This 1899 Parabellum sold for a huge amount of money today...

[Ron Wood]

Fair enough Herb. I am glad you are content with excuses like the "thickness of the so called wings on the front face of the rear toggle varied in thickness", but I would hope that you realize that this isn't a very convincing line of argument. Your statement about "the later alleged "pre-production" models" is also a bit of mystery...who is alleging what? I know that Mike and I do not see eye-to-eye on the assessment of some of these pieces (remember old #10!) but I can live with that. It doesn't shake my opinions in the least! I was initially of the opinion that #20 was the first genuine pre-production piece to show up on the US auction market, but an unemotional examination of the piece convinced me otherwise. and I documented my concerns in considerable detail. As I stated once before, as much as I respect Mike's opinions, I am more than willing to stand toe-to-toe with him on these early pieces.

[drbuster]

Ron, well said, and I respect your learned opinions on this subject. You have seen many more of these questionable "prototype" lugers than I. I did hold the BL#5 in my hands for a few moments but I don't know what that proves about the later prototypes, preproduction models and the first actual production models...actually nothing. I know what I know through reading Geoff Sturgiss, your postings in the past, Albert's postings and the mentoring of Michael Krause, who I feel very lucky to live near. There is obviously much that is unknown for certain, a great deal of speculation, etc. In the end, all this serves to place one very much in doubt when perusing a possible prototype for sale, because how can you trust the "expert" that is authenticating it, not to mention the big bucks involved. I guess the only prototypes that are beyond question are BL#5 and 6. What may also complicate the situation is not knowing how much "updating" may have been added to prototypes by Swiss armorers. All I can say is #20 is a pretty luger, but is it actually a prototype? Each observer (providing he has actually examined it) must form his own conclusions.

[alvin]

Sorry to ask this, but, was Swiss pistol trial like today's World Miss Competition -- a group of guns were put on table and commission scoring them by looking? Any trial procedure documented? Walter did not document any test details.

[Vlim]

Alvin,

A lot has been written about the early trials but basically the procedure was:

-A 'contest' is held whereby several pistols of several suppliers are being tested against each other and reference guns.
-From that 'contest' a few winners emerge. These go to the next round, improvements can be made, more thorough testing is done until finally a favorite emerges.
-Then the favorite is subjected to field trials. A sample amount of pistols is divided over a representative part of the army, preferably all departments and it is tested in practice for a while.
-Then a decision is made to either accept or reject the gun.

Many pistols described as 'prototypes' actually are field trial guns.

[Ron Wood]

Albert,
Interesting commentary. Most of your broadside is aimed at Geoff Sturgess, so other than my observations on the chamber marking (more on that later) I’m not sure which “some of your points and opinions” you are addressing to me. For example, your direct address to me “Do you really believe that pistols (which were purchased by the Swiss government) had to go back to DWM for modification…” is odd in that I never made any such assertion (but although I didn’t espouse that premise, there is compelling evidence in its favor).

I have no interest in joining the fray, but I will say that I do not find your opinions and conjectures any more compelling than those of Sturgess. Where did you get 1-20 as the serial number range of the 1899 Swiss trials guns? Serial numbers 5 and 6 are known to be 1898 guns so might one logically assume that 1, 2, 3 and 4 were also 1898 prototypes? Although #19 and #21 are similar, #19 is unmodified and has the original preproduction thin trigger that was one of the objections stated by the Swiss Commission. Consequently, #21, one of the “assumed” Commission “gifts”, has been retrofitted with the ultimately approved production type trigger...perhaps an indication of the aforementioned return to DWM for retrofitting/modification? Your own #18, which I understand is a bone of contention between you and Sturgess (hence your unbridled animosity), also exhibits post trial modification in that although it retains the square toggle joint interface, it has the production type reinforced rear sight, production style trigger and 1900 style wide lateral abutments on the rear toggle link. Your gun looks good to me from the photos, but if I were to subscribe to your line of reasoning, I would declare it of dubious pedigree (which I don’t).

Your comment “assuming that it is a correct pistol” does strike a responsive note. I wish the photos in the Kessler auction were of higher resolution, particularly of the serial number on the toggle. That was one of the downfalls (one of several) of #20 on the Rock Island Auction; the font was not consistent with other early pieces.

I will admit I find Sturgess' research a lot more scholarly than your totally unsubstantiated thoughts on what DWM would or would not have done. You state “it is reported that serial #21-#26 were British Test Trial pistols”. Reported by whom? If you are quoting Sturgess in an effort to debunk his thesis, at least do it accurately. His British Test Trial list is #18 (yours, which Sturgess indicates was modified for the British trials…see my comments above), #23, #25, #26 and #30. Number 21 isn’t included in the mix.

You state “It is my opinion that those pistols given to the Swiss Commission were in a separate serial range after the 1899 Test Trials using old and new parts in stock”. Really?...based on what? You are correct; it is only your opinion, regardless of what convictions you have regarding its validity. It is only pure conjecture, not a solid foundation for your assertions and not a substantive argument countering Sturgess’ account.

Almost all of your fourth paragraph is personal opinion (which is OK as long as you acknowledge it is not based on concrete evidence or documentation). Your dialogue is rambling and the quoted serial number sequences are incorrect and inconsistent. You very well may have a valid case, but I suggest you calm down, properly organize your thoughts and present a more cohesive and compelling argument. In your zeal to vilify Sturgess you are attempting to paint me with the same brush…and as much as I have enjoyed our friendship to this point, I am not sure I appreciate that.

On a final note, getting back to the chamber marking, have you personally examined #19 to determine that it does not have the “dot”? How do you know that #10 does not have the “dot”…it has been heavily modified as a prototype M29 (now numbered V1 and maintained in the Swiss arsenal collection)? Another M1899, #15 also in the Swiss collection, has been made into yet another M29 prototype, V3, and it does have the “dot”. And if you read the Kessler auction write-up it clearly states “pantografiertem Schweizerkreuz mit Zentrierpunkt in der Mitte”. Oops, I forgot…you claim you do not read German (although I firmly believe you have more than sufficient intellect to decipher German if you have the desire and take the time to do so). Allow me to translate: “pantographed Swiss cross with [a] centering point in the middle”. They are all wet about the pantographing, but their reference to a “centering point” (“dot”) is unmistakable. Your assertion that “that a German engraver in the DWM factory from that period would have been able to engrave any design on a curved surface without having to use an indexing “dot” is no doubt true, but is irrelevant since the chamber markings are not engraved but created with a punch or die.

In short, you have ticked me off and I am too old and grumpy to take your disagreement with another individual and let you lay it off on me.
Cheers, and have a good day.

[policeluger]

blood pressure....gotta' watch the ol' blood pressure Ron, we want you around for a few more years....

[sheepherder]

I don't usually read this Forum but this thread is interesting...But I'm a bit confused, as the proper names used in the text don't match the usernames in the left columns...Albert, Herb, Geoff...Hard to figure out who is replying to whom...

[alvin]

Hmm.... from context:

Albert is "Imperial Arms";
Herb must be "drbuster";
Geoff is not here, but he pulished something on the subject (?)
Ron is Ron;
Charles is "Land Of Borchardt dot com"

[Imperial Arms]

I made a small error in my previous post regarding the serial range of the M1899 pistols which should be serial numbers 10-30 instead of 1-20. However, that error does not change the point of my explanation relating to the events surrounding the M1899 pistols. Basically, it is my opinion that the the twenty M1899 pistols which were delivered to the Swiss Trials (which were probably heavily used in different tests) were not collected afterwards from different areas of Switzerland for returned to the DWM factory for modification and refurbishment and 18 months later given as gifts to the Swiss Commission as well as six pistols from the same lot being delivered to the British in the first quarter of 1901.

I shall provide soon some other comments to explain why returning pistols for modification and refurbishment is illogical.

Albert

[Ron Wood]

Thank you Albert. I look forward to your logical explaination.

[Imperial Arms]

Ron,

I do not see the reason for you to be ‘ticked off’ when I am writing a commentary about the early Lugers which we share a common interest. I did not insult you (yes, I do utterly hate Geoff), but I do differ on some of the positions that you may advocate which have been mentioned in Geoff’s article. I never want to compare myself with Geoff, and his research on the early Swiss Lugers is more like a comic book instead of a scholar. Furthermore, his unscrupulous ‘Anglo-Latino’ ties are shocking indeed and some of this shady activity goes back to the early 1990’s. If you are unaware, traces of his involvement in fake guns have recently reappeared, so before he had condemned any pistol and never makes a rightful retraction, he should look at himself in the mirror. You seem to become sensitive when other people try to question your views and maybe old age is creeping up on you (just teasing). I would like to correct you that I am NOT attempting to paint you with the same brush that I am using on Geoff, but I do not see how you may give some benefit to his story that a handful of M1899 pistols were modified, renumbered and afterwards delivered 18 months later to the UK. Do you really give any weight to such fiction?

Before I specifically answer some of your remarks/comments, I would first like to highlight some undisputed facts which are very important in understanding German heritage and manufacturing:

1. The Loewe family was very powerful financially and politically, plus they owned the DWM factory, the Mauser factory and a large share of the FN factory;
2. The DWM factory (including the Mauser factory) made their own machine tools and equipment for manufacturing various parts of pistols and rifles. I recently read an engineering report set (published in German, English, French and Spanish) about the Mauser factory which was distributed to various libraries including shipyards and also to the main German passenger cruise ships. This report gave a fantastic account on Paul and Wilhelm Mauser including the organized working environment for the employees at the factory without allowing the highest level of quality to be compromised. It went to further to explain how the German workers were so proud of their heritage, family, loyalty, standards, discipline and skills, proving that the DWM factory would have been exactly the same or better;
3. The work force was highly skilled and quality control was impeccable, especially for a Luger pistol which was going to have a ‘GL’ hallmark. If there is any confusion about German standards around that period, maybe we should try imagining ourselves working in a German factory such as DWM or Mauser – its conditions functioned like a Rolex watch with precision. The slightest visible error/flaw on a special firearm would have resulted in a rejection.

Although Geoff has a PhD in physics, writes the Queens English as well as having a large collection which he simply bought with his wealth, these variables are still not enough to generate an accurate knowledge base or reputation to share with other collectors, and I wonder why many collectors still believe his bull****? I suppose that their connection with a man having a huge collection might give them more recognition in the collectors’ society – wrong.

I would like to explain to you why I have compelling arguments that the twenty pistols serial #10-#30 would have NOT been collected up in various areas of Switzerland and returned to the DWM factory for refurbishment and modification. Firstly, why waste time and money to fetch twenty pistols that were probably heavily used in various tests and afterwards consider them for gifts or further testing in another country as refurbished pistols?

Secondly, these twenty M1899 pistols (plus ammunition) were PURCHASED by the Swiss Government, and how could ten refurbished pistols be considered as a ‘gift’ (to the Swiss Commission after the M1899 trials) if they were originally purchased from DWM after some M1898 Luger pistols won the trials of 1898 and DWM also received a prize of SF 5,000? “You want to give me my pistols as a gift which I bought?” – Come on, I have never read such nonsense! This matter would have been seen as a joke by the Swiss Commission. It would show more confidence and assurance for a company (DWM) to give new pistols to a commission instead of used-refurbished pistols, otherwise, the whole corporate objective of meeting certain quality standards would be completely diluted. In my opinion, the newly assembled pistols for the British where the Swiss cross still appears on the chamber was to demonstrate that the Swiss Government were in the process of adopting the Luger pistol.

Thirdly, it would be a big embarrassment to Mr. Loewe and his prestigious German factory to lower their honor and standards by supplying refurbished pistols when trying to obtain a significant contract for the Swiss Army. Obviously, it would be cheaper to assemble new pistols with parts in inventory which have been improved and/or reinforced – I have observed this occurrence in some early ‘System Mauser’ pistols and there would be no major difference in the manufacturing process with parts for early Luger pistols. I do not recall the Mauser factory never having to chase down pistols in different regions of Germany during the German (cavalry) trials of 1898 or shortly afterwards from a foreign country (Turkey) for delivery to another country!

My various explanations makes me believe that pistol #21 is a true M1899 delivered for the Swiss Trials of 1899, and my M1900 pistol serial #13 (with a couple of improvements) is likely one of the 10 or 20 ‘GL’ presentation pistols given to each member of the Swiss Commission at the end of the trials. Furthermore, I cannot believe that only 40 pistols in total would have been made between 1898 and the first quarter of 1901 (Swiss – Dutch – British trails) when the Mauser factory was able to make over a thousand C96 pistols for commercial sales, and 460 Large Ring C96 pistols for the two German Army Tests of July 1898 and January 1899. It is also possible that serial #13 in my collection is the only surviving example which was a gift and the other pistols have not yet surfaced. By the way, a similar pattern occurred in the Mauser factory where ‘System Mauser’ cutaways (probably dealer samples) were recorded in a separate serial range. I do not believe that a M1899 pistol (such as #21 with an early thin trigger) would be left alone and given as a gift after the Swiss Commission made a complaint against this type of trigger. (If you refer to the image in the Kessler auction catalog, you made a mistake in mentioning that serial #21 (M1899) has been retrofitted with a standard trigger at the DWM factory – nope, it still has the early thin preproduction trigger. In addition, serial #19 is slightly modified by a Swiss Arsenal having a replaced barrel and a thicker extractor). It is possible that that pistol serial #21 being in very good condition was lucky to escape the harsh conditions of a trial, instead somebody decided to save this pistol and only give it a gentle examination like serial #5 (M1898). I have had the opportunity to examine twice serial #5 in my hands and it is possible that the rear toggle link (square) cracked at the narrow corner during the 1898 trials which was replaced by a new part (no ‘GL’ present) where the ‘belly’ was made flat to help reduce the weight of the pistol. The pistol did not have to go back to the DWM factory to replace this part, whereas suggestions were being noted for changes/modifications to pistol serial #6 which did go back to the DWM factory for improvements, but it was not tested – probably only inspected for its improvements until the twenty M1899 pistols would arrive for the second trial.

Lastly, if the indexing dot is a point that was used/created during the design of the Swiss cross on the M1899 pistols, then it should appear pronounced on every single pistol made between serial #10-#30 which is not the case. I do not remember seeing an indexing dot on serial #10 (V1) when I had examined it in my hands (the upper receiver is correct), nor does my M1900 pre-production Luger serial #13 have a dot. Furthermore, if you observe the image of pistol serial #19 in Reinhardt’s book, it does not have an indexing dot in the center of the cross and I guess that we all agree that this particular pistol is original except for the replaced barrel. I suppose that just because serial #21 (M1899) and #26 (M1900) have an indexing dot automatically means that all the M1899 pistols should have the same dot in the same exact place. Probably Geoff got a hard-on while writing his Swiss-Anglo connection story without his intelligence realizing that it would end up in an anti-climax. Frankly, I do not accept a national crest being defaced on a ‘GL’ pistol – it is tacky workmanship, and a prestigious German factory would have not allowed this to happen. If I was in charge of quality control at the DWM factory, I would have asked “what is this damn ugly dot doing in the middle of a national symbol?”

Ron, I enjoy exchanging views/opinions with you, however, I reckon that your consideration of other peoples opinions that makes no valid sense based on old German heritage sometimes falls outside of being realistic. I wish that my German language was better, but even with my limited German, I am learning everyday what the Germans stood for during the imperial era and I am also proud of this quality.

Cheers,
Albert

[Vlim]

The Loewe family was very powerful financially and politically, plus they owned the DWM factory, the Mauser factory and a large share of the FN factory.

Correct. Loewe family members were even on the board of Nordenfeldt, and Vickers (after the Vickers - Nordenfeldt merger).

The DWM factory (including the Mauser factory) made their own machine tools and equipment for manufacturing various parts of pistols and rifles.

Correct. Although initially the pistol and rifle machine tooling was made by Loewe. They advertise with this, as late as 1913. I have an original Loewe tools brochure dating from 1912. Mauser first made it's own inhouse tooling and gauges, this later (post WW1) developed into the Mauser Measuring Tools business.

DWM was specialized in the production of ammunition production lines, packaging machines and heavy presses.

I recently read an engineering report set (published in German, English, French and Spanish) about the Mauser factory which was distributed to various libraries including shipyards and also to the main German passenger cruise ships. This report gave a fantastic account on Paul and Wilhelm Mauser including the organized working environment for the employees at the factory without allowing the highest level of quality to be compromised. It went to further to explain how the German workers were so proud of their heritage, family, loyalty, standards, discipline and skills, proving that the DWM factory would have been exactly the same or better;

This must be seen in a more relative manner. Promotional material like this will tend to describe the company as the next best thing to heaven. More about this later.

The work force was highly skilled and quality control was impeccable, especially for a Luger pistol which was going to have a ‘GL’ hallmark. If there is any confusion about German standards around that period, maybe we should try imagining ourselves working in a German factory such as DWM or Mauser – its conditions functioned like a Rolex watch with precision. The slightest visible error/flaw on a special firearm would have resulted in a rejection.

Ah, yes. German quality. Like Swiss clockwork it is basically a myth. I have been involved in German technology for many years and can state without hesitation that the Germans are also just human beings. Screwups are made on a regular basis, like anywhere else. The luger design, although classic, and certainly it's production process are flawed in more ways than one. In fact, the rediculous production methods used are what killed off the commercial viability of the pistol in the end. It was just too expensive to produce. This is not 'quality', this is a design failure in my opinion.

So let's come down to earth and accept that Loewe, DWM and Mauser were companies like any other. Their quality control was very good, their production methods were questionable at times but the quality control managed to prevent the screw ups from reaching the buying public.

Ludwig Loewe, the founder of the Loewe company deserves credit for several innovations. He introduced the American concept of automated mass production, based on the large scale production of American sewing machines, into the German industry. He also introduced the concepts of quality control and production standardization, the forerunner of the German DIN and current ISO standards. Ludwig died, relatively young, in 1886.

Isidor Loewe, his brother, who took over the management when Ludwig died, was not a technical expert like his brother, but he was an excellent commercial thinker. He laid the basis for the success of DWM and Mauser and his cunning mind made sure the Turkish rifle contract (which was the financial basis for the success) became successfull. Isidor died in 1910.

Sigmund Loewe, third brother, was an excellent accountant and managed to turn the struggling Nordenfeldt and Vickers, Sons and Maxim companies into a successfull conglomerate. After his death in 1904, Albert Vickers took his seat in the board of the Loewe company.

All saw the need for good job training, caring for and educating their workers and providing a good social platform. This in turn created continuity, relatively good worker loyalty and relatively good product quality.

Albert is right, however, in stating that understanding the industry and mentality of the days helps understanding (and debunking) the products they made.

[alvin]

Could Swiss return 20 trial guns back to German to get some discount for the new ordering? I heard some used TE 1900 were returned to German this way.... not big money for a country, but government loved the game of spending thousands to "save" taxpayer hundreds, and weird enough, that's counted as credit.

Just speculation.

[Michael Zeleny]

In regard to #21, a well known Swiss collector reports from the auction: "No questions to authenticity and provenance of that Luger. I handled, checked and inspected it, and also a few others, before the auction. It was owned in the same family from the beginning, the present (resp. former owner) being the grandson of the first owner. He shot it regularly until recently, when he decided to stop shooting due to age and thought he would get about Sfr. 2000.- to 3000.-, as for a nice original Swiss Luger 00 . However, Werner knew at once what it was …."

[drbuster]

Gentlemen, I thoroughly enjoyed your learned and well written remarks based on experience and conjecture. What really bothers me is that given the fact the Switzerland was never invaded, bombed, torched, or otherwise destroyed during the 20th century wars, why aren't any concrete records regarding arrival, acceptance, testing and modification of the early prototype, pre-production and the earliest military lugers available? One would think that somewhere (possibly in the Bern museum or Swiss libraries) records would exist.

[Ron Wood]

Albert,
That is a reasoned and reasonable reply (although I wish some of your language was not quite so crude... I know you are angry and frustrated but you are articulate enough not to need to resort to that level). I have several countering observations to make, but I do not have enough time right now to draft an appropriate response. But rest assured one will follow shortly !
All the best,
Ron

[Imperial Arms]

Originally Posted by alvin

Could Swiss return 20 trial guns back to German to get some discount for the new ordering? I heard some used TE 1900 were returned to German this way.... not big money for a country, but government loved the game of spending thousands to "save" taxpayer hundreds, and weird enough, that's counted as credit.

Just speculation.

Hello Alvin,

You bring up an interesting 'business' topic about what had occurred later with some M1900 TE pistols (to obtain 50 samples of the M1902 Cartridge Counter) or a means to get a discount for a larger order. Could have something similar happened earlier with the twenty purchased M1899 Swiss pistols where they were returned to the DWM factory and NEW improved M1900 pistols (such as my M1900 'GL' serial #13) to be given as some form of 'sweetner' to the Swiss Commission? It could be possible, but plenty of speculation and unknowns still remain. It was not necessary for DWM to give pistols as gifts to a government commission (to the best of my knowledge, no 'GL' pistols were given to the Dutch, British or US commission officers during their trials), but being the first contract for the DWM factory, maybe some kind of exchange could have been considered for new pistols for each commission member - who knows?

I still maintain my position that the purchased M1899 pistols were NOT modified nor renumbered at the DWM factory and the same refurbished pistols not given as gifts to the Swiss Commission and others delivered to the British Trials. I would still need to research and ponder whether some kind of exchange could have been possible and the reasons for it.

You presented an interesting thought.

Albert

[Guisan]

20 pistols were purchased and as #10 was used for ammo testing the serials were #10 - #29.

Guisan.

[Imperial Arms]

Originally Posted by Ron Wood

Albert,
That is a reasoned and reasonable reply (although I wish some of your language was not quite so crude... I know you are angry and frustrated but you are articulate enough not to need to resort to that level). I have several countering observations to make, but I do not have enough time right now to draft an appropriate response. But rest assured one will follow shortly !
All the best,
Ron

Hello Ron,

It makes me very angry when some collectors reckon that they can 'kick other guns' (without an examination) just because they feel that they may have financial power or certain important credentials such as a Ph.D (in physics). Since I have never received from Geoff an apology or a retraction for wrongfully condemning my pistol, I shall attack as well without any consideration for how much time as past or the ridiculous theories his article contains. According to a law in physics - "for every action - there is a reaction". Under most conditions, I behave like a proper gentleman, but I shall get 'ugly' with those people who are arrogant, and I don't care where they come from, the size of their collection, nor their wealth.

I was surprised that the Kessler auction made reference to Chucks web site 'Land of Borchardt' when he is Geoff's most loyal follower and believer. It is obvious that Chuck became a follower of Geoff because he was the only 'expert' who would 'bless' his M1904 Transitional Navy (without an inhand examination) where the pistol appears very suspicious - it looks like it was made yesterday. When I visited Chuck in 2002, I practically saw every rare item (including literature) in this collection except the M1904 Navy pistol which he said was in safe keeping in a bank vault - yeah right! To this day, I suppose that nobody else has seen that pistol in their hands. Maybe it is time for Chuck to place that pistol in an auction!

Any time that I am wrong, I have no objection in giving an apology and it will not degrade my reputation or integrity. As you know, I personally respect you and acknowledge the excellent research that you have conducted and shared with fellow collectors. At no time are we disrespectful to each other (except for the occasional joke), and it is not unusual if we sometimes disagree on a particular subject. As we continue to debate various subjects and listen to the opinions of other collectors (such as Vlim's comments in reply to my previous post about working conditions in various German factories), we all learn something new everyday (even if it is tiny) and we accept to 'modify' our opinions or theories regarding what probably happened in the past, pre-WWI until the end of WWII.

Cheers,
Albert

[alvin]

Reading LandOfBorchardt.com article on 1899........ going on process.

The picture of the recent gift gun printed in PDF is not very sharp, I assume there is no dot on the center of the crest (?)

Experts -- How to tell the crest being hand engraved or hand stamped?

[just realized that tiny dot making theories shaking.....could that dot be added in 1929.....but.....]