked all the contributions of the members and keep my interest in the hobby awake. So my respect for all members applies only once in the same way. A few members stand out but by their knowledge and the Breitschaft to share this knowledge from the crowd. I want to make it very clear Ron Wood back here in the front row. In his modesty and certainly by his wisdom he will move this point in the front row far from him, but what would a forum like this without members like him?
Now for the stamping of 1917/20. Origin of this stamp will be the "rule for the stamping of the gun along with 08 drawings" from the year 1910. In this regulation, pretty much everything is controlled with respect to the 08; it has been amended and supplemented.
In the notes we see Position 4 the explanation for the double date.
The year is beaten in numbers with 3.2 mm in height and 9mm width. The second date in 2.1 mm height
Sleeves of inventories on which the production year does not match the year of completion of the weapon get behind the inconsistent production year break in shape and height of 2.1 mm, the correction of the production year.

To get objections ahead: There are no documents in German archives that suggest that this passage was taken in the Reichswehr time. However, I'm pretty sure, given my experience, that it was so.


Blame Google Translate for any confusion...

[Ron Wood]

Well Jonah, this is your lucky day. It would seem that Klaus feels that in his experience the 1910 directive probably did carry over into the Weimar era, therefore the "1917/20" would indicate completion of a 1917 piece was delayed until 1920. Now as to why that happened I have no idea (but then again I evidently had no idea that it wasn't a property mark, so I am 2 for 2 ).

[kzullick]

Is it a full moon this week Ron?

[Ron Wood]

If I may be permitted, I would like to have a slightly different notion than our esteemed friend, Klaus. I am pretty sure he is correct that the directive of 1910 did carry over into the Weimar era, but not as an official practice. I would propose that the date/20 marking was applied by a worker that was familiar with the 1910 directive and had participated in that style of production marking during the last years of WWI. Now as a civilian (civil service?) he had the responsibility to apply the “1920” property mark but erroneously appended the “/20” to the date in the fashion with which he was familiar. This also might infer that the 1917/20 and 1918/20 marked Lugers were all processed by the same individual/depot.

This is of course pure conjecture. Both mine and Klaus’ interpretations are opinions based on our individual experience and study, and therefore understandably slightly different. Such is the nature of heuristic analysis as observational experiences do not always converge on a common opinion (would that it did ). As Klaus has pointed out, there is no documentation in German archives. If he and the combined efforts of Görtz/Sturgess have not produced definitive information, it is probably unlikely that Joshua will be successful in unearthing the “missing link”…but hope springs eternal.
Ron

[Norme]

Jonah might find some consolation in the words of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld:

"There are known knowns; there are things that we know that we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know".

Regards, Norm

[ithacaartist]

Originally Posted by Norme

Jonah might find some consolation in the words of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld:

"There are known knowns; there are things that we know that we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know".

Regards, Norm

I don't know about the OP, but I'm consoled by it! In the movie "Awakenings", a panel of shrinks is trying to assess whether Robert Di Niro's character is competent to take a walk outside, unaccompanied. One asks him,"Are you aware that you're subconsciously (I forget what--some tic, or the like)? To which he replies, "Well, if it's subconscious, I don't really see how I could be aware of it."

[Don M]

Originally Posted by Ron Wood

If I may be permitted, I would like to have a slightly different notion than our esteemed friend, Klaus. I am pretty sure he is correct that the directive of 1910 did carry over into the Weimar era, but not as an official practice. I would propose that the date/20 marking was applied by a worker that was familiar with the 1910 directive and had participated in that style of production marking during the last years of WWI. Now as a civilian (civil service?) he had the responsibility to apply the “1920” property mark but erroneously appended the “/20” to the date in the fashion with which he was familiar. This also might infer that the 1917/20 and 1918/20 marked Lugers were all processed by the same individual/depot.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I tend to agree more with Klaus. One "fact" we do know is that there were clear and unambiguous instructions about how to apply the 1920 property stamp on P08s and other items. We also have very strong evidence that many of the P08s supplied to the police and Reichswehr in 1920 were assembled from incomplete pistols and parts that were available at war's end. It is my opinion that some of the barrel extensions used probably had already been dated and, lacking any more recent instructions, the 1910 directive was employed to bring the date stamp up to date.

The lack of an official 1920 property stamp on this pistol is consistent with another of my "opinions." Since the intent of the directive to apply the 1920 stamp was to identify property belonging to the government, I believe the 1920 and 1921 chamber date stamps applied to P08s manufactured only for the government in those years was sufficient evidence of government ownership and probably did not warrant an additional stamp. (I realize there are examples of 1920/1920 and 1920/1921 stamped chambers and believe these were, in fact, the result of misinterpretations by armorers.) A similar argument might apply to the 1917/20 and 1918/20 stamps. These too would be found only on government-owned P08s so the 1920 stamp would have been redundant.

[ithacaartist]

Reminiscent of Albert... As some will acknowledge, it is human nature to hang on to the first conclusions to which we jump. It takes an inordinate amount of TNT to supplant existing notions, whatever they are. Although personal experience can lead us down slightly different roads, the beauty of this forum community is its open discussion and the tendency of most issues to reach, at some point, a consensus. The non-existence of hard evidence such as manufacturing and design or bureaucratic records is, at once, what makes this hobby/interest so intriguing and frustrating. Through it all, we're doing the best we can. A truly skeptical (NOT to be confused with cynical) mind is elusive, but a very worthy goal!

I salute the restraint and patience I've seen demonstrated here. You know who you are.

[rhuff]

Originally Posted by ithacaartist

I salute the restraint and patience I've seen demonstrated here. You know who you are.

I do also.

[siegersallee]

Gentlemen,

I am impressed with the restraint which you exercised in dealing with the original poster.
In any event, I guess Bob Simpson did not find his luger all that interesting. It now rests at gunbroker .

Some of his claims were interesting: his Gunbroker userid is "RICARDTHE2ND" and he has 40 transactions to his credit.

[tomaustin]

please note that he apparently ripped-off Roadkill's detailed analysis and appended it to his "for sale" gunbroker package......

[jbf22]

Originally Posted by siegersallee

Gentlemen,

I am impressed with the restraint which you exercised in dealing with the original poster.
In any event, I guess Bob Simpson did not find his luger all that interesting. It now rests at gunbroker .

Some of his claims were interesting: his Gunbroker userid is "RICARDTHE2ND" and he has 40 transactions to his credit.

This item is on Gunbroker with a reserve high enough that it won't sell, simply to obtain information due to the high traffic on that website. I asked a friend to list in hopes of having a collector of sorts run across it and shed some light on it. The information that was added to that auction from this forum was not my doing but the doing of the gentleman that originally posted the ad. If it is of offense to anyone on this forum that it is listed on Gunbroker I'll have the ad taken down as I said it was simply an attempt to obtain more information. It was certainly not my intention to offend anyone.

I apologize for being somewhat of an ungracious **** last week, I wasn't in the best mood. I know that seems a **** excuse and I don't assume it will absolve me of any dis-respect nor do I intend it too. Thank you for all your help with information on this firearm. I really do appreciate it, I am not on a quest for money as I have turned down several offers on this firearm, highest one to date was $1700. I only paid $425 for the firearm so I could have easily turned a quick profit if that was my intention.

[sheepherder]

Originally Posted by jbf22

I apologize for being somewhat of an ungracious **** last week...

It broke up the monotony. At least nobody told you to go buy a book...

[jbf22]

Originally Posted by sheepherder

It broke up the monotony. At least nobody told you to go buy a book...

Since buying this firearm I have purchased and borrowed several books to no avail.

[sheepherder]

Originally Posted by jbf22

Since buying this firearm I have purchased and borrowed several books to no avail.

Luger books are wonderful for curing insomnia...

[Norme]

Hi Jonah, As you surely must know, the early 1920's were a time of great social and political turmoil in Germany. What ever marking regulations were in force at the time, "ordnung" frequently took second place to expediency. The fact that 1920 was both a date and a property mark only added to the confusion, and anomalies abound. Here's a P08 Navy (made in early 1914), that was marked 1921 by some local armorer. What was he thinking?
As to value, while a 1917/20 marked chamber is certainly rare, people who collect such oddities are rarer still, and I don't believe your gun will sell for more than any other unit marked 1917 Erfurt in similar condition. Since the gun is now listed on Gunbroker you'll know soon enough.
Regards, Norm

[klaus 3338]

It is a pity that such insignificant things are discussed in such vehement style and I never wont to step on someone feet.