1906 Navy

[mp44]

First post, hope the photos work. This old girl spent most of her life on the wall of the Zigler Museum in Jennings, LA. When they decided to get politcally correct a few years ago, they disposed of all the guns. I was lucky enough to buy this one from a friend. It has a mismatched Navy marked clip, some scattered pitting especially toward the front sight, otherwise, a fairly nice gun.
<a href="http://forums.lugerforum.com/lfupload/luger2_copy7.jpg" target="_fullview"><img src="http://forums.lugerforum.com/lfupload/luger2_copy7.jpg" width="400" alt="Click for fullsize image" /></a>

<a href="http://forums.lugerforum.com/lfupload/luger4_copy4.jpg" target="_fullview"><img src="http://forums.lugerforum.com/lfupload/luger4_copy4.jpg" width="400" alt="Click for fullsize image" /></a>

[Ron Smith]

Danny, They worked just fine. Got more? Interested in seeing the whole piece. Thanks! Ron

[mp44]

Sorry for the delay-- my technical department had a problem taking a picture that wasn't out of focus or that was what I wanted. You'd think after 30+ years, she'd know how to work a camera. Hope its what you wanted to see.

[Ron Smith]

Danny, That's pretty neat. Especially since you know some of the history. What kind of a museum is this? Did they provide any history with the pistol?
Ron

[lugerholsterrepair]

Danny, You better be careful, she might forget how to use a stove...Pretty Nice! Jerry Burney

[Big Norm]

Danny, congradulations on your navy purchase. You had better watch out when handling it. Once you get used to one, you are hooked on the navies. Thats what happened to me. I started out with the artilleries and then I got a navy and I have been into them since.

I hope that your adventure in photography gives you an appreciation for the taking of pictures of these wonderful weapons. It is really an art form in its own right. When I look at the display of Lugers in the owners section of the forum, I am truly amazed at the great pictures that some of our people have taken of their prizes.

Again, nice going. What is the mismatched navy magazine serial number and what is the serial number of your gun? You may have a number that someone is looking for or that might have your serial number.Maybe you could work out a trade.
Big Norm

[mp44]

Sorry for the time it took me to answer, but I was cooking. The little museum was an older home the family had donated to the city. It concentrated mainly on the early rice farmers that had settled that area. The guns were a group of things gathered from around the community-- beat up Winchesters, Colts, GEW98's, 1918 DWM artillery, 1920's pocket pistols, 2 snail drums, and 1 really nice New Orleans made Confederate sword. The magazine serial # is 102, pistol serial # is 693. I have to get back, my breakfast is burning.

[Ron Smith]

I can only assume that you will be studying the fine art of taking "Your own damn pictures!" Between leaning to fix your meals, and doing your laundry. (flowers help)
Ron

[Big Norm]

Danny,
one other thing that I would like to mention is that you labeled your post as a 1906 navy. Actually your navy Luger is a Model 1914 chamber dated 1916 navy. Luger lovers will simply call your Luger a 1916 navy.
Big Norm

[Navy]

Norm and all,

As a part of my presentation in Chattanooga, I proposed a "new" taxonomy for Navy Lugers that is based on the conventions used in weapons system acquisition vice the "collector speak" we use today.

I did this for a couple of reasons, the main one being that the terminology used today among collectors is BOTH obtuse and incomplete. It is unnecessarily arcane and simply does not address all the variations that are extant and were displayed in Chattanooga.

Accordingly, for those who were not present (and that should be the *vast majority* of the forum), here is what I propose as a more complete taxonomy:

Old Term-Model 1904 New Term-Prototype
Old Term-Model 1906 (all versions) New Term-Transitional Model 1.0, 1.1, 1.2
Old Term -Model 1908 New Term-Final design 1.0
Old Term- Model 1914 New Term- Final design 1.1
Old Term- Model 1908 Commercial New Term-Limited Procurement 1908
Old Term-M1914 Commercial New Term-Limited Procurement 1914

I would posit that this taxonomy is simpler and is all inclusive where the current terminology ignores the last two categories, presumably because of their rarity, and is inconsistent with both history and weapons system procurement practices.

Anti-flame shields in place.

Tom A.

[Ron Smith]

Tom, That's not bad. I ,for one not that Navy knowledgable. Get alittle confused when either reading a Navy discription, or trying to discribe one. It would take alittle getting accustomed to, but would be self explanatory. No flame here.

Ron

[Evan Duke]

Tom, that was quite a mouth full ! I would also suggest. Wear your life jacket at all times !
Chuck Duke

[Big Norm]

Tom,
I have always considered Luger collection as being simular to coin collecting. There, as in Luger collecting, the chamber dates represents something important, to me at least. To call a model 1914 a final design 1.1 without referring to a chamber date of either 1916 or 1917 would diminish the importance of those dates just as it would in coins

Then you would further diminish the importance of chamber dates if you called all artillery lugers simply model 1914 final design 1.1. to speak nothing of the confusion it would cause when you pay $3500 for a model 1914 final design 1.1 thinking you bought a 1916 navy and then getting a comparatively common 1917 artillery. Both are model 1914's and both are final designs.

I get mad at auctioneers who advertise a 1914 DWM artillery Luger for sale only to find out that they ment that they have a model 1914 artillery with a 1917 chamber date and not the more expensive chamber dated 1914 DWM artillery. Rock Island autioneers are terribly guilty of that. To me, that demonstrates their stupidity and a failed attempt on their part to look intellectual.

What would you call an 1900AE? There is no model designation for that Luger or any other commercial 1900 or 1906.

Then there are the Kreighoff's. Would you refer to them simply as model 1908 final design 1.1 or maybe 1913 final design 1.1 or maybe model 1908 final design 1.2 and let it go at that? You see, it gets a bit hairy when your thoughts get expanded. A numbering system that applies to one type of Luger must be transferable to all Lugers or you have accomplished nothing more than to add to the confusion.

Personally, I think that if someone can afford to buy a 1906 navy, they should have the intelligence to differentiate the difference between only the four 1906 navy Lugers that are available.

Maybe your designation for THE 1904 navy as a prototype might warrant further thought. But since those navys are so very rare and expensive it would be simply an academic exercise anyway.

Another (and final) personal thought would be to abolish model designations entirely. The above mention of the Rock Island auctioneers naming all DWM artilleries as 1914 DWM artilleries is a fine example of misleading advertising. The elimination of the model designations would force those yahoos to refer to the chamber dates instead of the model in their artillery Luger descriptions.
Big Norm

[Navy]

Norm, Norm, Norm...

My suggested change in taxonomy is motivated by several facts:

1. The current collector-sprache is not what the German Navy used as nomenclature;
2. The current collector-sprache is incomplete;
3. The current collector-sprache does not reflect what we know from existing documents actually happened;
4. The current collector-sprache is inconsistent with the weapons acquisition process

My suggested changes to the taxonomy was in no way intended to minimize or eliminate the need for ancillary and additional information such as chamber dates and the other stuff we wacked-out Looger nutz get to drooling about. Clearly, amplifying information is ALWAYS desirable.

And finally, my modest suggestion applies only to Imperial Navy pistols.

Cheers,

Tom