Faked- Boosted

[Herb]

Heintz, The way I figure it is if I have a luger that is numbered 2129z and the magazine is mismatched and someone has the 2129z magazine, why would this not be the original magazine for this weapon? I really don't think that this is 'boosting' it is matching original parts to the original weapon. What bothers me is the number of original magazines that are being sold on E-Bay that are unnumbered, I feel that these are the ones that are being 'boosted' to fit a mismatched gun.

[Doubs]

[quote]Originally posted by Herb:
<strong>Heintz, The way I figure it is if I have a luger that is numbered 2129z and the magazine is mismatched and someone has the 2129z magazine, why would this not be the original magazine for this weapon? I really don't think that this is 'boosting' it is matching original parts to the original weapon. </strong><hr></blockquote>

How would you know what year magazine 2129z was made? If you have gun 1915 2129z, how could you be certain that the mag you "match" to your pistol wasn't for 1914 or 1916 2129z?

[Marvin]

Doubs,

The "match the magazine" to your Luger can happen, and does on occasions from Don Hallock's Luger Magazine listing.

The reason you can be reasonably sure if the magazine is correct or not is that the inspectors stamps, type magazine (nickled, blued bodies, etc.) the type bottom all fit into a certain time period. With this, a magazine with a particular serial number and letter suffix can be matched to a certain pistol.

Don Hallock has a very good explanation for how each magazine can be matched correctly in his magazine listing. There are some folks that don't believe this, but it is proven that it can happen. it is still like finding a needle in a haystack, but I know one gentleman who did find the proper magazine that was originally with his pistol.

Marvin

[Heinz]

Gentleman, My point was not that there was anything dishonest or dubious about magazine matching. What I was noting was the increased value this gives to the Luger concerned. Historically we have changed the gun's provenance, yet the value is increased?? This seems to be inviting some of the problems we experience.

And I certainly meant nothing personal to present company.

[Marvin]

Heinz,

I agree with what you say! Many Luger collectors want the absolutly mint pieces and when they are found, they are expensive. But, have these MINT pistols been reworked, restored, enhanced, etc.? Some are so good I can't tell. A good example of this is a P.38 "0" Series a friend has; this pistol was restored and the job so good, I could tell it from a mint piece except that it seemed to be in too good of condition to be original. I guess that the only thing we can do is rely on our knowledge to recognize an enhanced firearm. I don;t see anything wrong with enhancement as long as the seller notes this to the buyer, but years down the road, we will never know the truth about that enhanced piece and it's enhancement will be lost forever.

When we see any Luger/weapons that is in absolutly mint condition, we need to check it very carefully. If it truly is original, where has it been over the past 50-80 years; in a desk all this time? If a pistol has been carried much at all in a holster, there will be some blue wear from the movement in the holster. The pistol will have a mint bore, nice color to the blue, little to no mechanical wear, but there should be some tell-tale sign of being in a holster.

Tough questions to answer and so many opinions! <img src="graemlins/icon501.gif" border="0" alt="[icon501]" />

Marvin

[Orv Reichert]

About 22 years ago, I acquired an absolutely beautiful restored 41/Banner police from Mike Krause in a trade. I sold the gun to Dave Sorroco as restored. He sold it to someone as restored.

Dave reported back that the new owner sent it to a world famous luger dealer/collector for appraisal who had certified it as being 100% original.

The new owner elected to accept that appraisal as the truth instead of what he had been told by the previous owners!

So much for honesty when money is involved!

Orv Reichert

[Roadkill]

Similar thing happened to a friend. He owns a telecom company and travels all over selling systems to who ever. He also loves guns. A bank chain with a branch office in a small town of about 10,000 in N. Alabama decided to upgrade phone systems. The old bank building was built in about 1920. Harold goes, in makes survey, writes up bid, and asks "Got any guns?". Sure did. Went back to the now unused vault with an ancient clerk showing the way, opened a drawer, pulled out a mint 1911 Colt 45. It had been bought by the origonal owner in 1920 and had never left the building, never been fired, had origonal ammo with it. Harold never told me what it cost him but you would argue passionately it had to have been reworked because of the condition. No wear whatsoever. And how will the collectors know the difference between a 1860 Colt Army made in 1860 and one made in 1985 in 2525?

RK

[Doubs]

Marvin, while I don't doubt that there are isolated instances of matching a mag to the original pistol, IMO it's neither common nor possible to be 100% certain in many cases.

Beginning in 1912, according to Jan Still in "Imperial Lugers", DWM made essentially the same mag until, by 1918, the bright finish gave way to an unfinished surface. Exactly when the change over took place is unclear. But, I think it safe to say that DWM made the same mags for a period of no less than 4 - 6 years. i.e., 1912 to possibly as late as 1917. Even if the period was only 4 years, the possibility of the mag being original to the gun is only 25%. If the period is extended to 6 years, the odds drop to less than 17%. The only exceptions to this would be if a sufix letter block of pistols were manufactured in some years but not others. I believe I've read that some LP-08's made by DWM later in the war were issued with as many as six magazines serialed to the gun. That would put the odds in a tail spin for some pistols while improving them for others.

Unless there exists specific and detailed information about magazine production numbers, finishes etc. that I'm unaware of, to remove the guess work, the best we can do in most instances is play the odds.

IMO, it's just not possible *in MOST instances* that a mag separated from it's original gun can be reunited with 100 percent certainty that they were issued together. That's just my opinion.

[wterrell]

[quote](I'm a 1860 Army man myself)
<hr></blockquote>

Dok,

......myself....!

(this is a scan, so there is no quality)

[Herb]

The numbers on matching magazines would not be repeated until 270,000 Lugers were manufactured. This is calculated on 10,000 Lugers in a production run using the 26 letters in the alphabet plus the 10,000 Luger magazines in the first run that had no suffix letters. There are the matching spares but they had the number '2' added, so I don't count them. Since the magazine design changed over the years, from nickel with wood bases, to blue with aluminum bases, plastic bases, different types, stamped, extruded, etc., I seriously doubt that 'several' magazines of the correct period existed. If, in fact, several magazines with exactly the same number/letter combination were made in each of the different periods of evolution then how can anyone be certain that any 'all matching' Luger does in fact have the exact magazine it was originally issued with, or did some fortunate individual locate a correct mag with the correct number for his Luger from the 'several' out there? <img src="graemlins/c.gif" border="0" alt="[ouch]" />

[Heinz]

Niether of my wooden based magazines has a letter suffix, just the 4 digit serial number. Should mags have a letter suffix??

[Herb]

Heintz, both of my wood bottom mags have a suffix letter, the nickel one is 7421a and the tin plated one is 5883l (L) Yours must be those of the first run, or the ones falling into the first 10,000 numbers of the run which would have no suffix letters.

[Frank]

Military Mauser magazines are defined by construction, both the alpha-numeric AND the acceptance marks. It is doubtful that two legit magazines could possibly exist for the same Luger, except for the spare (+ marked). <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />

[Doubs]

[quote]Originally posted by Herb:
<strong>The numbers on matching magazines would not be repeated until 270,000 Lugers were manufactured. This is calculated on 10,000 Lugers in a production run using the 26 letters in the alphabet plus the 10,000 Luger magazines in the first run that had no suffix letters. There are the matching spares but they had the number '2' added, so I don't count them. Since the magazine design changed over the years, from nickel with wood bases, to blue with aluminum bases, plastic bases, different types, stamped, extruded, etc., I seriously doubt that 'several' magazines of the correct period existed. If, in fact, several magazines with exactly the same number/letter combination were made in each of the different periods of evolution then how can anyone be certain that any 'all matching' Luger does in fact have the exact magazine it was originally issued with, or did some fortunate individual locate a correct mag with the correct number for his Luger from the 'several' out there? <img src="graemlins/c.gif" border="0" alt="[ouch]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

I refer you to page 15 of Jan Still's "Imperial Lugers" where observed serial number blocks are reported. There is no evidence, based on the shown information, to indicate that the full alphabet was ever used by either manufacturer in any given year. Note also that with the beginning of each year's production, the serial number sequence started all over again with 1, no suffix. If 1915 ended with the letter "l", as indicated in the chart, the first production of 1916 did not continue the sequence with "l" or follow with "m". 1916 began with number 1, no suffix. In no year did production actually reach your theoretical 270,000 Lugers. (Note that there is no letter "j" as the letters "i" and "j" interchange in the German alphabet.) Also note the estimated production for each year; only three of the years actually exceed 100,000 units..... a far cry from 270,000. In fact, estimated TOTAL production by DWM during the Imperial years is little more than twice 270,000 at 588,000.

As there should be no confusion between DWM and Erfurt produced mags because of the different way in which each manufacturer marked the mag base, I'll concentrate on DWM. Note that in 1915, standard Luger production and LP production overlapped on two blocks; no suffix and "a". Therefore each DWM ns and "a" production pistol has 4 serially matching mags out there. In 1916 the overlap extends to block "b" and in 1917, the overlap is a whopping 14 blocks! Every DWM Luger produced in 1917 from ns through "n" has 4 matching mags! 1918 only overlaps 6 blocks.

So, not only do we have identical serial numbers year after year from 1912 through 1918, we also have duplication within many of those years.

Kenyon, Still and Jones all agree that throughout production of Imperial Lugers, ALL magazines were made of crimped sheetmetal with wooden bottoms pinned at the rear. In other words, they were all made the same. However, Still reports that the semi-polished finish of 1912 gave way to an unfinished mag by 1918. Exactly when the change took place is unclear but certainly we can expect the semi-polished finish to have been through 1916 and possibly 1917. Therefore, how do you tell if a magazine was made in 1912, 1913, 1914 etc? I don't think anyone can with any degree of certainty.

Military issue matching spares used the "+" symbol and not "2". Police issue mags used "1" and "2". The magazine marked "+" is also numbered to, and issued with, the pistol so why wouldn't you consider it to be a "match"? Is a pistol with a "+" marked mag less desireable than one with a mag that is without the "+"? If it's one of the two mags issued with the pistol, it's a matching mag.

I've remained in the Imperial period because it's what I'm familiar with. Mauser produced Lugers may or may not be easier to mag-match with greater certainty. I'm really not up to snuff on them but I think it's clear that the chance of matching an Imperial Luger with precisely the mag the gun was issued with is less than favorable based on the odds.

[Herb]

Doubs, pretty good. If the information you have has any authenticity, then my chances of finding a matching mag has increased, not that it is important, the two I want are for referbs one of which has been 'sporterized'. I tend to disagree on one point, the numbering by year. Example, DWM is given a contract in 1912 for 22,000 Lugers, serial nembered 10,000a thru 10,000b sufixes plus the 2,000 without suffixes. Regardless of which letters weren't used they would continue the consecutive numbering until the end of the contract, without regard to the year of completion, perhaps 1914. I don't see how else this could have been managed by the procurement office. They surely didn't just let each company pick their own numbers, the would have to have been assigned. While I know of no comprehensive serial number listing, there are aparently records of who got a contract for how many at what point in time, DWM, Mauser, Erfurt etc., to make it more confusing there are the special contracts, Navy, Police, and others scattered around in there.

[Doubs]

[quote]Originally posted by Herb:
<strong>Doubs, pretty good. If the information you have has any authenticity, then my chances of finding a matching mag has increased, not that it is important, the two I want are for referbs one of which has been 'sporterized'. I tend to disagree on one point, the numbering by year. Example, DWM is given a contract in 1912 for 22,000 Lugers, serial nembered 10,000a thru 10,000b sufixes plus the 2,000 without suffixes. Regardless of which letters weren't used they would continue the consecutive numbering until the end of the contract, without regard to the year of completion, perhaps 1914. I don't see how else this could have been managed by the procurement office. They surely didn't just let each company pick their own numbers, the would have to have been assigned. While I know of no comprehensive serial number listing, there are aparently records of who got a contract for how many at what point in time, DWM, Mauser, Erfurt etc., to make it more confusing there are the special contracts, Navy, Police, and others scattered around in there.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Herb, my information has been extracted primarily from the books by Still, Kenyon and Jones. I also have Luger books by half a dozen, or more, other authors. I can't afford as many Lugers as I'd like so books by those who have done the research are the best option. While I bought my books by Still and a few others new, I was lucky enough to pick up books by some authorities second hand.

While I've stayed primarily with the military style of serial numbering, there's no question that production figures and the different types of serial numbering can throw a monkey wrench into the works. Jones, on page 45 of his book "Luger Variations", explains the military serial numbering system exactly as I said in my last post. However, I would agree with you that it likely wasn't as cut and dried as the system makes it seem. If there were 1914 receivers remaining at the end of the year, it's probable that they were finished and numbered as if done in the year 1914. I suppose it depends upon how far in advance the date was stamped on the receiver. If little lead time was given there would be minimal trouble finishing a year on time and beginning the new year with newly dated receivers.

Commercial and foreign contract guns supposedly had their own serial number ranges apart from military guns. Production could continue from one year to another without a problem or disrupting the serial number sequence. Domestic military production serial numbers, according to Jones, ran as I said; the first pistol of any new year was number 1 without a suffix number. It would appear that military contracts didn't call for specific serial numbers but were accepted according to the system being used. I believe the serial numbering system was by military directive as all military guns by all manufacturers used the exact same system. It wasn't devised by Erfurt or DWM or Mauser but they all had to use it. I believe German military rifle production also used the same system.

I would like to correct the figures I gave for DWM production. 588,000 total did not include 155,000 Artillery models or commercial and contract Lugers made before 1908. The total figure for DWM from 1900 through 1919 should have been between 911,000 and 914,000 depending upon the source. Erfurt production of all Lugers is estimated at 519,000.

You are absolutely correct about one thing: The military numbering system improved the chances of finding a mag with a number/letter to match your Imperial Luger. What a fascinating hobby!

<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />

[Herb]

Doubs, not to beat this thing to death but I was using info from one of the old masters, Fred Datig, with some bull thrown in. If you have his book, see page 15. He calculates that 12 to 15 lugers exist using the same serial number and suffix. I figured in combat losses, just plain wear, damage, etc. that would reduce this number even further, by how much I have no idea, maybe five or six remaining with the same exact number, located somewhere in the world in the hands of whoever, or in a box. I figure that finding a matching mag is such a rareity that I won't have to even consider it. Disregarding the suffixes, he figures 250-300 identical numbers exist. Whatever, it has made for an interesting exchange.

[Doubs]

Hi Herb,

Fred Datig's book was the first real book on the Luger that I had. (Hatcher's 1927 book "Pistols and Revolvers" devotes some pages to the Luger but it's written for practical use and not collectors.) Pop bought a copy in 1962 when the newest (at that time, anyway) edition was released. The price on the fly shows $8.50! It's tattered and worn but I still have it. It's a good read and contains a wealth of information. My only criticism is that it's not as well organized as it could be but that's minor. Of course, more resent research and information gathering has taken place resulting in corrections to some of Mr. Datig's data but that's to be expected. He still did a remarkable job, IMO.

It has indeed been an interesting exchange. I'm sure we'll have the opportunity to discuss other points later. For all we know about the Luger, there is always more to be learned. I learn something new about them almost every day on this forum.

[Edward Tinker]

Doubs and Herb, Datig was my first Luger book too, mine cost $26.95 probably 15 years ago. I still like it very much also, [img]smile.gif[/img]