Kriegs on Gunbroker....

John D. · 02-06-2004, 10:11 PM

Hey Doc,

I agree with you - both are excellent examples. While the 1943 mag looks like an overstamp (as George is aware of), it is properly proofed. As for the 1943 Chamber Date - yes - it is absolutely correct and follows the pattern with the "4" and the "3". While there were variances given the holder for the die striker/retainer piece to piece, most chamber dates follow a tell tale pattern of the numerals, their set and relation to the baseline.

As for the 1937 - if I didn't have one - I'd be bidding on this piece. I don't know the seller, so I hope the prospective buyers ask for some detail pics. Without a reserve, it can probably be acquired for less then the current dealer retail pricing - unless the "bidding frenzy" takes hold....

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

02-06-2004, 10:11 PM	#1
John D. Administrator & Site Owner LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Little NE of Somewhere... Posts: 2,651 Thanks: 477 Thanked 515 Times in 128 Posts	Hey Doc, I agree with you - both are excellent examples. While the 1943 mag looks like an overstamp (as George is aware of), it is properly proofed. As for the 1943 Chamber Date - yes - it is absolutely correct and follows the pattern with the "4" and the "3". While there were variances given the holder for the die striker/retainer piece to piece, most chamber dates follow a tell tale pattern of the numerals, their set and relation to the baseline. As for the 1937 - if I didn't have one - I'd be bidding on this piece. I don't know the seller, so I hope the prospective buyers ask for some detail pics. Without a reserve, it can probably be acquired for less then the current dealer retail pricing - unless the "bidding frenzy" takes hold....