A. Weiss Baby Luger Threads ???

Pete Ebbink · 11-25-2006, 01:55 PM

It is just me and I cannot find it... or did the Patrons-Only section discussion on the recently purchased A. Weiss baby luger disappear ?

If I recall, there were two separate discussion threads running with lots of photos. I cannot find either thread (but did save the photos, luckily...).

Edward Tinker · 11-25-2006, 02:10 PM

yes, in the PATRONS only area, not in the general discussion area. there is a reason we have a patrons only area, so things can be discussed in less public forums.

The owner asked me to delete the threads so I did.

Pete Ebbink · 11-25-2006, 04:01 PM

Security issues aside...

There can still be a good technical discussion about the Baby Lugers...especially on the open-Forums so all can read and contribute.

As one may know, several "phony" A. Weiss Baby lugers are rumored to exist and some collectors do not think any Weiss Baby is real.

And then there are the Krause-made Baby lugers as well.

Wonder if the "owner" of the Baby from the deleted posting would allow his photos to be re-posted (on the open-Forum sections) so a technical discussion can occur without any concern about who owns the piece, how much was paid, and other related security issues.

I have the photos from the other discussions, so re-posting would be an easy thing to do.

John Sabato · 11-26-2006, 09:27 PM

Pete, I would ask Tom directly for permission to use the photos that he had previously posted... If you need his email address, PM me...

Edward Tinker · 11-26-2006, 09:33 PM

The "owner" decided he did not want his name associated, Pete is saying out loud he has photos downloaded, and now his first name...

If I was the "owner" I would be very leery of posting anything again.

What are you guys thinking here?

Pete Ebbink · 11-27-2006, 01:34 PM

Ed,

If you read my postings, above, carefully...you will see I purposely excluded the Owner's name.

I think Sabato did that.

And do you really think I am the only Patron that downloaded the photos the Owner's friend had posted up and the others in that Patrons-only discussion ? I would guess the jpegs are all over the world by now.

My point in opening this thread on the "open" Forum was :

1. Can we not have an intelligent discussion about somewhat controversial Baby lugers ?

2. Secure opinions from other davanced collectors that may not have Patron status. Some of these guys have followed the "history" of a few Baby lugers for many years.

BTW...The previous posting in the Patrons section possibly could have been edited, carefully, to remove any trace of the Owner's ID while leaving the photos and discussions intact...IMHO.

John,

I have traded emails with the Owner and he would prefer his photos not be posted on the Luger Forum. I will honor that.

Pete Ebbink · 11-27-2006, 02:08 PM

Here are two (2) photos of a modern day copy Mike Krause out of San Mateo, CA makes and sells; last I heard in the $ 15K USD price range :

These photos were on the old Krause web site before it was dismantled.

John Sabato · 11-27-2006, 05:13 PM

And to both Ed and Pete... there are a lot of guys named "Tom" on this forum... and Dick and Harry, and John. Just because a member requested that a thread be deleted... where is the implication that the matter is never to be discussed again? You never mentioned that Ed, just that the owner was uncomfortable leaving the thread posted.

If the owner of the recently displayed Baby would prefer that the photos that he had posted, not be reposted on the forum or anywhere else, and that request has been now made public, then all forum members who may have them in their possession should honor that... but if he wanted to remain anonymous, whatever his reasons, (and he is entitled to his reasons and privacy,) ..it is just too late to put the genie back in the bottle... the owner made the announcement himself and such a signifigant event in Luger collecting history would be discussed for years in the Luger collector community, whether in the forum or over gunshow tables.

There are lots of active forum patron class members of the collector community who have the knowledge because they read what he chose to proudly post in the patron section when he acquired it...heck! if "I" had been the one to acquire it (fat chance!!!) I would have crowed it from the rooftops with pride myself... I am glad that there are lugerforum patrons had to opportunity to admire its sleek lines when we did, even if it was for just a short time.

...and whatever the owner's reasons, and I am sure they are good ones, the event can't be erased. That is what gun safes are for.

kind regards to all,

John

...

Edward Tinker · 11-27-2006, 06:13 PM

I think I give up

policeluger · 11-27-2006, 07:15 PM

Hang in there Ed....your right, there seems to be an undertow of discrediting anything that come up, with out a sound background to do so. To "whom ever" Tom may be, my very best to him for sharing with us.

John Sabato · 11-27-2006, 08:09 PM

Ed, You certainly did nothing wrong...

It appears that you understood the owner's intent better than anyone else... all I am saying is that your initial posting didn't make your later description of the owner's desires clear...

You do a great job all the time and I am extremely grateful for all you do... please don't interpret my comments to be unflattering... only that you cracked on Pete and I for our comments when we had no clue (based on your initial reply to Pete) that discussion was to be limited about this weapon's status... or that the owner wanted to annul his announcement of ownership...

Seriously, thanks again for being so diligent in your moderator duties...

Edward Tinker · 11-27-2006, 08:44 PM

John, must be the medication (I kid about that, but actually was at the dentisit, and it was a loooong 2.5 hours there, and so, yes, tonight, it IS the meds...

ed

Dwight Gruber · 11-27-2006, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by policeluger
Hang in there Ed....your right, there seems to be an undertow of discrediting anything that come up, with out a sound background to do so.

Howard,

Thank you for bringing this up. I have noticed this trend. I had a long talk with a collector friend yesterday, a member of both this and Jan's forum, who mentioned during the conversation that he will not post pictures of his guns on the Forums for this very reason.

--Dwight

Pete Ebbink · 11-28-2006, 12:46 PM

With thousands of lugers being boosted and peddled by the Luger Mafia in the USA and abroad each year, one needs to be somewhat cynical.

Maybe I have just become "bent", but I look at those rare and/or mint guns assuming they are boosted until shown otherwise.

You guys are welcomed to call me "Paranoid Pete"...but at least the well known peddlers of boosted wares do not get my money, anymore...and I do not take certain luger authors' writings for granted, either.

Regarding these Weiss Baby lugers, one cannot ignore :

1. That they have all seemingly appeared only in the USA. Similarly to the Spandau lugers. Would one not expect a Weiss Baby to have originally surfaced in Europe ?

2. Old timer stories of the Carl Wilson Baby being fabricated in the USA and then Weiss being paid to write a testimonial letter.

3. Initial writings that Weiss first reported up to only 4 Baby lugers being made and then follow-up reports that Weiss recalled up to 12 Baby lugers being made. Is it just possible the "number" changed to make room for more Baby lugers to appear on the American scene ???

Oops...my paranoia is showing again...

Technically...I was trying to learn in the Patrons-Only section discussion about some of the subtle machining differences I noticed in the No. 1 Baby that was showcased by its current Owner with other photos of Baby lugers shown in various books and web sites.

Specifically, the length of the receiver "flutes" is longer than the portion remaining along the receiver between the flute and the front edge of the side plate...on some Baby lugers while it is just the opposite on other Baby Lugers.

Here is what I saw :

1. No. 1 Baby (from the deleted posting ) : Flute shorter in length than the remaining section of receiver flat.

2. Wilson Baby (numbered either No. 3 or No. 4...I am not sure) ; Flute is longer in length that the remaining section of the receiver flat. (Kenyon states, in LAR on page 194-195, the Wilson gun is No. 4.)

3. An un-numbered 32 cal "prototype" in Ralph Shattuck's little book on page 25 : Flute is just a bit longer in length than the remaining section of receiver flat. Maybe this one is one of the Mel Torme lugers (???); as the book caption states a "Hollywood entertainer"...

4. Krause modern-day creations : Flute is shorter in length than the remaining section of receiver flat.

In Datig's revised edition of his book "The Luger Pistol" on page 137,, of the 1962 reprinting; he mentions another Baby in .32 cal with DWM on the toggle and it being reported as a No. 8 serial. No photo is shown, unfortunately.

If I am not mistaken, I think the No. 1 current Owner mentioned his gun was used by Krause for reverse engineering drawings and measurements.

Here are two photo scans of the Wilson Baby luger :

Here is the Baby in the Shattuck book :

Dwight Gruber · 11-28-2006, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pete Ebbink
With thousands of lugers being boosted and peddled by the Luger Mafia in the USA and abroad each year, one needs to be somewhat cynical.

Maybe I have just become "bent", but I look at those rare and/or mint guns assuming they are boosted until shown otherwise.

You guys are welcomed to call me "Paranoid Pete"...but at least the well known peddlers of boosted wares do not get my money, anymore...and I do not take certain luger authors' writings for granted, either.

Regarding these Weiss Baby lugers, one cannot ignore :

1. That they have all seemingly appeared only in the USA. Similarly to the Spandau lugers. Would one not expect a Weiss Baby to have originally surfaced in Europe ?

2. Old timer stories of the Carl Wilson Baby being fabricated in the USA and then Weiss being paid to write a testimonial letter.

3. Initial writings that Weiss first reported up to only 4 Baby lugers being made and then follow-up reports that Weiss recalled up to 12 Baby lugers being made. Is it just possible the "number" changed to make room for more Baby lugers to appear on the American scene ???

Oops...my paranoia is showing again...

Pete,

Not trying to excoriate you here. The scepticism you exhibit is an attribute unfortunately necessary to engage in the attempt to assemble a high-level Luger collection in the 21st century.

The topic of boosting, faking, and forgery is a maturing one, and the discussion has a rich underground or "back-channel" life. You know of my frustration with the coy, roundabout references to nefarious "well-known" operators which avoid mentioning their names. I understand some reasons why the names are not named, but I believe that this stands the general collecting community in poor stead.

The essential Luger library is a small one, as is the pool of senior expert authors. We are all ultimately faced with the same sources. I think knowing which authors' commentaries no longer have your confidence, and why, would be beneficial and enlightening.

Some comments which occur to me on your numbered points:

1. The USA was a major participant in victory over Germany in two wars, and had an active presence in the suppression of the country after both. All these activities promote the plunder of "spoils of war", understood more gently as the taking of souvenirs. Of the victor nations, the U.S.'s gun laws are particularly amenable to the possession of captured arms.

Under these circumstances, I would expect unusual Lugers to come "out of the woodwork" in the US. Equally, I see no particular reason why they should preferentially be expected to surface in Europe first.

The coincidence of so many unique Lugers showing up first in the US is noteworthy, and is rightly a matter for further examination, but I do not see it as a prima facie reason to deny their authenticity.

2. Could you provide details and sources for the "old-timer stories"?

3. Datig (1955 p.137) mentions "reports" of the .32 Baby Luger, production being "not more than a dozen", and specifically mentioning the report of serial number 8. In the 1958 revision (p.229) he reports August Weiss's specific recollection of supervising the production of 12 of these guns.

This is pretty early work. Could you identify the "initial writings"?

I am not trying to trip you up here, my friend. Your writings have been a lightening-rod for some of my own frustrations, and your comments here have afforded me an opportunity to express some of my thoughts.

--Dwight

policeluger · 11-28-2006, 04:04 PM

DG, just as a bit of a side note, for about 35 years that I have been gun smithing here, a customer and former co-worker has been bring in his 1900 commerical for a light oiling and check-up before it goes back in the case. He is not into Lugers but rather this was a gift from a long pasted uncle, if ever a gun was 99.99% mint this is it...it will within a few years I expect it will become mine, it is so beautiful, that picture will not most likely make it here, just because, well Luger collectors are not suppose to find such mint guns today, about the same deal with a Banner police, been "working" it for years and like the 1900 when he gets ready for the trip he wants to take to the mid-east??? not me....he will make it mine....but to post it and go through the gauntlet of comments....well, not me and selling items like this are more profitable, yep I said it...more profitable outside of LF....a nice site to surf, but not the stopping place some think it is.....I do not mean to offend anyone, Ed please remember I think the world of you, John my plans for next years back east trip include buying you dinner so don't forget we're friends.....but this is just a web site.....and 40 years ago I was visiting Datig on a weekly basis, to quote his works today is just wrong.

Dwight Gruber · 11-28-2006, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by policeluger to quote his [Datig's] works today is just wrong. [/B]

Howard,

Appreciate your comments, but do not understand this one. Is it because his material is out of date, or because it is questionable or spurious on a fundamental basis?

--Dwight

policeluger · 11-28-2006, 04:36 PM

Sorry, was not clear, his work is so outdated and should not be used as the basis of a high profile gun, I would say his work was a great foundation on the study of Luger, and every collector should have a copy of his work, but new studies, new authors, greater reference book have come to light over the years, I do not take any of he works to be spurious as I define the word, not intent to decieve, but questionable because it is an out dated, old, work.....hope this clears it up somewhat.

Dwight Gruber · 11-28-2006, 05:59 PM

Howard,

Thanks for the clarification. I quite agree, and would never cite Daitg 1955-58 as a sole source or resource for a high-profile gun. In a discussion of "initial writings" his writing is pertinent, and his own attribution of August Weiss (whom he interviewed) as a source is something which, to my mind, must be considered seriously.

--Dwight

Pete Ebbink · 11-29-2006, 12:03 PM

Dwight,

1. The issue of "outing" the boosters and sellers of boosted items is another discussion for another day.

2. The fellows I know that relate the details of the Carl Wilson Baby luger and the Weiss testimonial letter want to remain anonymous, for differing reasons. One does not own a computer/Internet access and is well into his 80's. The other does participate on the the forum and gunboards and I will leave it up to him if he decides to jump in on the discussion about the Wilson Baby or not.

3. Several very old-time collectors related to me that when the first Baby luger appeared in the USA in the middle 1950's, only 4 were thought to exist; 2 in 7,65 cal and in 9 mm kurtz.

Sometime after that when the Datig books in 1955 and 1962 were issued, that number was speculated to be around 12 guns or so (not sure what the breakdown between the 2 calibers, was...)...Datig relating that this info. came from Weiss.

Subsequent authors such as Kenyon, Walter, Reese stayed with the number of Baby lugers at 4 in their writings through the 1960-late 1970's.

The details of why these subsequent authors did not follow the number of Baby guns at 12 or so may or may not be important. Yet those follow-up authors stayed with the number of 4.

One should also note that Harry Jones in 1959 and in the 1975 reprint of his book seems to make no mention of any Baby Lugers, at all. That may or may not have its own significance.

11-25-2006, 01:55 PM	#1
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	A. Weiss Baby Luger Threads ??? It is just me and I cannot find it... or did the Patrons-Only section discussion on the recently purchased A. Weiss baby luger disappear ? If I recall, there were two separate discussion threads running with lots of photos. I cannot find either thread (but did save the photos, luckily...).

11-26-2006, 09:27 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	Pete, I would ask Tom directly for permission to use the photos that he had previously posted... If you need his email address, PM me... __________________ 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..."*

11-27-2006, 08:09 PM	#11
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	Ed, You certainly did nothing wrong... It appears that you understood the owner's intent better than anyone else... all I am saying is that your initial posting didn't make your later description of the owner's desires clear... You do a great job all the time and I am extremely grateful for all you do... please don't interpret my comments to be unflattering... only that you cracked on Pete and I for our comments when we had no clue (based on your initial reply to Pete) that discussion was to be limited about this weapon's status... or that the owner wanted to annul his announcement of ownership... Seriously, thanks again for being so diligent in your moderator duties... __________________ 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..."*

11-27-2006, 08:44 PM	#12
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,915 Thanks: 1,989 Thanked 4,506 Times in 2,080 Posts	John, must be the medication (I kid about that, but actually was at the dentisit, and it was a loooong 2.5 hours there, and so, yes, tonight, it IS the meds... ed __________________ Edward Tinker ************ Co-Author of Police Lugers - Co-Author of Simson Lugers Author of Veteran Bring Backs Vol I, Vol II, Vol III and Vol IV

11-25-2006, 02:10 PM	#2
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,915 Thanks: 1,989 Thanked 4,506 Times in 2,080 Posts	yes, in the PATRONS only area, not in the general discussion area. there is a reason we have a patrons only area, so things can be discussed in less public forums. The owner asked me to delete the threads so I did.

11-25-2006, 04:01 PM	#3
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Security issues aside... There can still be a good technical discussion about the Baby Lugers...especially on the open-Forums so all can read and contribute. As one may know, several "phony" A. Weiss Baby lugers are rumored to exist and some collectors do not think any Weiss Baby is real. And then there are the Krause-made Baby lugers as well. Wonder if the "owner" of the Baby from the deleted posting would allow his photos to be re-posted (on the open-Forum sections) so a technical discussion can occur without any concern about who owns the piece, how much was paid, and other related security issues. I have the photos from the other discussions, so re-posting would be an easy thing to do.

11-26-2006, 09:33 PM	#5
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,915 Thanks: 1,989 Thanked 4,506 Times in 2,080 Posts	The "owner" decided he did not want his name associated, Pete is saying out loud he has photos downloaded, and now his first name... If I was the "owner" I would be very leery of posting anything again. What are you guys thinking here?

11-27-2006, 01:34 PM	#6
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Ed, If you read my postings, above, carefully...you will see I purposely excluded the Owner's name. I think Sabato did that. And do you really think I am the only Patron that downloaded the photos the Owner's friend had posted up and the others in that Patrons-only discussion ? I would guess the jpegs are all over the world by now. My point in opening this thread on the "open" Forum was : 1. Can we not have an intelligent discussion about somewhat controversial Baby lugers ? 2. Secure opinions from other davanced collectors that may not have Patron status. Some of these guys have followed the "history" of a few Baby lugers for many years. BTW...The previous posting in the Patrons section possibly could have been edited, carefully, to remove any trace of the Owner's ID while leaving the photos and discussions intact...IMHO. John, I have traded emails with the Owner and he would prefer his photos not be posted on the Luger Forum. I will honor that.

11-27-2006, 02:08 PM	#7
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Here are two (2) photos of a modern day copy Mike Krause out of San Mateo, CA makes and sells; last I heard in the $ 15K USD price range : These photos were on the old Krause web site before it was dismantled.

11-27-2006, 05:13 PM	#8
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	And to both Ed and Pete... there are a lot of guys named "Tom" on this forum... and Dick and Harry, and John. Just because a member requested that a thread be deleted... where is the implication that the matter is never to be discussed again? You never mentioned that Ed, just that the owner was uncomfortable leaving the thread posted. If the owner of the recently displayed Baby would prefer that the photos that he had posted, not be reposted on the forum or anywhere else, and that request has been now made public, then all forum members who may have them in their possession should honor that... but if he wanted to remain anonymous, whatever his reasons, (and he is entitled to his reasons and privacy,) ..it is just too late to put the genie back in the bottle... the owner made the announcement himself and such a signifigant event in Luger collecting history would be discussed for years in the Luger collector community, whether in the forum or over gunshow tables. There are lots of active forum patron class members of the collector community who have the knowledge because they read what he chose to proudly post in the patron section when he acquired it...heck! if "I" had been the one to acquire it (fat chance!!!) I would have crowed it from the rooftops with pride myself... I am glad that there are lugerforum patrons had to opportunity to admire its sleek lines when we did, even if it was for just a short time. ...and whatever the owner's reasons, and I am sure they are good ones, the event can't be erased. That is what gun safes are for. kind regards to all, John ...

11-27-2006, 06:13 PM	#9
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,915 Thanks: 1,989 Thanked 4,506 Times in 2,080 Posts	I think I give up

11-27-2006, 07:15 PM	#10
policeluger RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Ca. Posts: 2,141 Thanks: 8 Thanked 89 Times in 54 Posts	Hang in there Ed....your right, there seems to be an undertow of discrediting anything that come up, with out a sound background to do so. To "whom ever" Tom may be, my very best to him for sharing with us.

11-28-2006, 12:46 PM	#14
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	With thousands of lugers being boosted and peddled by the Luger Mafia in the USA and abroad each year, one needs to be somewhat cynical. Maybe I have just become "bent", but I look at those rare and/or mint guns assuming they are boosted until shown otherwise. You guys are welcomed to call me "Paranoid Pete"...but at least the well known peddlers of boosted wares do not get my money, anymore...and I do not take certain luger authors' writings for granted, either. Regarding these Weiss Baby lugers, one cannot ignore : 1. That they have all seemingly appeared only in the USA. Similarly to the Spandau lugers. Would one not expect a Weiss Baby to have originally surfaced in Europe ? 2. Old timer stories of the Carl Wilson Baby being fabricated in the USA and then Weiss being paid to write a testimonial letter. 3. Initial writings that Weiss first reported up to only 4 Baby lugers being made and then follow-up reports that Weiss recalled up to 12 Baby lugers being made. Is it just possible the "number" changed to make room for more Baby lugers to appear on the American scene ??? Oops...my paranoia is showing again... Technically...I was trying to learn in the Patrons-Only section discussion about some of the subtle machining differences I noticed in the No. 1 Baby that was showcased by its current Owner with other photos of Baby lugers shown in various books and web sites. Specifically, the length of the receiver "flutes" is longer than the portion remaining along the receiver between the flute and the front edge of the side plate...on some Baby lugers while it is just the opposite on other Baby Lugers. Here is what I saw : 1. No. 1 Baby (from the deleted posting ) : Flute shorter in length than the remaining section of receiver flat. 2. Wilson Baby (numbered either No. 3 or No. 4...I am not sure) ; Flute is longer in length that the remaining section of the receiver flat. (Kenyon states, in LAR on page 194-195, the Wilson gun is No. 4.) 3. An un-numbered 32 cal "prototype" in Ralph Shattuck's little book on page 25 : Flute is just a bit longer in length than the remaining section of receiver flat. Maybe this one is one of the Mel Torme lugers (???); as the book caption states a "Hollywood entertainer"... 4. Krause modern-day creations : Flute is shorter in length than the remaining section of receiver flat. In Datig's revised edition of his book "The Luger Pistol" on page 137,, of the 1962 reprinting; he mentions another Baby in .32 cal with DWM on the toggle and it being reported as a No. 8 serial. No photo is shown, unfortunately. If I am not mistaken, I think the No. 1 current Owner mentioned his gun was used by Krause for reverse engineering drawings and measurements. Here are two photo scans of the Wilson Baby luger : Here is the Baby in the Shattuck book :

11-28-2006, 04:04 PM	#16
policeluger RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Ca. Posts: 2,141 Thanks: 8 Thanked 89 Times in 54 Posts	DG, just as a bit of a side note, for about 35 years that I have been gun smithing here, a customer and former co-worker has been bring in his 1900 commerical for a light oiling and check-up before it goes back in the case. He is not into Lugers but rather this was a gift from a long pasted uncle, if ever a gun was 99.99% mint this is it...it will within a few years I expect it will become mine, it is so beautiful, that picture will not most likely make it here, just because, well Luger collectors are not suppose to find such mint guns today, about the same deal with a Banner police, been "working" it for years and like the 1900 when he gets ready for the trip he wants to take to the mid-east??? not me....he will make it mine....but to post it and go through the gauntlet of comments....well, not me and selling items like this are more profitable, yep I said it...more profitable outside of LF....a nice site to surf, but not the stopping place some think it is.....I do not mean to offend anyone, Ed please remember I think the world of you, John my plans for next years back east trip include buying you dinner so don't forget we're friends.....but this is just a web site.....and 40 years ago I was visiting Datig on a weekly basis, to quote his works today is just wrong.

11-28-2006, 04:36 PM	#18
policeluger RIP Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Ca. Posts: 2,141 Thanks: 8 Thanked 89 Times in 54 Posts	Sorry, was not clear, his work is so outdated and should not be used as the basis of a high profile gun, I would say his work was a great foundation on the study of Luger, and every collector should have a copy of his work, but new studies, new authors, greater reference book have come to light over the years, I do not take any of he works to be spurious as I define the word, not intent to decieve, but questionable because it is an out dated, old, work.....hope this clears it up somewhat.

11-28-2006, 05:59 PM	#19
Dwight Gruber User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,890 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1,282 Times in 424 Posts	Howard, Thanks for the clarification. I quite agree, and would never cite Daitg 1955-58 as a sole source or resource for a high-profile gun. In a discussion of "initial writings" his writing is pertinent, and his own attribution of August Weiss (whom he interviewed) as a source is something which, to my mind, must be considered seriously. --Dwight

11-29-2006, 12:03 PM	#20
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Dwight, 1. The issue of "outing" the boosters and sellers of boosted items is another discussion for another day. 2. The fellows I know that relate the details of the Carl Wilson Baby luger and the Weiss testimonial letter want to remain anonymous, for differing reasons. One does not own a computer/Internet access and is well into his 80's. The other does participate on the the forum and gunboards and I will leave it up to him if he decides to jump in on the discussion about the Wilson Baby or not. 3. Several very old-time collectors related to me that when the first Baby luger appeared in the USA in the middle 1950's, only 4 were thought to exist; 2 in 7,65 cal and in 9 mm kurtz. Sometime after that when the Datig books in 1955 and 1962 were issued, that number was speculated to be around 12 guns or so (not sure what the breakdown between the 2 calibers, was...)...Datig relating that this info. came from Weiss. Subsequent authors such as Kenyon, Walter, Reese stayed with the number of Baby lugers at 4 in their writings through the 1960-late 1970's. The details of why these subsequent authors did not follow the number of Baby guns at 12 or so may or may not be important. Yet those follow-up authors stayed with the number of 4. One should also note that Harry Jones in 1959 and in the 1975 reprint of his book seems to make no mention of any Baby Lugers, at all. That may or may not have its own significance.