Re: 1900 Luger (Con't - for Bill)

[Kyrie]

Hi Bill,


If Iâ??ve left the impression I think all the incorrect serial number range 1900 Commercial Lugers being identified as 1900 US Army Test Trails Lugers are fakes or forgeries I sincerely and abjectly apologize - that wasnâ??t at all what I meant. Let me see if I can be clearer.


The US Army order for 1,000 Lugers for test trials was filled by DWM with variation 1900 Commercial Lugers. These 1,000 are positively distinguishable from all the other 1900 Commercial variation Lugers only by the serial number range of the US Test Trail Lugers, and this serial number range is known from period Bureau of Accounting records. This serial number range is not speculation; it is based on primary source documents.


All of the US Test Trail Lugers had these characteristics:


1. Serial number in the range 6099 to 7098.


2. Great Seal of the US over the chamber.


3. Barrel of 4.75 inches.


4. Chambered for the 7.65 mm Parabellum.


5. Serial numbered in the commercial style, save for the number on the take down latch, which is on the rounded stub of the take down latch and visible from the right side of the pistol.


6. â??Flaming Bombâ?� DWM inspection stamp on the bottom of the barrel extension, in front of the recoil lug.


7. Will not be stamped â??Germany.â?�


8. Will not have any proof marks.


1900 Commercial variation Lugers produced after serial number 7098 may be found with one or more of characteristics 2 through 8, and the presence of these characteristics has led people to incorrectly identify these more common 1900 Commercial variation Lugers as 1900 US Army Test Trail Lugers. People want 1900 Test Trial Lugers and are willing to rationalize away the evidence that indicates their pistol is not what they want it to be. This is what I think is happening here on the forum.


That said, fraud and counterfeiting of the 1900 US Army Test Trial Lugers is a problem - not here on the forum but in the larger Luger collecting environment, and thatâ??s the area I was trying to address with my comment about 100 years of forgery.


There are unscrupulous folks out there who will fraudulently misrepresent a 1900 Commercial variation with a Great Seal as a 1900 Test Trials Luger. This is when knowing the correct serial number range of the 1900 US Army Test Trial Lugers is important to the prospective purchaser.


There are also unscrupulous people who will take a 1900 Commercial variation and alter the serial number to make it appear to fall in the Test Trials serial number range, and this is where knowing the other 2 through 8 characteristics of the Test Trial Luger can save a collector a lot of anguish.


And finally, there are those people who will take any Luger with the Great Seal and alter it to look like a Test Trial Luger. Knowledge of all the characteristics of a genuine Test Trial Luger is good preventive medicine against these folks.


More generally, I wanted to attempt to warn the collector, â??newbieâ?� and â??old handâ?� both, that our desire to own a specific variation can be our worst enemy. If that desire gets out of hand we can find ourselves disregarding evidence that a pistol isnâ??t what we want it to be because we so badly want it to be what we desire.


I hope Iâ??ve expressed myself more clearly!


Best regards,


Kyrie

[Johnny Peppers]

For any of your posting to be accurate it must first be accepted beyond a shadow of doubt that the records from the Bureau of Accounting are absolutely correct, and there is no proof of this. Everything is based on a bean counters notation. The first pistol may well have been 6099 and in a bean counters logic the last pistol would have been 7098. First off, the list of test pistols sold to Bannermans contains 11 pistols beyond the range indicated by the B of A records. Secondly, it is indeed strange that except for one pistol, the test pistols sold were in two blocks of consecutively numbered pistols. The pistols sold to Bannermans accounts for all but 20 of the original shipment of 800 pistols. There was a record of where each pistol went and when the call went out to return the pistols they were not very hard to account for. The second consecutive block of pistols contained serial numbers 6361 to 7108 which is 10 pistols above the B of A records, and as a group of 748 pistols gives a good indication that the effort to have all the pistols accounted for was a success. The pistols sold to Bannermans were condemned and sold more or less as scrap. Springfield kept some of the pistols, and it would stand to reason that they would only keep the best. There would be no reason to think that the first of the pistols that arrived would be retained at Springfield to remain in the best condition, but plenty of reason to believe that the second shipment would not all be sent to the field and therefore be the "best of the best". Since the condemned pistols were sold and contained 11 numbers above the B of A cutoff, there is no reason the remaining pistols could not have been in an even higher serial number range.

Dr. Scott Meadows in his book "US Military Automatic Pistols" now extends the range of the test pistols well into the 7000 range, and he spent many weeks at the National Archives gathering information before he released his book. He does not explain his reason for doing this, but I doubt that it was done without reason.

There is absolutely no proof that the markings on the 1000 test pistols were to be any different from any other US imported commercial Luger pistols. DWM seemingly changed marking at will, and the markings found on the test pistols are found before the test series, and after the test series. No proof can be attached to the markings or lack of markings.

[bill m]

Hi Kyrie,

I do not agree with your interpretation of the information provided. I feel there is more current information available at this time to expand the 1900 Luger test serial range. The information you have given us is of the "old school" of thought and does not explain why Bannerman bought Lugers with serial numbers higher than your list of Test Lugers. I noticed that you did not try to explain this either. You state that "knowing the correct serial number range of the 1900 US Army Test Trial Lugers is important to the perspective purchaser", which just isn't possible, as JP has posted, they just are not known, and there are the Bannerman guns which are above what all the "old school" experts have listed. I feel that this line of reasoning is "disregarding" evidence also, which tends to give new information and disputed the "old school" serial number list of approximately 6100-7098.

Anyone interested in a nice NONE TEST M1900AE #9595, please see the latest classified.

Does anyone know about what percentage of 1900 Swiss Lugers will have been Swiss arsenal refinished? I have read somewhere that some or all of these Lugers were delivered to the Swiss in the white and finished by the Swiss. Is this true?


I know the Swiss finish is very close to the DWM finish of this period. What is a good way to tell the difference? Any more info on the 1900 Swiss would be helpful. Thanks

JV

All characteristics being present, if the Luger is outside the proper range, The flamming bomb proofs, their shape and location compared to a pistol in the proper range would be a pretty good deciding element.

JV

[Kyrie]

Hi Johnny,


Thank you for your post


Regarding the validity of the Bureau of Accounting records, Iâ??m afraid you have the situation backwards. If you feel what you term the â??bean countersâ?� to be in error, it is incumbent upon you to provide other primary source information that demonstrates the professional accountantsâ?? accounts contain errors. This is one of the stumbling blocks to the line of thought you are following - it requires discounting official US records kept during the events themselves


In terms of the pistols sold by Bannerman, I believe you are over generalizing. While Bannerman sold all the surviving 1900 Test Lugers, not all Lugers sold by Bannerman were US Test Trail Lugers - Lugers were quite an item with Bannerman and Bannerman was still selling Lugers decades after the Test Trials. The out of range 1900 Commercial variation Lugers in Bannermanâ??s records could have come from any number of sources - the US was hardly the only country considering the Luger for adoption. Moreover, if you are doubtful concerning period US government records, in all fairness you need to extend that same skepticism to Bannermanâ??s records.


Concerning your comment that the Lugers sold to Bannermanâ??s â??...were condemned and sold more or less as scrap.â?�, I regret to say this is untrue. The pistols were neither condemned nor sold as scrap. They sold at public auction because they were â??surplus to current and anticipated service requirements.â?� Bannerman acquired them for $10 each, and fifty cents for each spare magazine. In 1900 dollars that wasnâ??t cheap, and was more than a weekâ??s wages for a workingman.


There is nothing â??strangeâ?? about DWM delivering blocks of consecutively numbered pistols - this was the rule rather than the exception for small contracts.


Regarding your comment that, â??The pistols sold to Bannermanâ??s accounts for all but 20 of the original shipment of 800 pistols.â??, I regret to point out this is highly unlikely. It is a matter of historical record that the US army traded 50 of the 7.65 mm 1900 Test Lugers for 50 Luger in 9 mm Parabellum (and these 9 mm Parabellum pistols were consecutively serial numbered beginning with serial number 22400), and that two of the ten original 1,000 1900 Test Lugers shipped to West Point were never issued nor accounted for - and were presumably stolen. Additionally, some unknown number of 1900 Test Lugers were regarded by the US Army as unserviceable, beyond repair, and were destroyed rather than going to auction. Thus, youâ??re counting on having more than 50% of the pistols lost, stolen, destroyer, or return to Germany to have come from the only the last 200 pistols delivered to the US. It is much more likely that some of the pistols offered by Bannerman came from sources other than the US Test Trials. This is especially true if you believe, as you write, that there is â??plenty of reason to believe that the second shipment would not all be sent to the field and therefore be the "best of the best"â??.


Finally, regarding Dr. Scott Meadows and his "US Military Automatic Pistols", his extension of the test pistol serial numbers into the 7000 range would be more persuasive if he had cited some primary source documentation to support this extension (or at least provided some hints as to his reasoning for doing so). As he did not, his extension of the serial number range can be regarded as nothing more than his own speculation.


While I respect your position on this and find your reasoning interesting, I cannot agree with your conclusions. To do so Iâ??d have to be willing to discount primary source records, accept unlikely lines of speculation as being likely true, and put more faith in supposition based on desire for a specific answer than I did in historical fact. Iâ??m reluctant to do these things


Best regards,


Kyrie

[Kyrie]

Hi Bill,


Respectfully, I think you choice of words in the phrase â??current informationâ?? is especially significant. The only current information on the Test Trials Lugers is the information recorded when the events were current; which is to say the years 1901 - 1904, when the tests were conducted. More recent information is not information per se, but rather is speculation :-(


Regarding the out of range Bannerman Lugers, please see my post to Johnny; in essence, just as not all 1900 Commercial Lugers are US Army Test Trial Lugers, not all Bannerman Lugers are US Army Test Trial Lugers.


Concerning whether or not we know the serial number range for the US Army Test Trial Lugers, we do indeed and have for almost one hundred years. It is only recently that some collectors have sought to replace primary source documentation with their own speculation in the hopes of improving their collections, or at least their chances of obtaining a Test Trial Luger.


Finally, there is no â??new informationâ?? - only an attempt to replace historical evidence with current wishful thinking


Best regards,


Kyrie

[bill m]

Hi Kyrie,

I respect your replies on this subject, but I do not feel you have answered any of the questions with any concrete positive information. Your Bannerman explanation did not explain anything. You can not use serial numbers from one source and say they are correct, (test serial number range of 6100 - 7098), and then disregard other serial numbers (Bannerman list), and say they were just other guns Bannerman bought. These Bannerman Lugers show what was thought to be the established serial number range of the test Lugers is not correct. There is no other explanation. I'm trying to have an open mind about this, and my conclusion is that the old documented serial number range is incorrect, and that it does run higher. If someone can actually come up with the serial numbers, or evidence to show otherwise I will gladly change my opinion. We have supplied information from collectors that have made a study out of these guns, like Ron Wood's article in "Auto Mag", Charlie Kenyon, and numerous serial numbers and the characteristics of 1900's that were not recorded 50 to 60 years ago, which is all adding to this conclusion. Bottom line is: use this information if you'd care to, or pass it by. It's your choice. I feel that my gun, 7735 is a test piece, but some do not. That is their opinion and this is mine. I will try to support mine with this kind of information. So far, I have found no information that has enough actual facts that can positively rule out these higher serial numbers as not being test pieces. The information can not positively include them as test pieces either.

[Johnny Peppers]

I find it unusual that as collectors we would accept one shred of evidence as being the deciding factor that a test pistol would not be correct if it fell one number out of the range quoted in an accounting notation. To do this, all other evidence to the contrary is summarily dismissed. It is just as incumbent to prove that all evidence presented is either false or not worthy of consideration.

The discussion involved only the 1900 Test Trials Lugers, and any other Lugers sold by Bannerman have absolutely bearing on this discussion. I personally have never seen evidence of Bannerman selling the Model 1900 commerial model at the same time they were selling the test trials pistols.

Whether the pistols were sold as scrap or as surplus still has no bearing on the serial number range. The result is still the same.

The total shipment of Model 1900 Test Trials pistols totaled 1000, and I fail to see how the government trading 50 of these pistols changed the original order of 800 (assumed). You completely misunderstood my statement about the pistols being shipped in blocks of consecutive numbers. When the pistols were sold to Bannermans they were in two consecutive blocks of 30 pistols and 748 pistols and these blocks were 265 numbers apart. What happened to these 265 pistols? Where is the evidence that the government destroyed any pistols? It would seem strange that 748 pistols could remain consecutively numbered with this representing 75% of the pistols purchased, and have none of these pistols destroyed. The pistols that were brought back in were put up for auction as one lot, and Bannerman was the winning bidder.

Nowhere in my posts have I said it is either black or white with no shades of gray, but to accept the range of 6099 to 7098 is basing everything on what even Michael Reese calls evidence, as opposed to a document.

If you will look at Charles Kenyon's early writing he accepts the 6099 to 7098 range as being correct. Now jump ahead and look at his "Luger: The Multi-National Pistol". In it he indicates that the range of the first 900 pistols is in the 6100 to 7100 range, and that the second shipment is in the 7200 range. As Charles Kenyon is one of the leading experts in the field of Lugers, he as apparently changed his mind due to new evidence being provided. Michael Reese wrote a great little book on the Test Trials pistols, but none of his evidence is written in stone. I guess we believe what we want to believe, and disregard anything contrary to our opinion.

[Kyrie]

Hi Johnny,


My comments â??between the linesâ?�....


>I find it unusual that as collectors we would accept one shred of evidence as being the


It is not, as you say. â??one shred of evidenceâ?� - itâ??s the official US government record, made at the time of the delivery, by someone who was actually there. Thatâ??s a claim no one alive today can make.


>deciding factor that a test pistol would not be correct if it fell one number out of the

>range quoted in an accounting notation.


Such is the nature of the world; either she is pregnant or she is not


So too either a Luger is a Test Trials Luger or it is not. It matters little whether it is one number or ten thousand numbers outside the range.


> To do this, all other evidence to the contrary is summarily dismissed. It is just as

>incumbent to prove that all evidence presented is either false or not worthy of

>consideration.


No sir, not dismissed. In collecting we will come up against sources that differ. Itâ??s then up to us to weigh what each source says, consider the origin of the information they offer, and form some reasoned judgment on which of the sources is more credible (or sometimes the least incredible!). Such is the nature of collecting


>The discussion involved only the 1900 Test Trials Lugers, and any other Lugers sold

>by Bannerman have absolutely bearing on this discussion. I personally have never

>seen evidence of Bannerman selling the Model 1900 commerial model at the same

>time they were selling the test trials pistols.


Respectfully, no sir. You have seen Bannerman 1900 Commercials, you just want to call them Test Trial Lugers. You are certainly free to do so, but others will disagree with you - and thatâ??s all that is happening here.


>Whether the pistols were sold as scrap or as surplus still has no bearing on the serial

>number range. The result is still the same.


Respectfully, and with no offense intended, it has a direct bearing on the credibility of your position when you make statements that are factually untrue. All this goes back to the need for collectors to assess the relative credibility of two positions, and one criterion by which this assessment is done is the apparent level of knowledge of the proponents of each position.


>The total shipment of Model 1900 Test Trials pistols totaled 1000, and I fail to see

>how the government trading 50 of these pistols changed the original order of 800

>(assumed).


I never said it did. You asserted that, and I quote, â??The pistols sold to Bannermans accounts for all but 20 of the original shipment of 800 pistolsâ??. Which means the majority of the 50 pistols returned to DWM in exchange for 9 mm Lugers had to come from the last 200 Lugers received by the US Army. Thatâ??s highly unlikely, as you yourself wrote that there was, â??plenty of reason to believe that the second shipment would not all be sent to the field and therefore be the "best of the best"â??. The Lugers returned to DWM were in only good to very good condition and therefor likely came from the first 800 received.


Moreover there was no, as you write, â??original order of 800â?? Lugers. The order was for 1,000 Lugers, which were delivered in two shipments. The devil, my friend, is in the details. If we fail to keep straight the details we will, as you have done, make factually incorrect assertions. Respectfully and cordially, I suggest you may want to take a moment and go back over the literature to refresh your memory of the details. Iâ??ve found doing so can bring a welcome clarity to oneâ??s thoughts.


>You completely misunderstood my statement about the pistols being shipped in

>blocks of consecutive numbers. When the pistols were sold to Bannermans they were

>in two consecutive blocks of 30 pistols and 748 pistols and these blocks were 265

>numbers apart. What happened to these 265 pistols? Where is the evidence that the

>government destroyed any pistols?


See Reese.


> It would seem strange that 748 pistols could remain consecutively numbered with

>this representing 75% of the pistols purchased, and have none of these pistols

>destroyed.


Indeed it would, and this is one of the reasons that Bannermanâ??s records are suspect.


>Nowhere in my posts have I said it is either black or white with no shades of gray, but

>to accept the range of 6099 to 7098 is basing everything on what even Michael Reese

>calls evidence, as opposed to a document.


Not at all - it is based on US Government accounting records. We donâ??t get much better documentation than that, especially when it comes to Lugers. For most Luger variations there is literally no primary source documentation as to serial number range.


>If you will look at Charles Kenyon's early writing he accepts the 6099 to 7098 range

>as being correct. Now jump ahead and look at his "Luger: The Multi-National Pistol".

>In it he indicates that the range of the first 900 pistols is in the 6100 to 7100 range,

>and that the second shipment is in the 7200 range. As Charles Kenyon is one of the

>leading experts in the field of Lugers, he as apparently changed his mind due to new

>evidence being provided.


Perhaps so - we all judge based on the evidence we have. When Mr. Kenyon shares his evidence I might well change my mind.


>Michael Reese wrote a great little book on the Test Trials pistols, but none of his

>evidence is written in stone.


Nor is primary source information to be put aside based on speculation. If and when someone comes forward with better evidence than the original records, made at the time of the event, then we will have something very interesting indeed. But at the moment all we have are the primary source documents on one side, and conjecture based on speculation on the other. Or so it seems to me


> I guess we believe what we want to believe, and disregard anything contrary to our

>opinion.


Indeed


Best regards,


Kyrie

[G.T.]

Hi Kyrie, In John Walters book "The Luger" he states that there were three guns tested prior to the order for 1000, & that the serial range could run from 6151 to 7150, he does note that this has not been confirmed, but for him to make that statement would indicate that previous research data could also be suspect to err.....also it would seem to me, that there could be a substancial overlap of pistols with test charecteristics on both ends of the serial range (what ever it may be?) This brings up an interesting question...Does the pistol have to be issued to be a Test Eagle? If I had a American Eagle that was serial no. 7151 and met all the criteria of a Test Eagle, in my mind that would be a correct Test Eagle variation, whether it was issued to US troops in 1902, or kept in reserve in Germany! Just think of the can of worms this would open up! Some number cruncher out there with 1900, data knows the answer, as there have been tons of info compiled since most of the major luger book have been written....I will wait and see! till...later....G.T.

[Johnny Peppers]

Michael Reese does not mention a document as proof of the serial numbers; he says there is "evidence", not proof. Your have a fixation on the book by Michael Reese, and there is other information out there to be recognized.

Not sure what your comment about pregnancy has to do with the test pistols. Pregnancy can be proven, a test pistol cannot even if it falls into the chosen range.

After we have weighted all the evidence, do we then pick the evidence that suits our idea of what is and what isn't? I made no statements so bold as to be construed as "it can only be this way". There really are other opinions out there that has as much credibility as Michael Reese. You blame Dr. Scott Meadows and Charles Kenyon for not sharing the source of their information, but where does Michael Reese document the one statement you hang on to so dearly.

You were the one that brought other Lugers sold by Bannerman into the discussion. I never mention another Luger sold by Bannerman other than to ask what the statement you made had to do with the test trials pistol sale.

Strange that you should start a sentence with "Respectfully" and then finish the sentence with a statetement that whether a pistol was sold as scrap or not has a direct bearing on my credibility. You are now turning the discussion personal, and if this is your only argument, the discussion should end right here and now. I will discuss this as long as anyone is interested, but I will not discuss it with anyone that turns to personal attacks to try and make a point.

[Kyrie]

Johnny,


Respectfully and cordially, I observed that you were making factually untrue statements, and that doing so tends to reflect negatively on oneâ??s position. Both of these observations were true. If you chose to view this as a personal attack Iâ??m sorry - neither observation was intended as such.


I think everyone who has ever indulged in this kind of technical discussion is aware of how easy it is to slip into error when we are tired, or have become emotionally involved in the discussion - I certainly am, as Iâ??ve been guilty of the same thing more than once myself [wry and embarrassed smile]. Itâ??s been my experience, when I find myself in your position, that it helps to step back from the discussion, take a breather, and go back over the literature on the subject which is why I recommended the approach to you. I tried to make the recommendation as cordially as I could, but obviously failed to be sufficiently cordial and for that I apologize.


Best regards,


Kyrie

[Kyrie]

Hi G. T.


Yes sir, Iâ??d say a pistol must have been delivered to the US Army for it to be a US Army Test Trials Luger


Best regards,


Kyrie

[Johnny Peppers]

Kyrie,

Respectfully, cordially, etc, etc, etc, apparently you don't want to let go of this; so how do you know that I made any statements that were factually untrue? You do not know any of what I said to be factually untrue. You do not factually know what the original range of the test pistols were, and you do not know under what circumstances the pistols were sold. You may have an opinion as to how they were sold, but you have no factual knowledge. All you know is what you read in one 25 year old book, and much of that was also someone's opinion. This forum has always been great due to the varied opinions presented here, but when opinions are presented as fact, credibility is then lost. It is not a fact that if someone changes a numbered part of a Luger that the Luger then becomes a fake. That is merely one person's opinion, has no basis in fact, and is extremely rude for our guests to be accused of fakery when they broach this subject.

I will be the first to admit that my limited knowledge of Lugers is such that whatever I submit to this forum is my opinion, but is arrived at from the best research material available. I may have done it, but I don't recall ever making a statement and then telling the forum that it was fact just because I read it in a book. When someone has all the facts, and writes the book, I will be among the first to buy it.