Brad Simpson,...HK Luger Follow-Up...?

[Pete Ebbink]

Hello Brad,

In the "Faked & Boosted" thread, you made, what I believe is a very serious accusation about a 1940 HK luger becoming a much more rare and conditoned 1941 HK luger; as shown in Randal Gibson's "The Krieghoff Parabellum" and as shown on pages 175 and 179 in that book. Guns in question where reportedly owned by Mr. Harold Skinner and Mr. Ralph Shattuck.

Many of us on the Forum do not know what to think regarding these guns and your accusation.

Have you confirmed, with Mr. Randall Gibson, your suspicions ? Please let us know if this is mere speculation on your part or substantiated with more information and documentation.

Again in the Forum's spirit of giving folks the benefit of doubt and being fair, I would like to propose a possibility to consider :

1. I have taken photographs (with my digital camera) of one of my lugers on different days, with different ambient lighting, and with/without flash; and have ended up with two (2) sets of photos of the same gun that appear to be totally different guns as far as finish and polish.

2. Is it possible that the publisher got several photos of the side-views of the same gun (Mr. Skinner's HK luger) mixed up with another photo of the top of Mr. Shattuck's HK luger, reportedly another serial number altogether ? And this is what might be shown on page 179 ?

3. If such an expertly "gifted" forger took a 1940 HK and worked it to a more rare and condition-improved 1941 HK, why would this "artisan" have not altered the serial nubmer at the same time, he so expertly modified the chamber date ? In my opinion, your position just not seem plausible.

I know some of you are saying..."Oh boy, here goes Pete again asking if pigs can fly...".

But I would like to know more about this accusation and if Mr. Randal Gibson is/was on the record about what appears in his book on pages 175 and 179.

Also Brad, have you personally discussed this with Mr. Shattuck ? I would think that would be the gentlemanly thing to do, before posting such an accusation here on the Forum. After all, the luger fraternity seems to be a fairly small group of folks that run into each other every year at gun shows and all.

I understand Mr. Skinner passed away 10 years ago, so cannot provide any commentary.

Respectfully,

Pete...

[John Sabato]

Logical and well thought out questions Pete. I would have asked them myself, but have been occupied by my paid profession for the last few days with only momentary visits to the forum.

Brad, the forum waits for your reply with curious anticipation...

[Johnny Peppers]

Who among Krieghoff collectors knows the whereabouts of the 1940 dated Krieghoff serial number 11278? The 1940 date is not all that common, so someone should know who now owns it. If someone can produce the 1940 dated pistol owned by Mr. Skinner at the time the book was published, the mystery will be solved. There will be a 1940 and a 1941 dated Krieghoff with the same serial number.

[John Sabato]

Agreed Johnny... this should not be a great mystery, but should be easy to solve...

Would the current owners of those guns please stand up?

[lugerholsterrepair]

I have taken a close look at the photo's in the Krieghoff Parabellum book and have to agree with Brad on one point. The angle of the serial numbers is very identicle to each other. This could hardly be a coincedence. Another thing to consider is, Krieghoff would not be so lax as to serial number their pistols with the same serial # without a suffix. Besides they didn't make enough pistols to have to renumber them. I personally think Brad has something here. Also if you look at the machining marks around the safety they are the same on both pistols. It is a shame that Ralph is cast in this shadow but if you look at it reasonably someone else may have had this pistol in between Mr. Skinner and Ralph. Ralph may have not been involved in it's modification just because he ended up with it. Jerry Burney

[John Sabato]

[quote]Also if you look at the machining marks around the safety they are the same on both pistols. <hr></blockquote>

Jerry, the near identical machining marks don't necessarily mean that it is conclusively the same gun. With a couple of years in industrial engineering and design I can tell you that if the two guns were made on the same machinery with virtually identical tooling, the marks will be very very similar, and depending on the jigs and dies used for stamping the serial number, the image on both guns can also be very similar.

As an example, Luke Smithwick and I have been working (Very slowly I might add) on a photo study and narrative article that we hope to publish here on the lugerforum that is about telling the difference between genuine Black Widow bakelite grips and reproduction BW grips. Without getting into too much detail before our work is done, Luke and I discovered that the genuine grips that are installed on our repective byf Lugers are SO identical, right down to mold marks that it is very uncanny...

Not only our grips, but also those grips of other members who contributed hi-res scans of their grips for comparison.

I know my grips to be genuine because I bought the gun from the vet who brought it back and kept it unfired for more than 20 years on a closet shelf before he sold it to me... It was never modified. The results of the study are dramatic. The image on the left of the attached photo shows the lower inside grip oval of my left grip, and the center image is from Luke's left grip... the image on the right is a merged image combining the other two... our conclusion? These grips were obviously produced on the exact same equipment many months apart...



As to the photographs in Gibson's book... My personal guess is that mistakes do happen in printing production. Various prints can get mixed up during layout. Unless we can get Mr. Gibson to comment on the matter of the serial numbers... OR both of the subject guns are located and made available for evaluation...I can't see where anyone can come to any conclusion... we only have more speculation and that isn't profiting anyone any more than gossip does...

My suggestion is: Just like the infamous .45 carbine issue, let's look for bonafide facts instead of casting additional shadows...

Jesus Christ was crucified by suggestion and innuendo because His accusers could provide no substantive proof of guilt... and never a more innocent man ever lived...

Brad Simpson has raised a serious question, but the only thing that will answer the question is serious answers and not serious speculation.

On the surface, I can readily agree that the circumstances and photographs are cause for concern...

But let's all think about what could be done, ...who could be interviewed, ...what could be shown ...that will either substantiate or disprove what the photos imply before a verdict is decided by the court of public opinion.

WHEW! This was almost $2.00 instead of my normal $0.02

[img]smile.gif[/img]

[Doubs]

[quote]Originally posted by John Sabato:
<strong>

These grips were obviously produced on the exact same equipment many months apart...


</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's not my intention to become involved in the debate over the Luger pictures but I would like to comment on the statement that there were months between production of the grips.... possibly, but maybe not.

I don't know what yardstick has been used to determine the length of time between manufacture of the grips but I'd like to point out that just because the pistols have months between their dates of manufacture, That's not proof that the grips were made on the same time line. Grips were produced at a much more rapid rate and many thousands could be turned out in a matter of days or a couple of weeks. If the entire production run was done without interruption, it's possible that the same molds were used throughout. That would account for the identical markings. Once shipped to the end user, the grips may have been in stock for months before being consummed by production needs. I'm not claiming that this is how it happened but it's a possibility that shouldn't be overlooked.

I find the possibility of grip similarity/sameness to be greater than the machine marks being the same on two guns bearing the same serial numbers and dated a year apart. Unless the frames and receivers were machined within a very short time period of each other by the same machinist, the worn cutters, change of worn or broken cutters and different machine operators makes identical marks on each gun extremely unlikely. Even the polishing process would alter identical marks to some extent.

I haven't determined how I feel about the gun or guns in the photographs because there're too many unknowns. Having worked in both manufacturing and heavy industry, I do have some understanding of production and machining methods. (I DO NOT claim to be an expert on either. I simply have some experience that makes me question certain conclusions.)

I don't support one side or the other. I only bring up certain points that I believe have to be considered - and explained - in determining the final answer.

[lugerholsterrepair]

John, I understand what you are saying about the machine marks on the grips and yes you are right there are many machining similarities , not only on Krieghoff machinery but DWM and Mauser. Randall Gibson takes pains to point this out in his excellent book. I do have to agree with Daubs in his assesment of the problem and have to re-iterate that machining metal is much different than plastic that may have been machined while still in the mold block.

Be that as it may ,I think my second message in my previous statement was in defense of Mr. Shattuck. The chain of possesion is unclear and I believe the benefit of the doubt is proper and good.
Since I am in an agreeable mood I must also concur that no definitive proof can come from discussing the photo's. But they sure look the same to me!

[QUOTE] I congratulate you and Luke for this effort on the black widow grips. I look forward to reading then copying the article for my files.

[Edward Tinker]

Hey guys, I plan on adding this information to my files also!

I think this colloboration of efforts can really show wonderful things.

Thanx guys! [img]cool.gif[/img]

[John Sabato]

Jerry ( & Doubs)

There is no need to defend any of your remarks... I have a great appreciation for your input and opinion.

My main concern in this voluntary job as Site Admin is that there SHOULD be no need to defend anyone. and that includes Jan S. Brad S. and Ralph S. ...and all of the rest of us.

The facts can speak for themselves, and I agree that the benefit of the doubt must be maintained until ALL the facts have been ascertained and there is NO doubt in anyone's mind what the facts are... [img]smile.gif[/img]

[bradsimpson]

Guys,
Sorry for the late reply, I've been out of the office. Looks like much has been said since I've been away.

I know both parties that you are asking about. I have had conversations with both parties. But I don't feel obligated to repeat what other people have said. Then I can be accused of heresay. And don't they deserve the right to speak for themselves?

This is an open forum, and I've tried to stick to the facts. I will defend what I write (this time I've merely pointed out an example that has been photographed, written, printed, & published by others.) They are free to defend themselves too.

Regarding this issue, I challenge to be proven wrong on what I've written on this forum:

The gun pictured on pages 175 and 179 of the Krieghoff Parabellum are the same gun. The date and condition were boosted to make a rare mint variation. You can clearly see from the pictures that this is the same gun. Look at the serial numbers, machining marks, etc.

There are many questions about this issue that I can't answer. I can only state what I know, and defend those facts.

I beleive (hope) that in an open forum the truth will come to light.

[Garfield]

Well stated, Brad.

Chohk dee, Krahp!

[Edward Tinker]

Brad, I do like the open forum of discussion and believe you are trying to state all the facts as you know them. Very interesting thread, that is for sure.

[Pete Ebbink]

Brad,

I think you did more than just state some facts in your starter post.

If, and I reiterate if, the two lugers shown in the Gibson book are indeed the same luger; there is no evidence of any one individual's participation in this alledged "boosting" and "forgery".

All that a logical mind can surmise from the two photos is that a Mr. Harold Skinner owned the gun once and had it photographed for Gibson's book. At some later date, Mr. Shattuck was the gun's owner and also had it photographed for the Gibson book as well.

There is no evidence in your post that either owner of this gun did anything but own this luger at some point in time, at differening times.

If you cannot produce any facts in evidence that Mr. Shattuck was personally involved in this alledged boosting/forgery activity; then I personally feel you might owe Mr. Shattuck an apology.

You also stated a little more than "facts" with your closing, poorly veiled, inuendo; that the that the guy with the boosted/faked 1941 is now the same seller of the controversial .45 cal luger carbine. A true "statement of fact" would not have ended with your words of "imagine that"...

I would also be curious to know about those conversations you had with those involved when you state you have "had conversations" with the parties (which I assume to mean you have spoken with both Mr. Gibson and Mr. Shattuck, and possibly Mr. Skinner before his passing).

In those conversations, did you you just make social "small talk" or did you ask real questions about the luger(s) in question ?

I too have had some conversations with some of these guys. A bunch of us here on the Forum have...

But have you asked Mr. Shattuck questions such as :

1. Hey Ralph, did you know you owned an HK luger in 1978 (?) that might have been boosted before you bought it ?

2. Hey Ralph; were you the person that was responsible for creating this "forgery" ?

3. Hey Ralph, did you buy that luger from Mr. Skinner or did it go through other hands/owners first ?

Or have you asked Mr. Gibson such questions as :

4. Hey Randall, what is the the real "scoup" behind the two guns in your book that sure look like the same gun with two different chamber dates and varying condition ?

5. Hey Randall, do you know who was responsible for the "forgery" that appeared in your book on pages 175 and 179 ?

Brad, having conversations with parties is one thing. Asking such pertinent, tough questions is another matter.

If you did receive replies to these tough questions, why would you not want to post that info. It cannot be heresay if you were the direct recepient of such answers, first hand.

If you have such replies, why not state those facts ? <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />

[George Anderson]

And, Lord knows...O.J.Simpson was found innocent by a jury of his peers.

[bradsimpson]

George,
Was Pete on that jury?

[Edward Tinker]

I doubt it Brad.

I think that Pete is trying to steer towards facts that new people like me can see and maybe don't have the background or knowledge of others that you and Jan might have?

I think that Pete is trying to be objective, but it is easy to be pushed into a corner. The objective of all at this forum should be to show what a guns history is and what might have happened to it. I don't mind putting 2 + 2 together but I try hard not to put this information and this information together if I am guessing and don't have hard facts. That is my law enforcement background, you can make a conjecture, but you really shouldn't decide if they are guilty or not, that is up to the jury.

Maybe that is what we should decide, with what facts we have, we can only conjecture or guess?

[George Anderson]

I wonder how many members secret a slip of paper with the serial numbers of all their lugers that lack matching mags in their wallets when they go to gun shows or surf the web.

I do, with a list of some fifty lugers. I have over the years looked at hundreds if not thousands of mags. Never a match. We are talking four digit numbers here not five or more.

What is the mathematical probability of finding such a mag given the millions produced all with only four digits?

What is the probability of finding two KH's with the same serial number, identical machine marks and the nuances of the number strike repeated?

What is the liklihood of a person with the same DNA as OJ, let's say a cab driver from Ruanda, leaving his blood at OJ's ex-wife's residence?

[lugerholsterrepair]

Pete, Do you honestly think that Brad would recieve an answer that was worth having from any of the questions you propose? There is no plausible answer to this. When have you ever heard of someone standing up and saying, yeah, it was me! I did it. Like John said in one of his previous posts, unless someone comes up with the pistol involved and can trace actual provenance the chain of possesion is in doubt. So Brad flicked a little mud at Ralph...when you end up with what is percieved as a faked pistol in your possesion you are the obvious place to start asking funny questions. Why don't you ask the most important question...Where is Ralph Shattuck on this? He was the last person we know of to have this pistol . No less than Jan Still and Brad Simpson have stated their case. And made what you percieve to be accusations. If there is to be any better understanding of this it seems to me there is only one person who could shed any light on it. Looked up to by so many I would emagine Ralph might want to step up to the plate and tell what he knows and when he knew it. If he chooses to remain silent then we can form our own thoughts from that. Jerry Burney

[bradsimpson]

Edward,
It seems many of the things I have written have taken on a life of their own. Let me clarify a few things:

I read many posts on this forum before I posted anything myself. The Navy toggle issue had already been discussed, and certain members had already stated the right answer before I added new info to that thread. I was just trying to offer what I knew about the issue, to try to support those members who had come to the correct conclusion.

Another thread was already titled Faked/Boosted before I posted, but now I feel like I started the whole issue.

The gun in question was already being doubted by the members on the forum, and I shared their concern. But there seem to be members who don't believe that boosted guns exist. There also seem to be members who believe certain guns are right because "experts" say so.

I simply pointed to an example of boosting that anyone can look at and decide for themselves. I have never stated who is responsible, nor do I even claim to know myself. I humorously pointed to the fact that the Krieghoff in the book and the .45 Carbine being debated were offered by the same person as a means of demonstrating that "experts" are not always a measure of what is right.

I believe this was a responsible way to state my argument. And I stand by what I've written (not what others have read into it.)