Another Circle S, the mystery is safe, more questions!

Dwight Gruber · 11-14-2015, 07:05 AM

Don,

I suggest you be very careful regarding this gun.

This pistol started out either as a DWM LP08 or an Erfurt after 1916. The toggle train appears to be Erfurt, but the rest of the pistol lacks Erfurt inspection marks.

There is no “1921 property mark”.

The sear safety rivet has been blued, along with the scrubbed chamber date. As the sear safety was not instituted until 1933, this poses a serious anachronism for the receiver and extension work, and the chamber numbers.

It might be illuminating to see a diagnostic-quality closeup of the e/6 receiver mark. It is true that the e/6 WaffenAmt inspector worked at Simson. However, there are three problems with its presence here:

1. The WaffenAmt did not work at Simson until their army contract began in 1925.

2. The WaffenAmt inspectors at Simson only concerned themselves with newly-manufactured parts.

3. The e/6 stamp on this gun is in the location reserved for receiver inspection and final (army) acceptance. There are no other marks on the pistol to support this usage.

I’m afraid that the “nail” is more likely to be in the coffin of originality of this pistol. There exist c-S pistols which have been “boosted” to enhance their value by the addition of Simson-like characteristics in order to take advantage of the conventional wisdom of the Simson connection (there used to be a particularly egregious example on the PIA website, I don’t know if it is still there).

I suspect that this is another example of the practice. Since the item is out of the Ralph Shattuck “collection”, I would be doubly wary.

--Dwight

11-14-2015, 07:05 AM	#14
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,908 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,330 Times in 435 Posts	Don, I suggest you be very careful regarding this gun. This pistol started out either as a DWM LP08 or an Erfurt after 1916. The toggle train appears to be Erfurt, but the rest of the pistol lacks Erfurt inspection marks. There is no “1921 property mark”. The sear safety rivet has been blued, along with the scrubbed chamber date. As the sear safety was not instituted until 1933, this poses a serious anachronism for the receiver and extension work, and the chamber numbers. It might be illuminating to see a diagnostic-quality closeup of the e/6 receiver mark. It is true that the e/6 WaffenAmt inspector worked at Simson. However, there are three problems with its presence here: 1. The WaffenAmt did not work at Simson until their army contract began in 1925. 2. The WaffenAmt inspectors at Simson only concerned themselves with newly-manufactured parts. 3. The e/6 stamp on this gun is in the location reserved for receiver inspection and final (army) acceptance. There are no other marks on the pistol to support this usage. I’m afraid that the “nail” is more likely to be in the coffin of originality of this pistol. There exist c-S pistols which have been “boosted” to enhance their value by the addition of Simson-like characteristics in order to take advantage of the conventional wisdom of the Simson connection (there used to be a particularly egregious example on the PIA website, I don’t know if it is still there). I suspect that this is another example of the practice. Since the item is out of the Ralph Shattuck “collection”, I would be doubly wary. --Dwight