Fake 1941 Krieghoff in Shattuck collection

[Jan C Still]

Pete and John

In defense of Brad Simpson:
It appears that you are putting your words into Brad Simpson post. He does not make accusations. He observed and reported on luger photographs and captions in a published book by a highly respected author. He sets out
the facts and lets the reader connect or not connect the dots.

The Lugers shown on page 175 and 179 of "The Krieghoff Parabellum"(1980)are the same Luger. The only difference is that the Luger on page 179 has been refinished and has its original 1940 date changed to 1941. (The 1940 dated Luger belonged to Mr. Skinner and the 1941 dated Luger belongs/belonged to Mr. Shattuck.) In short, a more common Luger was altered to a much rarer Luger. As noted by lugerholsterrepair, a close look at the same serial number (11278) placed with a right upward skew, the machining in the safety well, , the exact location of the test proof, and the flattening of lower extreme of the knurled portion of the take down lever, leave no question that these two photographs show the exact same luger. It would be a wild goose chase to look for 1940 dated Krieghoff sn 11278. It no longer exists. It is now dated 1941 as shown in Mr. Gibsons book. Also, long ago Mr. Gibson confirmed that they are the same Luger and that the captions are correct.

Can not Mr. Shattuck speak for himself. He can easily log onto this site directly from his web site and post to all members of this Forum. John Dunkle is listed on Mr. Shattucks site as an alternate contact for the .45 carbine. Can not Johnn Dunkle persuade Mr. Shattuck to post on this forum. Its time for Mr. shattuck to speak out and clear the air. I encourage Mr. Shattuck to post his explanations directly on this Forum.

I would sure like to see someone like John D., John S., or Pete S. become equally concerned about the replica 1916 and 1917 dated Navy Lugers that are having a devastating effect on the less experienced collectors on this Forum. Brad Simpson's post was invaluable in pinning down the circumstances of the distribution of these replica Navy Lugers.

This forum is indeed fortunate to have a person of the caliber of Brad Simpson who has the courage to speak up on issues of concern to new
collectors. Lets hope that he is encouraged to remain on this Forum.

Pete, pigs cant fly but do boosted and faked Lugers.
Jan C. Still

[John Sabato]

Hi Jan, <img src="graemlins/wave.gif" border="0" alt="[byebye]" />

I am not sure why you opened a new post instead of continuing the original message thread, but I would respectfully request that you read my latest remarks in the original message thread on this subject before any reply.

As for me, or anyone else, helping to expose the existence of a couple of dozen faked Navy Lugers... you will find my comments in that thread as well.

I would be more than glad to help, but to do so I have to have real ammunition, and not words that go "bang...bang..." Please SHOW ME THE MONEY.

You, Brad S. and a couple of others have mentioned that you have direct personal knowledge of the modern manufacture of Navy toggles, and the boosting of some commercial model Lugers to appear to be Navy Lugers, but neither I, nor the forum have been provided a single strand of evidence of any kind... no physical examples... no photographs illustrating the differences between the real vs. fakes, no substantiatable facts. All we have so far is words... "I heard about..." "I was told..." "I know about..." "I once saw..."

NO ONE has said "I know someone who got burned and owns one, and they are willing to provide (at least) photographic evidence of the boosting you have told us about to make sure it doesn't happen to anyone else..."

I don't question that Mr. Gibson may have in indeed told YOU years ago about the two Lugers in his book... but without questioning your intent, or your knowledge, ...that story is still hearsay... This is totally unlike Brad's "facts" that the same luger appears on two different pages of a book to which many of the members have access and can witness for themselves. Those facts are evidently indisputable... in fact, no one HAS disputed them. Those photos appear to be the same... now we have to discover WHY with facts and not suggestion.

How did Mr. Gibson make this statement about the Lugers in his book "long ago"? Did he publish an article? Was he interviewed? Would he come here himself as well and join this discussion? or does his lack of public comment mean the same thing that you are implying about Mr. Shattuck's public silence? Jan, we just don't need any more words... or speculation, we need more facts like the photos in Gibson's book.

I cannot, and do not, speak for Ralph S., nor can I speak for Brad S., or Randall G. ...and neither can you.

My only appeal to ALL members here is to base the case on the FACTS and not to speculate about what certain or circumstantial evidence MIGHT or could mean.

With more than 360 registered members from the world-wide Luger collecting community we should be able to produce FACTS...( NOTE:
all the words that apear in all caps are not SHOUTS [img]smile.gif[/img] they are just there for emphasis)

With welcome I open the floor for civil discussion and comments that have bearing on the points of my posts here or elsewhere in the forum...

kind regards,

John Sabato

[Doug G.]

John, I agree with you totally! Rumors and speculations do more to ruin the collecting field than all the fakers put together. Although they do their part quite well. [img]frown.gif[/img]

[John D.]

[quote]Originally posted by Doug:
<strong>Whoa, he made the international sign of the donut. Richie Norris</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yooo hoooo..!!! I got it!!! [img]wink.gif[/img] So - what did President Dale say next?? IMNSHO - how appropriate!! [img]eek.gif[/img]

Best to you Doug..!!!

John D.

[Roadkill]

and the band played on..........


RK

[Herb]

Your cheatin' heart---

[John D.]

Or....

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes...

or....

Good judgment comes from bad experiences, and a lot of those come from bad judgment.

or....

A closed mouth gathers no foot...

or....

Generally speaking, you aren't learning much when your lips are moving or you are typing on the keyboard critizing others...

or....

It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to steal your neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it.

[img]biggrin.gif[/img]

[Herb]

Tis better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt!

[Frank]

John D, It's always darkest, just before it gets pitch black!! <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />

[Pete Ebbink]

Jan,

Here are Brad Simpson's words; these are not mine :

" Who do you think submitted the 1941 Krieghoff/ex 1940 Krieghoff on page 179/175 of "Krieghoff Parabellum"? Would you believe the same guy who now has the only known .45 Luger Carbine? Imagine that? "

Sure smells like an accusation, to me... [img]frown.gif[/img]

[Garfield]

Well, Pete, since everyone seems to be offering these clever little remarks I feel inclined to say that while it may "smell like and accusation" to you; on the other hand it may be a call for you to have a friend or accquaintance check to see how---on no, I can't say that. Anyway, Pete, I must say that you have a very active immagination.

With Great Respect Always,

[BILL]

Somehow this thread doesn't make a collector want to go out and spend much money on an expensive Luger. Either the price of reworked shooters is going to go up or the price of 'all original, minty, one of a kind' Lugers is going to go down. Is someone trying to manipulate the Luger market here on the forum or are they just trying to discredit some of the 'dealer' competition? One thing to remember..if you sell Lugers or Luger related items on a regular basis then your posts may have ulterior motive$.

[Brandon]

[quote]Originally posted by Jan C. Still:
<strong>

Can not Mr. Shattuck speak for himself.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Can not Mr. Simpson speak for himself also??? [img]confused.gif[/img] I'm sure we would all love to hear HIS thoughts...

Brandon

[wterrell]

[quote]Sure smells like an accusation, to me... <hr></blockquote>

Smells like a FACT, to me...

[bradsimpson]

Jan,
You are absolutely right. I hope that members of this forum can connect the dots.

Everything I write is questioned (as it should be with any member.) If I provided all of the answers, there would be a debate over the accuracy of my information. Members have certainly asked the right questions. And I don't know all of the answers. Should I?

I did not witness the gun in question being boosted. I don't know who did it? I can only see from the book that it happened. I could speculate as to what I think happened (many people seem to want me to do so.) That would be irresponsible.

Do members really beleive the guilty party will confess when questioned? They haven't confessed to me. And I don't expect them to.

[Edward Tinker]

Brad I see what you are saying, but seeing "proof" from the book proves that the gun has been changed, not that the owners or owners at the time did the boosting, yet that is the gist of what you are saying? And you and Jan would like us to connect the dots? So connecting the dots seems premature without knowing who has the gun / guns at this time, or even guessing who did the possible boosting / changing of the gun.

I can't imagine being able to prove this without experts looking at the gun? In real life, wouldn't a receiver be changed by griding down and then restamping the new date? I would think it would be very difficult to do this without looking changed? One of those in real life would look odd and might look good in pictures?

[John D.]

[quote]Originally posted by bradsimpson:
<strong>Jan,
You are absolutely right. I hope that members of this forum can connect the dots...

I don't know who did it?...

...Do members really beleive (sic) the guilty party will confess when questioned? </strong><hr></blockquote>

Well â?? just as an FYI based on my observations, Brad â?? every time Jan proposes that we â??connect the dotsâ?� â?? it has never lead where he originally intended us to go. Unfortunately for you â?? this example is no different then Janâ??s previous â??connect the dotsâ?� theories. As a sidebar, I would have liked to believe that one â??Dealerâ?� wouldnâ??t openly attack another â??Dealerâ?� in a public Forum, based simply on â??Professional Courtesyâ?� â?? and more certainly, until all the â??gaps between the dotsâ?� are filled in. But perhaps Iâ??m just an optimist. However, since this appears to be the format you would like to employ - please note a post Iâ??ll be making a post on â??Grading Dealers â?? Rooting Out Fakers and Boostersâ?� later today, as Iâ??m sure you will assist and join in on that effort given your propensity to point-out, define and fight â??Fake and Boosted Lugersâ?� â?? no matter where that road might lead and no matter how far back in decades we would need to investigate to develop a criteria to â??grade dealersâ?�. And no â?? we certainly then wouldnâ??t have any â??dotsâ?� that would need to be connected.

To this issue - here is a simple question Iâ??ll invite you to answer. During your â??extensiveâ?� conversations with both parties â?? did you ask who actually â??ownedâ?� the Krieghoff(s) in question during the period that Mr. Gibson was compiling the information and photographs (you may have to jog his memory a bit - as it was 20+ years ago?)? Perhaps you can further ask who actually photographed and submitted both picture(s) to Mr. Gibson? Now, while I understand the answers might be somewhat embarrassing if your intent was to attempt to discredit another Dealer, I would like to believe that you are merely trying to use the photographs as an illustration of a faked or boosted Luger. Therefore, please do post back your thoughts if Mr. Shattuck wasnâ??t the owner at that time, and how that might impact your accusations. To remain mute on that point might only confirm that you indeed, might have had some ulterior motives in selecting this â??exampleâ?� and whereby confirming that Pete may be correct â?? innuendoâ??s and â??partial informationâ?� may be as damaging as veiled intentions to mis-lead? Just an observation as I watch this silly game played within this Forum.

However, I do find it strange that you would state: â??the guilty party will confess when questioned?â?�. Learning the answers to the somewhat basic and simple questions above, (and questions I might suggest you too, might have posed so as to not have to appeared to â??accuseâ?� another dealer, as Pete and others have noted) - have you started the paperwork to disinter Mr. Skinner, so you can hook him up to a polygraph to get his â??confessionâ?�, if it was/is the same Krieghoff altogether? I suspect - but Iâ??m not certain â?? getting Mr. Skinnerâ??s confession today might be a somewhat frustrating process, but during that period of waiting for him to â??confessâ?� (should he even utter a sound during that confession would be a miracle) â?? I stand with Pete in voicing my opinion that you owe at least one person an apology â?? it might be considered the professional thing to do. I remain only cautiously optimistic that you feel the same way.

[Brandon]

John D.,
<img src="graemlins/wave.gif" border="0" alt="[byebye]" /> , <img src="graemlins/bigok.gif" border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" /> , <img src="graemlins/r.gif" border="0" alt="[king]" /> , <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />

Brandon

[bradsimpson]

John,
The word "extensive" does not appear in my post. Please do not mis-quote me.

[bradsimpson]

John,
I did not use the word "accuse" either.

And I asked the question "Do members really beleive the guilty party will confess when questioned?" You wrote "However, I do find it strange that you would state: â??the guilty party will confess when questioned?â?�.

Misquoting me and taking statements out of context is disturbing to me. Please read what I wrote, not what others are reading into it.

Thank you.