![]() |
my profile |
register |
faq |
search upload photo | donate | calendar |
|
|
|
|
#1 |
|
User
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Indiana
Posts: 119
Thanks: 881
Thanked 81 Times in 40 Posts
|
Dwight, I'd like to comment on your Post #15 to Ron Wood. Since you didn't make it privately to him by PM, but in the open Forum, I figure you welcome comments.
I agree dated commercial collector designations carry no evolutionary information relative to their official origins. However, I say that is neither necessary nor their purpose. Their purpose, from my point of view, is to provide a shortcut to a mental picture of the subject Luger, that's all. The excess verbiage adds nothing to the conversation that can't added later if called for. In my 63 years of Luger collecting I have never been mislead, or knew anyone who had, with erroneous date information, e.g. 1902 carbine, 1902 fat barrel, 1914 commercial, '23 commercial. With each one of the examples used I get a full mental picture, the purpose of the conventional use of these shortcuts. Further details can be discussed when all know they're on the "same page". I see Bill Reupke's 1916 Commercial designation based on the inception of the rebated sear bar as only a further refinement of the 1914 Commercial, itself a further refinement of the 1908 Commercial to indicate a stock lug and hold-open, replicating (a synonym of clone) a 1914 model P.08, except for commercial serial numbering and proofing. I haven't said anything here you don't understand, you just don't agree with any of it, which is ok. I do want to add, much of your research and opinions have already entered into convention and there will be more to come. Your efforts are much appreciated and I am sure I am joining a huge crowd when I say that. Thanks, Jack |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,908
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,330 Times in 435 Posts
|
Quote:
Jack, I think you have identified the crux of the matter beyond which we will not agree. The assemblage of Luger collector variations which has grown up over time has served the purpose, as you say, of providing experienced collectors a shorthand way to discuss, buy, and sell Lugers. The problem is, most of the accepted Luger collector designations are simply counterfactual. Casual repetition of these prevailing designations fosters the continuation of erroneous “conventional wisdom,” and it deceives the faith of new collectors—and experienced collectors as well, for that matter—who trust that more experienced collectors mean what they are talking about. The “shortcut to the mental picture” is an intellectual disservice if the shortcut itself is in error. This presents a bar to the casual Luger owner who simply wants to know about their Luger, or to historians or persons who simply want to read up on the topic. Conventional collector designations are not descriptive. A person with casual interest cannot understand anything about the topic until they have overcome the jargon of Luger collecting, only to discover that what they have learned is objectively wrong and must be explained away. More adequate collector designations would be based on physical characteristics or manufacturers’ designations, in as simple a notation as is practical. Yes, this application leads to more discussion (that is a good thing) as it becomes an integral part of a collector’s vocabulary. This is no different from conventional designations, particularly as more and more (dated) variations proliferate an must be explained. I regret that we cannot sit down together and have this conversation.. --Dwight |
|
|
|
|
| The following 2 members says Thank You to Dwight Gruber for your post: |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|