Simpson 1906 Navy NA-02

Chuckc · 06-02-2006, 05:54 PM

The conventional wisdom on Navy Lugers that I have read have always said the crown over M proof stamp should have the crown nestled into the M and not floating above the M. The pictures provided by Simpson shows the crown floating well above the M.

Did I get this all wrong?

Ron Wood · 06-02-2006, 06:29 PM

I noticed the same thing Chuck. Doesn't look right to me, but then I am no expert.

Pete Ebbink · 06-02-2006, 10:29 PM

This gun just does not look like it came through Waffenfabrik-USA (North or Southwest or Southeast...)...IMO.

The C/M's seem to be the early variety with the 3-lobes in the center of the crown. If I recall on the informative postings on Jan's Board, the 3-lobe crowns both "float" and are also seated directly on top of the M's.

Here is a link to that discussion thread :

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

The later crown style with the "pentagon" in the middle of the crown is the one on later M1908 and M1914; that I think are not supposed to "float" above the M's.

I could be all wrong...have been before. Especially since I do not even own one (1) Navy. Will wait for the Navy guys to chime-in...

p.s. Here is a photo from E. Bender's big book...showing the "pentagon" style stamps with their integral design which results in the crown not-floating above the M's.

John Sabato · 06-02-2006, 10:49 PM

Tom A..... we are waiting for you or Derek S. or Leo L. to chime in on this one... ???

Ron Wood · 06-03-2006, 12:08 PM

Quoted from Jan Still's forum as provided by the link that Pete posted:

"Based on information from Whittaker* and Jones**, 1904 Navies serial numbers 2, 15, 36, 51, 61, 79 and 94 all have the distinctive 3 lobe Navy test proof shown(figures 1-3) above. The crown floats above the Ã¢??MÃ¢?Â. As documented with photographs by Whittaker on his web site, the use of the three lobe test proof continued on early 1906 Navy Lugers serial numbers 342 and 461. "

Since this Navy offered by Simpson is very early, 3XX, and has the distinctive three lobe crown, it is quite possible that the crown floating above the "M" could very well be correct. Lots of variation and inconsistencies when a new model starts production.

Pete Ebbink · 06-03-2006, 12:41 PM

Hi Chuck,

Good to see you on the Forum again...glad your interest in lugers is still there !

Link to Simpsons with all the other photos of this Navy under discussion :

http://www.simpsonltd.com/product_in...oducts_id=4177

Navy · 06-05-2006, 08:58 AM

The gun is righteous; those are very early proofs. I would not be surprised if this wasn't originally an '04 fat Barrel that was "improved" by the Werft.

Tom A

Chuckc · 06-05-2006, 10:36 AM

I never meant to question the piece. Simpson's has an unblemished reputation and I was checking out the information I had so far on the navy proof marks. The variations are mind boggling.

I guess you could say something is always like so, EXCEPT when.....

My knowledge continues to grow thanks to the forum folks. I guess the information about the proof marks I had was for the later models. One thing is evident, no one will ever own one of each variation. Makes it all the more interesting.

Thanks for the welcome back Pete. I am still here but way skeptical and cautious. Would love to have a navy, but that may take a while. When I find one I like, it is likely to require a second mortgage.

Pete Ebbink · 06-05-2006, 10:48 AM

Hi Chuck,

The folks at FGS have posted FS a neat old M1906 Navy, altered. with two (2) unit markings...no one can accuse that Navy of coming through Waffenfabrik-USA

If I were not saving for my next Swiss piece, I think this Navy would tempt me. Not minty by any means...but a gun that looks like it had lots of service and history and it appears not to have been in any booster's hands,

The gun is on this web page at the bottom of the Navy page :

http://www.fgsinc.8m.com/photo5.html

06-02-2006, 05:54 PM	#1
Chuckc User Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Cave Creek, AZ Posts: 68 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Simpson 1906 Navy NA-02 The conventional wisdom on Navy Lugers that I have read have always said the crown over M proof stamp should have the crown nestled into the M and not floating above the M. The pictures provided by Simpson shows the crown floating well above the M. Did I get this all wrong? Attached Thumbnails __________________ Art in metal and wood

06-02-2006, 06:29 PM	#2
Ron Wood Moderator 2010 LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Santa Teresa New Mexico just outside of the West Texas town of El Paso Posts: 6,988 Thanks: 1,067 Thanked 5,091 Times in 1,676 Posts	I noticed the same thing Chuck. Doesn't look right to me, but then I am no expert. __________________ If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction

06-02-2006, 10:49 PM	#4
John Sabato Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The Capital of the Free World Posts: 10,150 Thanks: 3,003 Thanked 2,304 Times in 1,096 Posts	Tom A..... we are waiting for you or Derek S. or Leo L. to chime in on this one... ??? __________________ regards, -John S "...We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created EQUAL *and are endowed by their Creator* with certain UNALIENABLE* rights, and among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness..."*

06-03-2006, 12:08 PM	#5
Ron Wood Moderator 2010 LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Santa Teresa New Mexico just outside of the West Texas town of El Paso Posts: 6,988 Thanks: 1,067 Thanked 5,091 Times in 1,676 Posts	Quoted from Jan Still's forum as provided by the link that Pete posted: "Based on information from Whittaker* and Jones, 1904 Navies serial numbers 2, 15, 36, 51, 61, 79 and 94 all have the distinctive 3 lobe Navy test proof shown(figures 1-3) above. The crown floats above the Ã¢??MÃ¢?Â. As documented with photographs by Whittaker on his web site, the use of the three lobe test proof continued on early 1906 Navy Lugers serial numbers 342 and 461.** " Since this Navy offered by Simpson is very early, 3XX, and has the distinctive three lobe crown, it is quite possible that the crown floating above the "M" could very well be correct. Lots of variation and inconsistencies when a new model starts production. __________________ If it's made after 1918...it's a reproduction

06-05-2006, 10:36 AM	#8
Chuckc User Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Cave Creek, AZ Posts: 68 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I never meant to question the piece. Simpson's has an unblemished reputation and I was checking out the information I had so far on the navy proof marks. The variations are mind boggling. I guess you could say something is always like so, EXCEPT when..... My knowledge continues to grow thanks to the forum folks. I guess the information about the proof marks I had was for the later models. One thing is evident, no one will ever own one of each variation. Makes it all the more interesting. Thanks for the welcome back Pete. I am still here but way skeptical and cautious. Would love to have a navy, but that may take a while. When I find one I like, it is likely to require a second mortgage. __________________ Art in metal and wood

06-02-2006, 10:29 PM	#3
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	This gun just does not look like it came through Waffenfabrik-USA (North or Southwest or Southeast...)...IMO. The C/M's seem to be the early variety with the 3-lobes in the center of the crown. If I recall on the informative postings on Jan's Board, the 3-lobe crowns both "float" and are also seated directly on top of the M's. Here is a link to that discussion thread : http://luger.gunboards.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=421 The later crown style with the "pentagon" in the middle of the crown is the one on later M1908 and M1914; that I think are not supposed to "float" above the M's. I could be all wrong...have been before. Especially since I do not even own one (1) Navy. Will wait for the Navy guys to chime-in... p.s. Here is a photo from E. Bender's big book...showing the "pentagon" style stamps with their integral design which results in the crown not-floating above the M's.

06-03-2006, 12:41 PM	#6
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Hi Chuck, Good to see you on the Forum again...glad your interest in lugers is still there ! Link to Simpsons with all the other photos of this Navy under discussion : http://www.simpsonltd.com/product_in...oducts_id=4177

06-05-2006, 08:58 AM	#7
Navy RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Dc 'burbs in Virginia Posts: 2,482 Thanks: 0 Thanked 16 Times in 10 Posts	The gun is righteous; those are very early proofs. I would not be surprised if this wasn't originally an '04 fat Barrel that was "improved" by the Werft. Tom A

06-05-2006, 10:48 AM	#9
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Hi Chuck, The folks at FGS have posted FS a neat old M1906 Navy, altered. with two (2) unit markings...no one can accuse that Navy of coming through Waffenfabrik-USA If I were not saving for my next Swiss piece, I think this Navy would tempt me. Not minty by any means...but a gun that looks like it had lots of service and history and it appears not to have been in any booster's hands, The gun is on this web page at the bottom of the Navy page : http://www.fgsinc.8m.com/photo5.html