Help needed with 1941 Krieghoff

Tom Whiteman · 11-21-2006, 08:55 AM

I need your collective help on Krieghoff # 11278, 1941 date with matching mag. It is pictured in Gibson's book on page 179. This pistol has been offered to me at a fairly healthy price, but I have some concerns about it and would like to know the current thinking on this variation. Here are my concerns.: 1) The same serial number is found on page 175 on a 1940 gun. Does anyone know of a case where the serials were repeated like this? 2) It makes me nervous that this "large date 1941" is the only one known. Have there been others documented since the writing of the book? 3) While I am offered this gun from a guy I know and trust, the caption in the book declares the collection this came from and this too gives me pause.
Anyone have more info on this particular gun?
Thanks

LU1900 · 11-21-2006, 09:19 AM

.........

Navy · 11-21-2006, 09:25 AM

Tom,

There are several inconsistencies noted in Gibson; this is one of them. Pls send me a PM and we can discuss as well as I would like to share some info with you.

Tom A

Mike Jones · 11-21-2006, 11:15 AM

Do a search of 1941 Krieghoff on the old forum, You will find all you need to know on this gun.

Mike

Pete Ebbink · 11-21-2006, 12:24 PM

Tom,

Listen to the little voice in your head.

Because of the controversy associated with this piece and the two photos in the old Gibson book, you might find it, in the future, difficult to sell it off for even bigger bucks... as your contemporary is doing now.

Tom Whiteman · 11-21-2006, 07:48 PM

Thanks guys, seems that my concerns are being validated. Nice lookin' gun though.....

Someone will be blissfully proud of it... until they try to sell.

drbuster · 11-21-2006, 11:20 PM

Tom, if the seller is aware of the controversy, offer less money to the point you are more comfortable.

Tom Whiteman · 11-22-2006, 11:49 PM

Are you suggesting that it would be worth 5K?
I'm thinking that it's at least a nice 1940 with a matched mag- at least 95% finish. Is that what you are suggesting?

Edward Tinker · 11-23-2006, 12:56 AM

Tom,

Unless you pick something up for a "good" price, it'll always be hard to sell later, and later always comes...

Ed

drbuster · 11-23-2006, 07:03 PM

Tom, after reading the previous Forum threads of "1941 Krieghoff" and seeing the same HK dated 1940 and then 1941 a few pages apart in Gibson's book...after the nausea feeling of total uncertainty, I would pass totally on this purchase. Much too "hot" of an HK. It would have to be well below market (say $2.5K) for me at least to consider buying it. Then in the future you would have to hope that the buyer wasn't savvy..a totally uncomfortable situation.

Tom Whiteman · 11-23-2006, 09:00 PM

Good, thanks for confirming that for me. I already passed on the gun but then you know that feeling were you sit there thinking "but what if.....". I was doing that for about a day, but now agree that passing was the right thing to do. I appreciate all the experienced feedback I got from you guys. Makes the forum REALLY worthwhile.

Pete Ebbink · 11-30-2006, 05:29 PM

Photos in the Gibson book under discussion :

tracyp · 07-29-2007, 10:59 PM

Looks like Randy Bessler is selling this at $8995

Pete Ebbink · 07-30-2007, 12:31 AM

Tracy,

I played around with the photos a bit.

I think the Bessler SN is 11276...

I am pretty sure the Bessler gun is not the old Skinner/Shattuck gun # 11278...as the most-pronounced milling marks in the left "ear" recess that is identical on the Skinner/Shattuck gun is absent on the Bessler gun.

Here is a close-up of the chamber date stamping as well...what do you think...???

My tired eyes think I see a "1942"...not a "1941" as the Bessler ad says...but it might just be the photo...

The height of the last two numbers also seem taller than the first two numbers on the chamber date stamping...

Pete Ebbink · 07-30-2007, 12:42 PM

Close ups of the Skinner 1940-dated gun (chamber and serial) versus the Shattuck 1941-dated gun (chamber and serial).

One can note how evenly spaced the numbers of the "1940" stamping are. And the shape of the "4" on both guns are very different as well.

11-21-2006, 08:55 AM	#1
Tom Whiteman User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Phila, PA Posts: 72 Thanks: 0 Thanked 33 Times in 4 Posts	Help needed with 1941 Krieghoff I need your collective help on Krieghoff # 11278, 1941 date with matching mag. It is pictured in Gibson's book on page 179. This pistol has been offered to me at a fairly healthy price, but I have some concerns about it and would like to know the current thinking on this variation. Here are my concerns.: 1) The same serial number is found on page 175 on a 1940 gun. Does anyone know of a case where the serials were repeated like this? 2) It makes me nervous that this "large date 1941" is the only one known. Have there been others documented since the writing of the book? 3) While I am offered this gun from a guy I know and trust, the caption in the book declares the collection this came from and this too gives me pause. Anyone have more info on this particular gun? Thanks

11-21-2006, 09:19 AM	#2
LU1900 User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: FRANCE Posts: 908 Thanks: 42 Thanked 469 Times in 197 Posts	......... __________________ Best regards from France...Patrice https://www.fichier-pdf.fr/2016/03/1...nd-snail-drum/

11-21-2006, 09:25 AM	#3
Navy RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Dc 'burbs in Virginia Posts: 2,482 Thanks: 0 Thanked 16 Times in 10 Posts	Tom, There are several inconsistencies noted in Gibson; this is one of them. Pls send me a PM and we can discuss as well as I would like to share some info with you. Tom A

11-21-2006, 11:15 AM	#4
Mike Jones User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Torrance, Calif. Posts: 67 Thanks: 10 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	Do a search of 1941 Krieghoff on the old forum, You will find all you need to know on this gun. Mike

11-21-2006, 12:24 PM	#5
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Tom, Listen to the little voice in your head. Because of the controversy associated with this piece and the two photos in the old Gibson book, you might find it, in the future, difficult to sell it off for even bigger bucks... as your contemporary is doing now.

11-21-2006, 07:48 PM	#6
Tom Whiteman User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Phila, PA Posts: 72 Thanks: 0 Thanked 33 Times in 4 Posts	Thanks guys, seems that my concerns are being validated. Nice lookin' gun though..... Someone will be blissfully proud of it... until they try to sell.

11-21-2006, 11:20 PM	#7
drbuster User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: San Mateo, California Posts: 1,432 Thanks: 2 Thanked 71 Times in 56 Posts	Tom, if the seller is aware of the controversy, offer less money to the point you are more comfortable.

11-22-2006, 11:49 PM	#8
Tom Whiteman User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Phila, PA Posts: 72 Thanks: 0 Thanked 33 Times in 4 Posts	Are you suggesting that it would be worth 5K? I'm thinking that it's at least a nice 1940 with a matched mag- at least 95% finish. Is that what you are suggesting?

11-23-2006, 12:56 AM	#9
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,946 Thanks: 2,047 Thanked 4,555 Times in 2,104 Posts	Tom, Unless you pick something up for a "good" price, it'll always be hard to sell later, and later always comes... Ed

11-23-2006, 07:03 PM	#10
drbuster User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: San Mateo, California Posts: 1,432 Thanks: 2 Thanked 71 Times in 56 Posts	Tom, after reading the previous Forum threads of "1941 Krieghoff" and seeing the same HK dated 1940 and then 1941 a few pages apart in Gibson's book...after the nausea feeling of total uncertainty, I would pass totally on this purchase. Much too "hot" of an HK. It would have to be well below market (say $2.5K) for me at least to consider buying it. Then in the future you would have to hope that the buyer wasn't savvy..a totally uncomfortable situation.

11-23-2006, 09:00 PM	#11
Tom Whiteman User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Phila, PA Posts: 72 Thanks: 0 Thanked 33 Times in 4 Posts	Good, thanks for confirming that for me. I already passed on the gun but then you know that feeling were you sit there thinking "but what if.....". I was doing that for about a day, but now agree that passing was the right thing to do. I appreciate all the experienced feedback I got from you guys. Makes the forum REALLY worthwhile.

11-30-2006, 05:29 PM	#12
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Photos in the Gibson book under discussion :

07-29-2007, 10:59 PM	#13
tracyp User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Peoples Republic of Kalifornia Posts: 391 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	Looks like Randy Bessler is selling this at $8995

07-30-2007, 12:31 AM	#14
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Tracy, I played around with the photos a bit. I think the Bessler SN is 11276... I am pretty sure the Bessler gun is not the old Skinner/Shattuck gun # 11278...as the most-pronounced milling marks in the left "ear" recess that is identical on the Skinner/Shattuck gun is absent on the Bessler gun. Here is a close-up of the chamber date stamping as well...what do you think...??? My tired eyes think I see a "1942"...not a "1941" as the Bessler ad says...but it might just be the photo... The height of the last two numbers also seem taller than the first two numbers on the chamber date stamping...

07-30-2007, 12:42 PM	#15
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Close ups of the Skinner 1940-dated gun (chamber and serial) versus the Shattuck 1941-dated gun (chamber and serial). One can note how evenly spaced the numbers of the "1940" stamping are. And the shape of the "4" on both guns are very different as well.