1906 DWM factory presentation

[Pete Ebbink]

Alvin,

When I saw that pristine M1900 Swiss commercial, initially, I was stunned with the thought of "how can a gun 105 years old" look that good" ???

The photo that swayed me to the "original" side of my internal debate was this barrel photo which seems to indicate barrel "halos" which usually do not survive a re-do well...

Although the owner was selling off most of his collection, this SN 14 was remaining in his safe.

[alvin]

Pete -- I noticed the halo earlier. That's on the barrel though and the barrel on Parabellum is removable (I don't know how hard it is). The witness mark looks good. I'm lost here.

This gun must cost 5 digit..... Is the bore minty?

[Ron Wood]

Alvin,

I think Pete posted that photo for you to sink your teeth into, and I believe you did so correctly and made very good observations. Lots of Swiss Lugers have been restored/refurbished, usually by the Swiss who took pride in their firearms and had no qualms about keeping them in top mechanical and cosmetic condition. This Luger is no exception...it has been restored but that does not diminish its status as a fine example of a very early Luger. I have no problem with that just as I would never accept it as being "factory original", the apparent barrel halos notwithstanding.

The presentation Luger posted by Anna is a fine example of a momento made for or given to someone. Of course it has been refinished, how else could there be blue in the engraving? The statement "In regards to German engraving from the early Imperial era, it was very classical and elegant. All the correct presentation Lugers (and Mausers) which I have examined had very fine quality engraving done at the factory and not the deep/chiselled cuts as shown on your pistol" has no relevance since this obviously is not a factory presentation piece. It is a custom work by an individual or company such as in the ad posted by Gerben for a private party. The engraving does not have the finesse of a master engraver, but it is quite passable. The scrolls and curves are not smoothly executed and the cross hatching is less than masterful. However, the depth of some the cuts suggest that they were cut with a graver and hammer. Usually that results in a "stepped" appearance that is easily visible under magnification. It is barely evident, if at all, in this engraving because who ever executed it took the time to chase the cuts with a burin to smooth them out. That is a step that even some of the masters didn't do.

The near pristine condition of the Luger does not necessarily mean that it was created in the recent past. It is a presentation piece and has spent the majority of its life in a case, protected from the effects of oxidation and the dimming of its finish by UV exposure.

I understand the desire to educate the novice collector about the pitfalls that pollute our hobby. But I do get a bit weary of the constant barrage of analysis that is stated in quite specific terms as if it was a dead certainty. Unless you have the gun in hand, criticism should be constructive and limited, not drawn out at extreme length and to a microscopic level. I keep reminding folks that you can't make a final analysis from photos.

With apologies, I will now get off of my soapbox.

[Pete Ebbink]

Alvin,

The owner of SN 14 and I never discussed price/value and I did not learn of the bore's condition. But I think Simpson LTD has had them for over $ 14K in the past year or so.

I did not aspire to add Swiss commercial guns so never pursued this one beyond getting these photos and helping two Members of the LF get together with the Owner in buying other guns in his collection...(Swiss and HK Lugers...).

Ron,

I got a good chuckle out of your Mona Lisa comment...

Just a week ago I was reading that some recent analysis has proven (to some folks, at least...) that there may be as many as 3 slightly differing versions of that gal under all that cracked paint...results of some restorations during the past couple of hundred years.

BTW...the BU proofs along the left side of SN 14's receiver flat are very strong and deep stampings...you usually loose those even to some Swiss refurbishments, don't you...?

I still want to believe SN 14 is all original (i.e. DWM original...).

[Ron Wood]

Pete,
Unless there is damage, it is not necessary to remove metal for restoration, just remove the old blue and a *very* light sanding to restore "grain" and remove residual oxidation. Also, most of the points that Alvin made about #14 are directed at the frame, the barrel receiver may not have been refurbished. Notice the domed appearance of the internal portions of the crowns, the B and the U. If they had received any extensive refinishing there would be some flat spots, so I will accept that the barrel/receiver may very well be DWM original. I don't think the three "dots" are of any consequence, handling marks that small could happen at any time during final finishing and not necessitate any remedial action.

[Pete Ebbink]

Thanks, Ron...I understand your points and agree.

[Pete Ebbink]

Alvin,

Besides the polished safety area, here is another area to look for on a M1906 Luger...i.e. the shape and color of the pin through the left toggle knob.

Also look for the depth of the DWM-scroll on the toggle.

[Imperial Arms]

Originally posted by Ron Wood
The presentation Luger posted by Anna is a fine example of a momento made for or given to someone. Of course it has been refinished, how else could there be blue in the engraving? The statement "In regards to German engraving from the early Imperial era, it was very classical and elegant. All the correct presentation Lugers (and Mausers) which I have examined had very fine quality engraving done at the factory and not the deep/chiselled cuts as shown on your pistol" has no relevance since this obviously is not a factory presentation piece. It is a custom work by an individual or company such as in the ad posted by Gerben for a private party. The engraving does not have the finesse of a master engraver, but it is quite passable. The scrolls and curves are not smoothly executed and the cross hatching is less than masterful. However, the depth of some the cuts suggest that they were cut with a graver and hammer. Usually that results in a "stepped" appearance that is easily visible under magnification. It is barely evident, if at all, in this engraving because who ever executed it took the time to chase the cuts with a burin to smooth them out. That is a step that even some of the masters didn't do.

The near pristine condition of the Luger does not necessarily mean that it was created in the recent past. It is a presentation piece and has spent the majority of its life in a case, protected from the effects of oxidation and the dimming of its finish by UV exposure.

I understand the desire to educate the novice collector about the pitfalls that pollute our hobby. But I do get a bit weary of the constant barrage of analysis that is stated in quite specific terms as if it was a dead certainty. Unless you have the gun in hand, criticism should be constructive and limited, not drawn out at extreme length and to a microscopic level. I keep reminding folks that you can't make a final analysis from photos.

With apologies, I will now get off of my soapbox.

I agree with Ron's opinion that this presentation Luger has been refinished, but an in hand examination by an expert would be required to determine the originality of the refinish. The engraving on the chamber is definitely a custom job and not engraved at the DWM factory by a master engraver, therefore, this Luger is not a factory engraved Luger as believed by Anna.

It is satisfying to observe that this discussion was constructive and conducted in a proper manner. As Ron indicated, analysis should not be pushed to extremes using microscopic precision, although good macro images can be helpful to reveal some features and characteristics on the surface.

Albert

[Pete Ebbink]

Anna,

Back to your opening posting...a couple of items to mention :

1. The TD tool may be a WWII tool with the E/63 proof.

2. The large loop cleaning rod, if I recall correctly, is usually attributed to the Weimar (1920's to early 1930's) period, usually police-issued.

[Ron Wood]

One final note (maybe!) on Anna's Luger. The fact that it lacks any proofs may indicate that it was delivered "in the white" to whatever facility performed the custom work. Lugers, primarily early models, do turn up from time to time without any proof marks (and no evidence that they have been removed). I have often wondered why this would be.

[Dwight Gruber]

Ron,

Of course not the final word, I am of the understanding that Lugers were always proofed "in the white." The early guns without proofs would be destined for non-European sales--this gun could not have been sold on the market in Germany or elsewhere on the continent; it would have been proofed -before- leaving the factory. The absence of proofs here, along with the absence of GERMANY, are what really vex me.

--Dwight

[StarOfTheWest]

Originally posted by Pete Ebbink
Anna,

Back to your opening posting...a couple of items to mention :

1. The TD tool may be a WWII tool with the E/63 proof.

2. The large loop cleaning rod, if I recall correctly, is usually attributed to the Weimar (1920's to early 1930's) period, usually police-issued.

I am not at all surprised by this.
As I had initially posted, the box did not look old enough to be contemporary to the gun.
The set of tools was most likely added later.
Overall, this gun sure has inspired some lively and interesting discussion, and I thank everyone for their opinions and posts.

[A.Mifsin]

Hi, why beneath the thumb safety is white and not blued. Was there a time that Lugers were blued that way? Thank you all.
Alf

[alvin]

I heard that area was polished intentionally as a visual help to the user -- if he sees that white area being exposed, the safety is on. Obviously, it's a better design than the later German word "G...." (I forgot how to spell it)... it's hard to guess the meaning of the word for non-German-speaking users.... safe? danger? take a chance.

One thing I am trying to figure out -- when was this feature canncelled? Was it dropped when the "New Model" appeared? Thanks.

[Pete Ebbink]

.

Generally...the "polished" safety area (of the thumb safety lever) was used on the M1900 Lugers...M1906 Lugers appear with both polished and "marked" indicators such as "Gesichert" and others in other languages...and the "marked" Geischert safety indicator predominates with the M1908 Luger...

But many exceptions abound...take for example...the Swiss Lugers...they stayed with the "polished" safety indicator all through their M1900's, their M1906's and their '24 Bern Lugers...only changing to a "S" indicator for their M1929 Bern Lugers.

It is not a "black & white" issue on when the change occured...

[Ron Wood]

The first "safety" marked Luger was the 1900 Bulgarian, although, like the later Bulgarian and Russian Lugers, it was marked "fire" instead of "safe" and the gun was ready to rock and roll when you could see the marking.

[Pete Ebbink]

Here is a safety marking study Harry Jones had in his book "Luger Variations" on page 240 :

[A.Mifsin]

Thank you all, you great
Alf.