1902 Test Eagle Holster?

Ron Wood · 08-26-2004, 03:37 AM

Guess I will have to stick my neck out a little here. I do not believe it is a commercial holster, nor do I think it is a revolver holster. I do not know much about early US military holsters, but I do not think the 1900 era revolver holsters were full flap as this one is.

I think the chances are very good that this holster is authentic. As has been noted, it is a non-standard "right-handed" version. All of the issue "left-handed" (or right-handed butt forward) that I have seen bear the RIA/E.H.S. stamp plus inspector's initials on the front flap. ALL of the right-handed versions that I have seen or have heard of DO NOT have any markings other than the US cartouche on the front flap (with the exception of the one that was offered a couple of times on auctions that had been made into a right-handed version by turning it inside out). My opinion on these right-handed holsters is that they were made up by the arsenal for possible consideration but were not meant to be issued, and therefore were not arsenal/inspector stamped.

I have personally seen and handled the right-hand holster formerly owned by John Morgan (photos of his consecutively numbered 1902 prototype Lugers are in Kenyon's "Lugers at Random") and now owned by John Eckert. It is identical to the holster in this discussion. There are at least four of these right-handed holsters in existence. I think the one Jan Still has pictured in Ã¢??Imperial LugersÃ¢?Â had the lanyard loop added because that was a feature of the Army service revolver holster at the time, so an example was made up as one of the options to consider.

These are my personal opinions and there is not a shred of evidence to substantiate my suggestions. It seems the trend lately to soundly trounce on suppositions or speculations (not necessarily on this forum) that havenÃ¢??t been previously written up by the pundits. But what the heck, it isnÃ¢??t any fun if you canÃ¢??t walk on the wild side and shake things up a bit once in a while.

Join in the fun and flame away <img border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" title="" src="graemlins/bigok.gif" /> ,
Ron

08-26-2004, 03:37 AM	#10
Ron Wood Moderator 2010 LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Santa Teresa New Mexico just outside of the West Texas town of El Paso Posts: 7,040 Thanks: 1,106 Thanked 5,257 Times in 1,724 Posts	Guess I will have to stick my neck out a little here. I do not believe it is a commercial holster, nor do I think it is a revolver holster. I do not know much about early US military holsters, but I do not think the 1900 era revolver holsters were full flap as this one is. I think the chances are very good that this holster is authentic. As has been noted, it is a non-standard "right-handed" version. All of the issue "left-handed" (or right-handed butt forward) that I have seen bear the RIA/E.H.S. stamp plus inspector's initials on the front flap. ALL of the right-handed versions that I have seen or have heard of DO NOT have any markings other than the US cartouche on the front flap (with the exception of the one that was offered a couple of times on auctions that had been made into a right-handed version by turning it inside out). My opinion on these right-handed holsters is that they were made up by the arsenal for possible consideration but were not meant to be issued, and therefore were not arsenal/inspector stamped. I have personally seen and handled the right-hand holster formerly owned by John Morgan (photos of his consecutively numbered 1902 prototype Lugers are in Kenyon's "Lugers at Random") and now owned by John Eckert. It is identical to the holster in this discussion. There are at least four of these right-handed holsters in existence. I think the one Jan Still has pictured in Ã¢??Imperial LugersÃ¢?Â had the lanyard loop added because that was a feature of the Army service revolver holster at the time, so an example was made up as one of the options to consider. These are my personal opinions and there is not a shred of evidence to substantiate my suggestions. It seems the trend lately to soundly trounce on suppositions or speculations (not necessarily on this forum) that havenÃ¢??t been previously written up by the pundits. But what the heck, it isnÃ¢??t any fun if you canÃ¢??t walk on the wild side and shake things up a bit once in a while. Join in the fun and flame away <img border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" title="" src="graemlins/bigok.gif" /> , Ron __________________ If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction