1914 CHAMBER DATED DWM ARTILLERY

Big Norm · 09-19-2001, 11:37 PM

I am going to throw out a question for the forums discussion. A couple of weeks ago I was at a Michigan gunshow and I had a dealer show me a chamber dated 1914 DWM artillery Luger. I got excited and looked at it. But then I noticed that the serial number was #75 (no small cap). I handed the gun back to the dealer and told him it was a fake. He looked stunned. So I told him that according to Jan Stills book, the appropriate serial number range for that gun is 294 through 1995a. He wanted to argue with me but he didn't. This guy is an experienced gun dealer and collector who was holding the gun for another dealer who is not a collector, just a merchandizer. So I couldn't examine the gun as closely as I would like to. But I suspect that the gun will soon be on the market as an original chamber dated 1914 DWM artiller with a hefty price tag.

But then while at last weeks OGCA meeting in Cleveland I had a talk with Mr Simpson of Simpson LTD. We had a gentlemens argument over the gun. His point was that Jan Still only listed the serial numbers of the Lugers that he had seen and personally verified. Jan Still just had not seen this gun so he did not include it in his serial range. He said that there are no records of the actual serial number range. He said that I was misreading Stills.

Mr Simpson got stubborn on his point and I got equally stubborn on my point that if a Luger did not fall within Jan Stills serial number range then I would consider it a counterfeit and not consider its purchase. I would consider anybody who sold that gun as an original would be committing fraud.

From previous discussions on this forum I have been lead to believe that Jan Stills is a perfectionist. If that is so, then I do not believe that he would publish a haphazard list of serial numbers without doing some research on the matter first.

Now I know that there are, if fact, a number of knowledgable Lugerheads on this forum. So I want to throw out the question of who is correct?

Big Norm

Johnny Peppers · 09-20-2001, 12:04 AM

I have to agree that the serial numbers posted by Jan Still are "observed" serial numbers. His serial numbers are taken from observations and not DWM factory records. Notice that Still writes that the 1914 chamber dated LP08 is "reported" in the 161 to 1995a serial number range.

Out of curiosity, what condition was the pistol, and what was the price?

bill m · 09-20-2001, 12:32 AM

I would have to agree with Bob Simpson. Just because the reported serial number range is in a book does not mean that you can not find any lower or higher. The most important thing is: is the gun real or put together? After an examination one should be able to tell if it is an original artillery.

Mistakes are made in all books and from the time of a book being published until today, new information and more contacts are made.

For instance, Still writes that there are 1939 S/42 Lugers with a type 3 test eagle (eagle swastika) in the R block. No one that I know of has ever seen one of these. They all have the type two test eagle (eagle) on the receiver and barrel. Sometimes things are reported that are not correct and just keep getting passed on and recorded as something they are not.

Another example is a pistol that I own -- 8012 Y -- a two digit Banner (42) that is listed both in Still's book and Costanso's book as a police gun, but is actually a commercial Luger as it has no sear safety or Eagle L police stamp.

Aaron · 09-20-2001, 02:49 AM

Years ago I was getting a haircut and the subject of guns came up with my barber, a WWII infantry veteran. He told me about a pistol he had captured and brought home, which he would like to sell. It turned out to be an absolutely mint Nazi HP with tangent sight, complete with a holster and spare mag in the same condition. After buying the pistol, some years later I showed it to a highly respected dealer who pointed out that the serial number was about 1000 higher than the reference books quoted for the production of this model. He badmouthed my pistol to everyone in sight, and made it virtually worthless on the market. Yet, how could an original vet bringback be a fake? You have to take these expert production figures with a grain of salt.

Uncle Mike · 09-20-2001, 10:25 AM

Hi Big Norm,Several months ago I asked Mr.Simpson a question about a difference between Still's and Davis' books and Simpson told me that I should follow Still.I quess it depends if you are buying or selling.Why don't you contact Still and ask him his opinion?Keep us posted.Good Luck.MC

bill m · 09-20-2001, 10:40 AM

Mike,

Books are only a reference to use, and they are only as good as the information given. No one knows everything. Without reference books we would all be lost as to what we have and what goes where, but as stated before, over time numbers are lost, recorded incorrect, and new information comes to light. What is interesting in this thread to me, is the fact that one will take the word of a book written anywhere from 10 to 50 years ago, and not trust there own experience or judgement. If the gun is real and original, then that is the deciding factor, whether it is in a book or not. I had a 41/42 that did not have a P.08 on the left frame panel, and I brought it to the attention of a few collectors. At first it was thought that this was a fake, but then, after some research, it was found that the early ones below about 3500 N did not have a P.08 on the frame. This was not in any book, and this variation is highly looked for now. You have to use your own judgement, and especially on the serial number issue, a number 1000 off can be a transition gun, but 10,000 off is way out of the range.

lugerholsterrepair · 09-20-2001, 11:52 AM

Big Norm, I believe Johnny Peppers has the right take on this. Still says these are Observed pistols. When you think about it that is the only thing Still could have possibly used to determine serial numbers as there are no records. They were destroyed during Allied bombing and have never surfaced. So find that dealer and take another look at that pistol! It sounds like a sleeper to me and needs further investigation. Don't feel bad. I'm sure all of us have fallen over that log before...Jerry

Gene · 09-20-2001, 01:23 PM

On page 1, Still states "Serial numbers used in this text were obtained from a number of sources ranging from pistols examined by the author to information compiled by other collectors or reported in publications. Such data is subject to error each time it is transcribed. . . . . . In some cases, the serial numbers . . . were based on a best estimate made from incomplete data."

Big Norm · 09-20-2001, 03:48 PM

Thanks Johnny. Apparently when I copied the serial numbers of the 1914 DWM from Stills book, I mistakenly copied the first serial number of the serial range from the 1915 DWM.

My concern was that since the 1914 chamber dated DWM artillery is such a sought after prize, the price of this gun can easily increase $2000 to $2500 over a comparable condition artillery of a different year. Thats a lot of moola if the gun is fake. When buying a gun at premium prices because of its scarcity, my impulse is to go by the book. As we all know, some restorers and conterfeiters are very good. Pricing an rare artillery is tough because so many sellers will list an artillery as a 1914 DWM when what they are really saying is that it is a model 1914 and not a chamber dated artillery. Or maybe the seller will say that the gun is a 1914 artillery when its really an Erfurt artillery.

I have the simular problem with Kreighoff's. I once sold a 1936 Kreighoff to a guy and I thought that the gun was original. Later, I had the guy climb all over me because he was told that the gun was redone. I am kicking myself on that deal because I handled it all wrong. At the time, I was new to the luger selling side and actually gave the guy a refund. Now, years later, I know better. Its called gaining experience and I paid a price.

Sometimes I wonder if there are really any "experts" on all Lugers. Over the years, I have heard of mistakes make by people who are regarded as "experts". People such as Shattuck, Simpson and Doug Smith. I can not for the life of me figure out how these people can price the large number of guns that they sell.

What I am beginning to realize, as one gentleman on this thread has mentioned, is that many people - "experts" as well as "amateurs" - will put down a Luger and embarrass the proud owner for some reason still unknown to me. In fact, the Luger might be a perfectly good Luger. I now think that the above mentioned sale of a Kreighoff may have been that sort of situation. One guy who was not really a newbie but not an "expert" either, selling an honest Luger to another of like ability who later had it appraised by a so called "expert" who put the gun down. I have read Gibson's book on the Kreighoff's and have found it interesting, but wanting. And the guns are too scare to study and compare. So I now avoid Kreighoffs but will keep the few that I have.

But I do want to thank the people who have contibuted to this thread. It was an excellent response to say the least. I hope that more people continue to make more contributions to it. Maybe I will revisit that dealer and make some sort of an offer. As I mentioned in my earlier thread, I couldn't take a close look at the gun because one dealer was holding it for another and did not want to take the responsibility of showing it to someone. But I noticed that the numbers were crisp and the bluing looked original. I believe that it had a narrow string on rust pitting from the front of the barrel to the receiver on the left side. It otherwise was not mint but it was honest. I don't recall if it had a matching mag. I don't know what the price will be. For all I know, the dealer/owner/merchandizer may have already sold it. He advertises frequently in the Gun List magazine and may have a list of buyers.

Big Norm

09-20-2001, 07:25 PM

Still doesn't claim the s/n ranges are the actual ranges--only that they are from surveys of surviving pieces. The range published in Still is not definitive for determining low or high limit on the range. I believe the first chamber-dated 1910 DWM P08 s/n may be lower than estimated by Still. I know of s/n 4851b with a 1910 date. This is lower than his estimated range. I own a s/n Walther PP that is partially higher than the highest number published in his book (last ditch mismatch). The s/n of 75 on a 1914 DWM LP08 is not suggestive of fraud by itself and would not deter me were I considering purchase of it. That s/n seems just fine. A different set of information is needed to evaluate authenticity.

Just my observation.

09-21-2001, 09:55 PM

As another example (though non-Luger) I recently purchased a early Mauser Hsc rig that fell right between the ending serial for small E/655 with test proof and beginning serial for large E/655 without test proof. It has a large E/655 with test proof which is undocumented by Still but I feel authentic after examination and due to circumstances of the purchase. On your artillery I would have to have other evidence of faking before I would dismiss it.

09-19-2001, 11:37 PM	#1
Big Norm RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: SE Michigan Posts: 1,864 Thanks: 1 Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts	1914 CHAMBER DATED DWM ARTILLERY I am going to throw out a question for the forums discussion. A couple of weeks ago I was at a Michigan gunshow and I had a dealer show me a chamber dated 1914 DWM artillery Luger. I got excited and looked at it. But then I noticed that the serial number was #75 (no small cap). I handed the gun back to the dealer and told him it was a fake. He looked stunned. So I told him that according to Jan Stills book, the appropriate serial number range for that gun is 294 through 1995a. He wanted to argue with me but he didn't. This guy is an experienced gun dealer and collector who was holding the gun for another dealer who is not a collector, just a merchandizer. So I couldn't examine the gun as closely as I would like to. But I suspect that the gun will soon be on the market as an original chamber dated 1914 DWM artiller with a hefty price tag. But then while at last weeks OGCA meeting in Cleveland I had a talk with Mr Simpson of Simpson LTD. We had a gentlemens argument over the gun. His point was that Jan Still only listed the serial numbers of the Lugers that he had seen and personally verified. Jan Still just had not seen this gun so he did not include it in his serial range. He said that there are no records of the actual serial number range. He said that I was misreading Stills. Mr Simpson got stubborn on his point and I got equally stubborn on my point that if a Luger did not fall within Jan Stills serial number range then I would consider it a counterfeit and not consider its purchase. I would consider anybody who sold that gun as an original would be committing fraud. From previous discussions on this forum I have been lead to believe that Jan Stills is a perfectionist. If that is so, then I do not believe that he would publish a haphazard list of serial numbers without doing some research on the matter first. Now I know that there are, if fact, a number of knowledgable Lugerheads on this forum. So I want to throw out the question of who is correct? Big Norm

09-20-2001, 12:04 AM	#2
Johnny Peppers User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Calion, Arkansas Posts: 1,042 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Re: 1914 CHAMBER DATED DWM ARTILLERY I have to agree that the serial numbers posted by Jan Still are "observed" serial numbers. His serial numbers are taken from observations and not DWM factory records. Notice that Still writes that the 1914 chamber dated LP08 is "reported" in the 161 to 1995a serial number range. Out of curiosity, what condition was the pistol, and what was the price?

09-20-2001, 12:32 AM	#3
bill m User Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 385 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: 1914 CHAMBER DATED DWM ARTILLERY I would have to agree with Bob Simpson. Just because the reported serial number range is in a book does not mean that you can not find any lower or higher. The most important thing is: is the gun real or put together? After an examination one should be able to tell if it is an original artillery. Mistakes are made in all books and from the time of a book being published until today, new information and more contacts are made. For instance, Still writes that there are 1939 S/42 Lugers with a type 3 test eagle (eagle swastika) in the R block. No one that I know of has ever seen one of these. They all have the type two test eagle (eagle) on the receiver and barrel. Sometimes things are reported that are not correct and just keep getting passed on and recorded as something they are not. Another example is a pistol that I own -- 8012 Y -- a two digit Banner (42) that is listed both in Still's book and Costanso's book as a police gun, but is actually a commercial Luger as it has no sear safety or Eagle L police stamp.

09-20-2001, 02:49 AM	#4
Aaron Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vista, CA Posts: 1,008 Thanks: 0 Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts	Another Example Years ago I was getting a haircut and the subject of guns came up with my barber, a WWII infantry veteran. He told me about a pistol he had captured and brought home, which he would like to sell. It turned out to be an absolutely mint Nazi HP with tangent sight, complete with a holster and spare mag in the same condition. After buying the pistol, some years later I showed it to a highly respected dealer who pointed out that the serial number was about 1000 higher than the reference books quoted for the production of this model. He badmouthed my pistol to everyone in sight, and made it virtually worthless on the market. Yet, how could an original vet bringback be a fake? You have to take these expert production figures with a grain of salt.

09-20-2001, 10:25 AM	#5
Uncle Mike User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 53 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: 1914 CHAMBER DATED DWM ARTILLERY Hi Big Norm,Several months ago I asked Mr.Simpson a question about a difference between Still's and Davis' books and Simpson told me that I should follow Still.I quess it depends if you are buying or selling.Why don't you contact Still and ask him his opinion?Keep us posted.Good Luck.MC

09-20-2001, 10:40 AM	#6
bill m User Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 385 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: 1914 CHAMBER DATED DWM ARTILLERY Mike, Books are only a reference to use, and they are only as good as the information given. No one knows everything. Without reference books we would all be lost as to what we have and what goes where, but as stated before, over time numbers are lost, recorded incorrect, and new information comes to light. What is interesting in this thread to me, is the fact that one will take the word of a book written anywhere from 10 to 50 years ago, and not trust there own experience or judgement. If the gun is real and original, then that is the deciding factor, whether it is in a book or not. I had a 41/42 that did not have a P.08 on the left frame panel, and I brought it to the attention of a few collectors. At first it was thought that this was a fake, but then, after some research, it was found that the early ones below about 3500 N did not have a P.08 on the frame. This was not in any book, and this variation is highly looked for now. You have to use your own judgement, and especially on the serial number issue, a number 1000 off can be a transition gun, but 10,000 off is way out of the range.

09-20-2001, 11:52 AM	#7
lugerholsterrepair Moderator Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Arizona/Colorado Posts: 7,761 Thanks: 4,852 Thanked 3,101 Times in 1,427 Posts	Re: OOPS! Big Norm, I believe Johnny Peppers has the right take on this. Still says these are Observed pistols. When you think about it that is the only thing Still could have possibly used to determine serial numbers as there are no records. They were destroyed during Allied bombing and have never surfaced. So find that dealer and take another look at that pistol! It sounds like a sleeper to me and needs further investigation. Don't feel bad. I'm sure all of us have fallen over that log before...Jerry

09-20-2001, 01:23 PM	#8
Gene User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 23 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: 1914 CHAMBER DATED DWM ARTILLERY On page 1, Still states "Serial numbers used in this text were obtained from a number of sources ranging from pistols examined by the author to information compiled by other collectors or reported in publications. Such data is subject to error each time it is transcribed. . . . . . In some cases, the serial numbers . . . were based on a best estimate made from incomplete data."

09-20-2001, 03:48 PM	#9
Big Norm RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: SE Michigan Posts: 1,864 Thanks: 1 Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts	Re: 1914 CHAMBER DATED DWM ARTILLERY Thanks Johnny. Apparently when I copied the serial numbers of the 1914 DWM from Stills book, I mistakenly copied the first serial number of the serial range from the 1915 DWM. My concern was that since the 1914 chamber dated DWM artillery is such a sought after prize, the price of this gun can easily increase $2000 to $2500 over a comparable condition artillery of a different year. Thats a lot of moola if the gun is fake. When buying a gun at premium prices because of its scarcity, my impulse is to go by the book. As we all know, some restorers and conterfeiters are very good. Pricing an rare artillery is tough because so many sellers will list an artillery as a 1914 DWM when what they are really saying is that it is a model 1914 and not a chamber dated artillery. Or maybe the seller will say that the gun is a 1914 artillery when its really an Erfurt artillery. I have the simular problem with Kreighoff's. I once sold a 1936 Kreighoff to a guy and I thought that the gun was original. Later, I had the guy climb all over me because he was told that the gun was redone. I am kicking myself on that deal because I handled it all wrong. At the time, I was new to the luger selling side and actually gave the guy a refund. Now, years later, I know better. Its called gaining experience and I paid a price. Sometimes I wonder if there are really any "experts" on all Lugers. Over the years, I have heard of mistakes make by people who are regarded as "experts". People such as Shattuck, Simpson and Doug Smith. I can not for the life of me figure out how these people can price the large number of guns that they sell. What I am beginning to realize, as one gentleman on this thread has mentioned, is that many people - "experts" as well as "amateurs" - will put down a Luger and embarrass the proud owner for some reason still unknown to me. In fact, the Luger might be a perfectly good Luger. I now think that the above mentioned sale of a Kreighoff may have been that sort of situation. One guy who was not really a newbie but not an "expert" either, selling an honest Luger to another of like ability who later had it appraised by a so called "expert" who put the gun down. I have read Gibson's book on the Kreighoff's and have found it interesting, but wanting. And the guns are too scare to study and compare. So I now avoid Kreighoffs but will keep the few that I have. But I do want to thank the people who have contibuted to this thread. It was an excellent response to say the least. I hope that more people continue to make more contributions to it. Maybe I will revisit that dealer and make some sort of an offer. As I mentioned in my earlier thread, I couldn't take a close look at the gun because one dealer was holding it for another and did not want to take the responsibility of showing it to someone. But I noticed that the numbers were crisp and the bluing looked original. I believe that it had a narrow string on rust pitting from the front of the barrel to the receiver on the left side. It otherwise was not mint but it was honest. I don't recall if it had a matching mag. I don't know what the price will be. For all I know, the dealer/owner/merchandizer may have already sold it. He advertises frequently in the Gun List magazine and may have a list of buyers. Big Norm

09-20-2001, 07:25 PM	#10
mlm Guest Posts: n/a	Re: 1914 CHAMBER DATED DWM ARTILLERY Still doesn't claim the s/n ranges are the actual ranges--only that they are from surveys of surviving pieces. The range published in Still is not definitive for determining low or high limit on the range. I believe the first chamber-dated 1910 DWM P08 s/n may be lower than estimated by Still. I know of s/n 4851b with a 1910 date. This is lower than his estimated range. I own a s/n Walther PP that is partially higher than the highest number published in his book (last ditch mismatch). The s/n of 75 on a 1914 DWM LP08 is not suggestive of fraud by itself and would not deter me were I considering purchase of it. That s/n seems just fine. A different set of information is needed to evaluate authenticity. Just my observation.

09-21-2001, 09:55 PM	#11
dobk Guest Posts: n/a	Definitely need a grain of salt As another example (though non-Luger) I recently purchased a early Mauser Hsc rig that fell right between the ending serial for small E/655 with test proof and beginning serial for large E/655 without test proof. It has a large E/655 with test proof which is undocumented by Still but I feel authentic after examination and due to circumstances of the purchase. On your artillery I would have to have other evidence of faking before I would dismiss it.