Fake 1941 Krieghoff in Shattuck collection - Page 2

Jan C Still · 07-16-2002, 06:00 PM

Pete and John

In defense of Brad Simpson:
It appears that you are putting your words into Brad Simpson post. He does not make accusations. He observed and reported on luger photographs and captions in a published book by a highly respected author. He sets out
the facts and lets the reader connect or not connect the dots.

The Lugers shown on page 175 and 179 of "The Krieghoff Parabellum"(1980)are the same Luger. The only difference is that the Luger on page 179 has been refinished and has its original 1940 date changed to 1941. (The 1940 dated Luger belonged to Mr. Skinner and the 1941 dated Luger belongs/belonged to Mr. Shattuck.) In short, a more common Luger was altered to a much rarer Luger. As noted by lugerholsterrepair, a close look at the same serial number (11278) placed with a right upward skew, the machining in the safety well, , the exact location of the test proof, and the flattening of lower extreme of the knurled portion of the take down lever, leave no question that these two photographs show the exact same luger. It would be a wild goose chase to look for 1940 dated Krieghoff sn 11278. It no longer exists. It is now dated 1941 as shown in Mr. Gibsons book. Also, long ago Mr. Gibson confirmed that they are the same Luger and that the captions are correct.

Can not Mr. Shattuck speak for himself. He can easily log onto this site directly from his web site and post to all members of this Forum. John Dunkle is listed on Mr. Shattucks site as an alternate contact for the .45 carbine. Can not Johnn Dunkle persuade Mr. Shattuck to post on this forum. Its time for Mr. shattuck to speak out and clear the air. I encourage Mr. Shattuck to post his explanations directly on this Forum.

I would sure like to see someone like John D., John S., or Pete S. become equally concerned about the replica 1916 and 1917 dated Navy Lugers that are having a devastating effect on the less experienced collectors on this Forum. Brad Simpson's post was invaluable in pinning down the circumstances of the distribution of these replica Navy Lugers.

This forum is indeed fortunate to have a person of the caliber of Brad Simpson who has the courage to speak up on issues of concern to new
collectors. Lets hope that he is encouraged to remain on this Forum.

Pete, pigs cant fly but do boosted and faked Lugers.
Jan C. Still

07-16-2002, 06:00 PM	#1
Jan C Still User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Box 240188, Douglas, Alaska, 99824 Posts: 463 Thanks: 0 Thanked 52 Times in 32 Posts	Fake 1941 Krieghoff in Shattuck collection Pete and John In defense of Brad Simpson: It appears that you are putting your words into Brad Simpson post. He does not make accusations. He observed and reported on luger photographs and captions in a published book by a highly respected author. He sets out the facts and lets the reader connect or not connect the dots. The Lugers shown on page 175 and 179 of "The Krieghoff Parabellum"(1980)are the same Luger. The only difference is that the Luger on page 179 has been refinished and has its original 1940 date changed to 1941. (The 1940 dated Luger belonged to Mr. Skinner and the 1941 dated Luger belongs/belonged to Mr. Shattuck.) In short, a more common Luger was altered to a much rarer Luger. As noted by lugerholsterrepair, a close look at the same serial number (11278) placed with a right upward skew, the machining in the safety well, , the exact location of the test proof, and the flattening of lower extreme of the knurled portion of the take down lever, leave no question that these two photographs show the exact same luger. It would be a wild goose chase to look for 1940 dated Krieghoff sn 11278. It no longer exists. It is now dated 1941 as shown in Mr. Gibsons book. Also, long ago Mr. Gibson confirmed that they are the same Luger and that the captions are correct. Can not Mr. Shattuck speak for himself. He can easily log onto this site directly from his web site and post to all members of this Forum. John Dunkle is listed on Mr. Shattucks site as an alternate contact for the .45 carbine. Can not Johnn Dunkle persuade Mr. Shattuck to post on this forum. Its time for Mr. shattuck to speak out and clear the air. I encourage Mr. Shattuck to post his explanations directly on this Forum. I would sure like to see someone like John D., John S., or Pete S. become equally concerned about the replica 1916 and 1917 dated Navy Lugers that are having a devastating effect on the less experienced collectors on this Forum. Brad Simpson's post was invaluable in pinning down the circumstances of the distribution of these replica Navy Lugers. This forum is indeed fortunate to have a person of the caliber of Brad Simpson who has the courage to speak up on issues of concern to new collectors. Lets hope that he is encouraged to remain on this Forum. Pete, pigs cant fly but do boosted and faked Lugers. Jan C. Still