Navy "Floating" Crowns...?

Pete Ebbink · 09-27-2003, 05:43 PM

I recall the discussion about legit Navy proof marks will not have the crowns "floating" above the M's...

But when I see the Navy proof marks presented on the Land Of Borchardt web site, I see both varieties...floating and non-floating, especially on serial # 79 (which I believe is a 1904 navy...)

http://landofborchardt.com/

Can anyone let me know what is what ??? Is # 79 a bogus gun ?

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

Navy · 09-28-2003, 03:54 PM

I can't "grab" the image to enlarge it and look at the proofs, but the second image of presumably the same gun, RT side, looks to be a re-do.

Bottom line: Without better pictures I can't tell.

Anyone know who this guy is?

Tom A.

Pete Ebbink · 09-28-2003, 05:43 PM

Hello Tom A.,

If I recall from a previous posting about this web site, I believe the collector behind the web site is Chuck Whittaker...got the impression he is an advanced collector.

What has me even more confused is in the "Bogus '04 navy" posting you did a while ago in which a letter from Jan Still is presented, Jan writes : " Also, Charles WhittakerÃ¢??s, serial number 79, that is identical to serial number 51 (except unaltered safety) should be added."

If this is true, then can # 79 with its "floating" crowns be legit...(???) I am sooooooo confused about this "floating" issue.

About the photos on the web site, I think he has "copyrighted" the photos on the web site so one cannot "clip it" and move it to photo editing software. Noticed the folks at Phoenix Investment Arms did the same, after a few of their pistols for sale were discussed here on the LF...

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

drbuster · 09-28-2003, 06:33 PM

What a collection of rare pieces, especially the Navies and Bulgarians. Their general pristine condition makes me wonder whether I am looking at restorations, especially the 1904 Navy.

Pete Ebbink · 09-28-2003, 07:26 PM

Jan Still was kind enough to direct me to a nicely written "commentary" piece about 1904 Navy lugers and the issue of fakery; that Mr. Whittaker has posted on his web site.

It is in the Research/Commentary button link, at the far right, top header of the main home page :

http://landofborchardt.com/

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

Pete Ebbink · 09-30-2003, 01:27 PM

A bit of clarificaiton to my original posting and question.

I think I am clear on the fact that any "pentagon" shaped C/M proofs should not be "floating". This covers the regular Navy production from 1906 through 1917 (or 1918 is one is brave...).

As can be demonstrated by the following photos :

But Chuck Whittaker shows four(4) early Navy lugers (# 51, # 79, # 342, and # 461) on his web site (in the Navy-Accessories section) that are of the "three-lobe" C/M proof and all seem to be "floating" with # 51 showing the least amount of "float".

Are the 3-lobe C/M variants accepted to have this "floating" stamp...which implies (at least in my mind) that the stamp was done with two separate stamps and not one integral stamp...since the amount of vertical "float" seems to vary amongst pistols # 51, # 79, # 342, and # 461.

# 136 is also shown, but it is of the pentagon (early type) C/M proof style...and appears to be out-of-squence if compared to the 3-lobed serialled numbers.

Also, are any other early 1904 Navies known to be out there...that is earlier than # 51 ? (remembering that # 48 was a more recent gunsmith-created piece and not DWM-made). If other early 1904 Navies exist, do they have the 3-lobe C/M proofs or do they have the pentagon-shaped C/M proofs ?

Sorry to be long-winded and rambling...just trying to get this right in my mind... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

Imperial Arms · 09-30-2003, 07:33 PM

Hello Pete,

I had the opportunity to examine and photography an absolutely genuine 1904 Navy Serial #36 with the early 3-lobe C/M proofs marks, the 90-degree toggle checkering and the two piece toggle lock. This pistol is shown on my website at the following link:

1904 Navy Luger Serial #36

If my database is up to date, this is the lowest serial number so far reported. There has been some controversy at which point the serial range ends for the first true 1904 Navy Lugers. Some collectors say around #100, others say around #150-#200, but the best way to find out is to go out and inspect each one which has survived!

Cheers,
Albert

Pete Ebbink · 09-30-2003, 08:23 PM

Hello Albert,

Do you know if the 3-lobe crowns "float" above the M or are the bottoms of the crowns "nested" tightly to the top of the M's on serial # 36...?

Cannot make out the proof marks on photo link...

Thanks for taking the time to reply...

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

Pete Ebbink · 10-02-2003, 11:52 PM

Just thinking out loud here, trying to list traits of a real, legit 1904 Navy :

From what I read in Jan Still's book IL, read on C. Whittaker's web site, what I gleaned from Jan Still's letter (which Tom A. posted on the LF), and other e-mails I have received, I think a real bonefide 1904 Navy should have the following :

1. 90 degree checkering pattern on the New Model toggle knobs.

2. Short "ears" on the New Model extractor.

3. A 1-piece toggle lock assembly that runs through the top of the right side toggle knob.

4. One Crown/M proof on the back of the frame, above the lanyard "staple".

5. One Crown/M proof and one smaller Crown proof on the left side of the frame, forward of the side plate.

6. One smaller Crown proof on the left side of the barrel.

7. Both Crown/M proofs to have the crown slightly "floating" above the M and the M leaning towards the right just a bit.

8. Both smaller Crown proofs to be the pentagon-style of crown with a small vertical line in the center versus the small circle in the center (which was changed for the regular 1906 and later production).

Oops...forgot some basics...

9. Long frame, 6" 9mm fat barrel, flat, riband main recoil spring, grip safety...

Other refined points, e-mailed to me by others :

10. Barrel's internal chamber area should have a thin "ring" (i.e. result of milling in two steps...?).

11. Old type frame with new type receiver.

12. Safety area is usually altered with evidence of discolored 'shave' mark on the lower part of the safety area .

13. The magazine should have concentric circles with a serial number and C/M proof.

Wonder if I have missed any other salient traits...?

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

Pete Ebbink · 10-04-2003, 12:14 PM

14. Should have a six pointed star on the front sight base...(??? Not sure about this one ???) Text Added : 10-4-03; This is noted in the book "The Navy Luger" by Gortz/Walter on page 26...

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

Pete Ebbink · 10-11-2003, 12:24 PM

Jan Still has started a thread on Navy proofs on his web site :

http://www.gunboards.com/luger/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=421

Thought I would post this hot link and give folks a chance to see the on-going discussion there as well...

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

09-27-2003, 05:43 PM	#1
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Navy "Floating" Crowns...? I recall the discussion about legit Navy proof marks will not have the crowns "floating" above the M's... But when I see the Navy proof marks presented on the Land Of Borchardt web site, I see both varieties...floating and non-floating, especially on serial # 79 (which I believe is a 1904 navy...) http://landofborchardt.com/ Can anyone let me know what is what ??? Is # 79 a bogus gun ? Regards, Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

09-28-2003, 03:54 PM	#2
Navy RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Dc 'burbs in Virginia Posts: 2,482 Thanks: 0 Thanked 16 Times in 10 Posts	I can't "grab" the image to enlarge it and look at the proofs, but the second image of presumably the same gun, RT side, looks to be a re-do. Bottom line: Without better pictures I can't tell. Anyone know who this guy is? Tom A.

09-28-2003, 05:43 PM	#3
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Hello Tom A., If I recall from a previous posting about this web site, I believe the collector behind the web site is Chuck Whittaker...got the impression he is an advanced collector. What has me even more confused is in the "Bogus '04 navy" posting you did a while ago in which a letter from Jan Still is presented, Jan writes : " Also, Charles WhittakerÃ¢??s, serial number 79, that is identical to serial number 51 (except unaltered safety) should be added." If this is true, then can # 79 with its "floating" crowns be legit...(???) I am sooooooo confused about this "floating" issue. About the photos on the web site, I think he has "copyrighted" the photos on the web site so one cannot "clip it" and move it to photo editing software. Noticed the folks at Phoenix Investment Arms did the same, after a few of their pistols for sale were discussed here on the LF... Regards, Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

09-28-2003, 06:33 PM	#4
drbuster User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: San Mateo, California Posts: 1,432 Thanks: 2 Thanked 71 Times in 56 Posts	What a collection of rare pieces, especially the Navies and Bulgarians. Their general pristine condition makes me wonder whether I am looking at restorations, especially the 1904 Navy.

09-28-2003, 07:26 PM	#5
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Jan Still was kind enough to direct me to a nicely written "commentary" piece about 1904 Navy lugers and the issue of fakery; that Mr. Whittaker has posted on his web site. It is in the Research/Commentary button link, at the far right, top header of the main home page : http://landofborchardt.com/ Regards, Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

09-30-2003, 01:27 PM	#6
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	A bit of clarificaiton to my original posting and question. I think I am clear on the fact that any "pentagon" shaped C/M proofs should not be "floating". This covers the regular Navy production from 1906 through 1917 (or 1918 is one is brave...). As can be demonstrated by the following photos : But Chuck Whittaker shows four(4) early Navy lugers (# 51, # 79, # 342, and # 461) on his web site (in the Navy-Accessories section) that are of the "three-lobe" C/M proof and all seem to be "floating" with # 51 showing the least amount of "float". Are the 3-lobe C/M variants accepted to have this "floating" stamp...which implies (at least in my mind) that the stamp was done with two separate stamps and not one integral stamp...since the amount of vertical "float" seems to vary amongst pistols # 51, # 79, # 342, and # 461. # 136 is also shown, but it is of the pentagon (early type) C/M proof style...and appears to be out-of-squence if compared to the 3-lobed serialled numbers. Also, are any other early 1904 Navies known to be out there...that is earlier than # 51 ? (remembering that # 48 was a more recent gunsmith-created piece and not DWM-made). If other early 1904 Navies exist, do they have the 3-lobe C/M proofs or do they have the pentagon-shaped C/M proofs ? Sorry to be long-winded and rambling...just trying to get this right in my mind... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> Regards, Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

09-30-2003, 07:33 PM	#7
Imperial Arms Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Malta, EU Posts: 579 Thanks: 0 Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts	Hello Pete, I had the opportunity to examine and photography an absolutely genuine 1904 Navy Serial #36 with the early 3-lobe C/M proofs marks, the 90-degree toggle checkering and the two piece toggle lock. This pistol is shown on my website at the following link: 1904 Navy Luger Serial #36 If my database is up to date, this is the lowest serial number so far reported. There has been some controversy at which point the serial range ends for the first true 1904 Navy Lugers. Some collectors say around #100, others say around #150-#200, but the best way to find out is to go out and inspect each one which has survived! Cheers, Albert

09-30-2003, 08:23 PM	#8
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Hello Albert, Do you know if the 3-lobe crowns "float" above the M or are the bottoms of the crowns "nested" tightly to the top of the M's on serial # 36...? Cannot make out the proof marks on photo link... Thanks for taking the time to reply... Regards, Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

10-02-2003, 11:52 PM	#9
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Just thinking out loud here, trying to list traits of a real, legit 1904 Navy : From what I read in Jan Still's book IL, read on C. Whittaker's web site, what I gleaned from Jan Still's letter (which Tom A. posted on the LF), and other e-mails I have received, I think a real bonefide 1904 Navy should have the following : 1. 90 degree checkering pattern on the New Model toggle knobs. 2. Short "ears" on the New Model extractor. 3. A 1-piece toggle lock assembly that runs through the top of the right side toggle knob. 4. One Crown/M proof on the back of the frame, above the lanyard "staple". 5. One Crown/M proof and one smaller Crown proof on the left side of the frame, forward of the side plate. 6. One smaller Crown proof on the left side of the barrel. 7. Both Crown/M proofs to have the crown slightly "floating" above the M and the M leaning towards the right just a bit. 8. Both smaller Crown proofs to be the pentagon-style of crown with a small vertical line in the center versus the small circle in the center (which was changed for the regular 1906 and later production). Oops...forgot some basics... 9. Long frame, 6" 9mm fat barrel, flat, riband main recoil spring, grip safety... Other refined points, e-mailed to me by others : 10. Barrel's internal chamber area should have a thin "ring" (i.e. result of milling in two steps...?). 11. Old type frame with new type receiver. 12. Safety area is usually altered with evidence of discolored 'shave' mark on the lower part of the safety area . 13. The magazine should have concentric circles with a serial number and C/M proof. Wonder if I have missed any other salient traits...? Regards, Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

10-04-2003, 12:14 PM	#10
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	14. Should have a six pointed star on the front sight base...(??? Not sure about this one ???) Text Added : 10-4-03; This is noted in the book "The Navy Luger" by Gortz/Walter on page 26... Regards, Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

10-11-2003, 12:24 PM	#11
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Jan Still has started a thread on Navy proofs on his web site : http://www.gunboards.com/luger/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=421 Thought I would post this hot link and give folks a chance to see the on-going discussion there as well... Regards, Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />