eBay Navy Toggle/Boosted?

[lugerholsterrepair]

This toggle dosen't look right to me...The 200 should be in the white...Any opinions? Jerry Burney

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...category=13965

[policeluger]

Repo, the numbers are a give away, very poorly done, and not placed correctly.

[Dwight Gruber]

The profile of the top edge of the sight itself is the wrong countour, and has sharp edges. Also, there are finishing marks on the top surface of the toggle knobs, and the toggle flat just behind them. I don't think I'd pay the openers for it.

I wonder where it came from, and if it is properly hardened for firing?

--Dwight

[policeluger]

Dwight, I agree 100%, however if someone wanted too build a 6" Navy repo for plinking, and not try and scam someone on resale, $300 is not too far out of line

[Ron Wood]

Geez guys, I hate to be the one that always disagrees, but I think the eBay sight is an original that has been reblued and perhaps "touched up" a bit. In the Member Gallery there is an excellent series of photos of real Navy sights and several shots of the repro that is currently on the market. I have borrowed a couple of photos from that album and they are shown below with the real sight on top, the eBay sight in the middle and the repro sight at the bottom. It is difficult to say for sure because all three sights are not exactly the same view, but I think the eBay sight looks like an original.

[Don H.]

I requested more pictures from the ebay seller but don't know how to post them here. If someone would let me forward the email pictures to them maybe they can post them. From the photos I've seen I tend to agree with Ron.

[Pete Ebbink]

Hello Don H.,

I you send the photos to me at "pebbink@pacbell.net", I will get them posted in this message thread...!

Regards,

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

[Navy]

I am inclined to agree with the esteemed Mr. Wood. I believe it is a reblued original.

Tom A.

[Don H.]

Pete check your email. I sent them. Thanks Don

[Pete Ebbink]

Thanks to Don H., here are the additional photos from the seller :






Regards,

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

[Dwight Gruber]

Thanks to Ron and Tom for the reminder that determining authenticity on the basis of a photograph is an imprecise activity at best, and should be done with utmost care.

Thanks also to Don H. and Pete for supplying more pictures of the Navy sight under discussion.

I will refrain from further opinion as to the sight's originality, but I will make some more observations.

Below is a comparison of my authentic Navy rear toggle with the new photos provided (also the reproduction sight presented in the past). As can be seen at the point marked A , the rear face of the sight is machined flat up to the top of the sight sides. On the authentic sight the flat machining only goes to the level of the sight itself, and begins a round profile from there (this is much more noticeable on the actual piece than in the photo). I would be interested in reports of other sights to know how consistent this machinig pattern is.

Ron pointed out in his comparison to the repro sight the slight rounding of the corners in the original sight profile.

The sight under discussion here has no serial number stamp on the toggle tail.

It would be very interesting to see a photo of the underside of this sight, for any markings and its maching marks.
--Dwight

[Pete Ebbink]

Hi Dwight !

Maybe the lack of the small radius, contour on the e-Bay piece stems from the fact that to have removed the serial number from the back, the machine sanding process took off enough metal to loose the radius...and it wasn't added back before the part was refinished...??? Just WAG'ing, of course...

Regards,

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

[Don H.]

I'm wondering how many different manufactures of the original naval sights were there? and if more than one is there any difference between them?

[Ron Wood]

Pete,
I think your WAG is dead on. You posted while I was getting my stuff together to reply to Dwight as follows:

Good photos Dwight, and your observation concerning the flat machining on the rear of the slider is correct. If you look at your sight and the refinished eBay sight, you will see that the sliding portion of your sight protrudes slightly beyond the base at the rear. On the refinished sight, the slider is flush with the base; evidently having been ground/polished off at the same time the serial number was ground/polished off. It would seem that whoever did the refinishing did the two pieces together, perhaps to remove pitting, and the result is a flush fit between the two pieces and a higher flat machining on the slider.

If you compare the "button" on the eBay sight and your sight with the repro, you can see that there is much more â??metalâ?� above the button on an original sight. Also, the checkering on the toggle knobs of the eBay sight appears to conform much more to your sight than the repro.

The real telling factor is the large radius on the rear of the repro sight. Below I have drawn a line above the hole for the sight catch on all three sights. You can see that the serrations below the line and the transition from the flat machining to the radius is significantly different on the repro slide, but quite similar on the original sight and the eBay sight.

[John Sabato]

FWIW, I concur in the belief that this is an original Navy sight, that has been refinished and has had the rear of it ground (most likely to remove the serial number) during the refinishing process...

It sure would look fine on a Navy Shooter!

Wish it were mine!

Thanks for a great discussion guys!

[lugerholsterrepair]

Ron, Excellent presentation and photo's! Really learned something here...Thanks fellows. Jerry Burney

[policeluger]

Way out of my league here, but why would someone grind so much off the rear of the sight too remove a shallow .002 or so serial number, too polish this in prep of re-blueing, you would not need too go so far, and you would want to take the sight apart in the first place too do a proper job, so polishing/sanding the two parts together just does not make sense. Based on the one original sight I have, sn. 29, the sight button has a finer checkered pattern then the one that is on ebay, also when my sight is in the 100 meter setting, the leading edge of the sight is flush with the sights body, for lack of proper term? the one on ebay is not?? thanks for any help.

[Ron Wood]

Howard,

You have good questions, and although I am not sure I can provide valid answers, they deserve to be addressed. So, if the rest of the forum can put up with a little more "Luger forensics", lets give it a shot.

To begin with, I think that most of the questions so far have been generated because this sight was refinished, rather than restored, by a non-professional who either did not have knowledge of the proper configuration of the sight, or was not concerned with preservation so much as improving the appearance and making it functional. I would venture to guess that the sight was in pretty sad shape when he started, as many Navy Lugers are from the salt air and water exposure. The "cosmetic" refurbishment produced the flaws noted:

1. As Dwight pointed out, the top edge of the sight itself is the wrong contour.
2. Also as Dwight pointed out, there are finishing marks on the top surface of the toggle knobs, and the toggle flat just behind them.
3. As you have noted, the leading edge of the sight is not flush with the body of the sight where the 100 is marked.
4. As already discussed, the rear of the sight has been ground away and made flush with the body.

I believe that the heavy grinding on the rear of the sight was not done to remove a relatively shallow serial number, but to remove pits and smooth up the metal. Not knowing that the sliding portion of the sight should not be flush with the base, the refinisher carefully ground them to bring them into alignment or it was necessary to grind it that far to remove pitting/damage.

This is not the only thing that was done that "does not make sense" as you observed. The very beginning observation by Jerry Burney that the "200 should be in the white" points out that the refinisher was not familiar with this characteristic or was not concerned with a proper restoration.

The leading edge of the sight not being flush with the body I believe is once again the result of the need to remove excessive amounts of metal to eliminate pitting or blemishes. As you originally noted, the numbers are poorly executed, particularly the 100. If you look at the placement of the 100 as well as the alignment of the surfaces of the eBay sight vs. an original, it is clear to see that the eBay sight has been ground down and renumbered.



With regard to your sight having a finer checkered pattern than the eBay sight, it may be finer, but I think that it could be an illusion caused by the photograph and the fact that the â??pointsâ?� of the checkering on the eBay sight have been worn down and therefore appear coarser. If you count the actual number of lines on the button I think you will find them to be very close to the same number as on your SN 29 sight.

Hope this has been of some use,
Ron

[policeluger]

Ron, I fully understand now, and am humbled that you would take so much time too educate me so. Thanks!

[Dwight Gruber]

I emailed the seller with the question, and he kindly supplied a photo of the bottom of the toggle. I have come to expect a capital letter (a worker's mark??) to be stamped on the underside of an authentic Navy rear toggle, this one appears to be I . It is a bit difficult to tell, but one could also compare the machining characteristics of the bottom of the toggle rails.

It is worthy of note that the seller does not make the claim that this is an authentic piece.

(Top toggle is the one for sale, bottom is from my own Navy.)

--Dwight