Ballpark value on this Luger

[Kyrie]

Yes sir, they look to be the same size to my eyes too. But that size also looks, to me, to be 4mm.

I'm of the opinion what we have here is a DDR gun built from a mix of salvaged parts and spare parts. Moreover I believe it has been refinished at least once and possibly several times.

No doubt other folks will look at the same gun and develop other opinions. That's pretty much a given, as any two Luger collectors are likely to have at least three opinions about every Luger :-)

[Jasta2]

Could you share what you see to make you feel it may have been refinish a number of times? Just trying to learn about what I should be looking when viewing a luger. Seeing all numbers are matching, and you feel it made from salvage parts, would the DDR take the time to renumber all the parts to make it matching? Again, I've just trying to learn more.

[DonVoigt]

Originally Posted by Jasta2

Looking over your photo, the side plate 2 digit number compared to the left side 4 digit s/n, the side plates number is defiantly larger, easy to spot. The Luger on GB I'm looking at, there seems to be little different size between the side plate number, and the 4 digit s/n. If you look at the close up photo of both sets near side by side, for what I measure from the photo, IMHO, they are of the same size. More so when you enlarge the photo. Then again my eyes might need to be recalibrated !!

They are the same size.

[Kyrie]

Originally Posted by Jasta2

Could you share what you see to make you feel it may have been refinish a number of times? Just trying to learn about what I should be looking when viewing a luger. Seeing all numbers are matching, and you feel it made from salvage parts, would the DDR take the time to renumber all the parts to make it matching? Again, I've just trying to learn more.

I'll walk you through the process by which I assess a Luger. This will take several posts as the process is a little complicated to explain.

Please keep in mind what follows is just my own personal preference in assessing a Luger. It's not Holy Writ and I don't claim it has any special virtue - it is just a process I have found works for me.

[Kyrie]

This step speaks to the situational limitations imposed on my examination.

One end of this consideration is complete and unfettered access without any time limit. This is the case where I have physical possession of the Luger and the time/right to completely disassemble it, and can take photos and measurements of any/all the parts and markings.

The other end of this consideration is access to an incomplete set of poor photos for a short time.

The less access I have to a Luger and the shorter the time I have that access, the less confident I’m going to be in any opinion I may develop about the Luger.

In terms of the subject Luger (“Rare 1939 Mauser Banner”) I have no physical access; only access to an incomplete set of photos. That’s going to have a big, negative, impact on my ability to assess what this Luger is. It will also hamper my ability to form an opinion concerning what the Luger isn’t.

All this should be understood as caveats on my ability to do an assessment of this Luger, and on the quality of that assessment.

[Kyrie]

By "what kind of Luger" I mean was it made for:

German Military? if so, the military of which era (Imperial? Wiemar? 3rd Reich? DDR?)?

Commercial? If so, what era and market (1900? 1906? etc., German Police? Foreign military/police? US commercial sale? etc.)

The Mauser banner, the C/U firing proof on the left of the barrel extension, and the chamber date of 1939 suggests this is a Third Reich era commercial Luger. But there are some problems with that assessment. Paramount of these problems is the absence of other, required, firing proofs. German proof law, and Mauser factory common practice when using the C/U firing proof, was to apply the firing proof to all three of the components that contributed to a sealed bore during firing (e.g. the barrel, the barrel extension, and the breech block).

Of these three components only the barrel extension has the C/U firing proof. There is a good photo of the left side of the breech block that shows no firing proof, and an adequate photo of the right side of the breech block that also shows no firing proof. We lack full photos of the barrel but in the available barrel photos there is no firing proof visible. This strongly suggests to me that this is a parts gun, made up after WWII, and in its present state was never intended for the European commercial market.

There are some other visible inconsistencies that suggest a mix of new and salvage parts (example: note the witness mark on bottom of barrel and barrel extension), but the absence of required and customary firing proof is a strong indicator this Luger is not what it first appears to be.

[Kyrie]

Jasta2 asks, “Seeing all numbers are matching, and you feel it made from salvage parts, would the DDR take the time to renumber all the parts to make it matching?”, and this suggests we may want to review the purpose behind numbering the small parts of a Luger to the full serial number as found on the Luger frame.

The partial serial numbers applied to small parts was not decorative; their existence was of deadly import.

The Luger pistol pre-dates interchangeable parts. Each part added to a Luger during its manufacture, and during any subsequent maintenance that required a part to be replaced, was hand fitted to all the other parts with which it had to function. Sometimes the level of effort to hand fit a part was negligible to non-existent, sometimes it was a real chore. Whatever the level of effort that effort was required to produce a functional and reliable weapon.

The upshot of this lack of interchangeable parts is a part fitted to one Luger may cause malfunctions in another Luger if it is simply swapped in without being fitted to the other Luger. Thus it was of critical import to be able to tell, at a glance, that all of the parts being used to assemble a Luger that had been disassembled actually belonged to the frame/barrel extension to which they had been fitted.

It was standard practice in the German (all eras) manufacture and repair of Lugers to insure all the small parts were numbered to the Luger in which they had been fitted. If the replacement part was salvage from some other, unrepairable, Luger then the original number on that part was either removed of struck through and a new number matching the last two digits of the Luger to which the salvaged part was being added was applied.

This is the story behind the importance of the term “matching” to both collector and shooter. The collector prizes and pays a premium for a factory/depot original Luger. The shooter has a limited interest in any Luger hat doesn’t have all original and fitted parts, as such guns may not function well – or at all.

To be continued....

[DonVoigt]

Kyrie,
Great synopsis of how to evaluate a luger.


Plus just a couple observations/comments:

1- Proofing :
"Paramount of these problems is the absence of other, required, firing proofs. German proof law, and Mauser factory common practice when using the C/U firing proof, was to apply the firing proof to all three of the components that contributed to a sealed bore during firing (e.g. the barrel, the barrel extension, and the breech block)."

This convention is not correct for the 1939 Mauser Banner pistol, Mauser proof marked only:
-left side of chamber- present

-left side of breech block- can't be seen- but may be present- or a replacement , thus originality is unknown.
I lean toward a replacement, since the block and striker are both numbered "29" and in the same font- tough to explain the missing C/U

-front of front sight base- not shown

No other proof marks- ref. "The Mauser Parabellum" , p 289.

My own 1939 Banner(police) confirms the above marking convention- and has an additional Eagle/F on the right chamber indicating police acceptance, which a straight commercial Banner does not and should not have.

-Matching of small parts
- EG matching would be quite noticeable, either due to strike through or refinishing, this luger has obviously not been refinished- all the parts show
the same "lack" of finish and wear.
I have added a few pictures of EG reworks below.

-The grips are numbered on the inside with the larger size "29" of Mauser, for the grips to survive "matching' to the pistol is very unlikely in an EG rework, IMO.

As usual the devil is in the details; but I come down of the side of highly likely original and not an assembly by EG.

Kyrie has reached the opposite conclusion, which just shows that two guys can look at the same pistol and reach two different conclusions.

It should make a great shooter though, with a little "extra" interest due to the Mauser banner!

[Kyrie]

“…this Luger is not what it first appears to be.”

The absence of a firing proof on the breechblock is sufficient for me to form the opinion it isn’t native to the rest of the toggle train, nor is it native to the barrel extension. So I now assess this Luger as a “FrankenLuger” (a Luger made up from the parts of other, dead, Lugers).

For me that means it’s a shooter, top price I’d pay is less than a thousand dollars. I’d continue my assessment of the more from a sense of morbid curiosity than from any acquisitive impulse. And I do have some curiosity as there is just so much about this gun that screams to me FrankenLuger!

Here are some things that stand out for me.

The barrel does not appear to be original to the barrel extension. The witness mark on the barrel was made by a different tool, or a tool struck harder, that the tool used to make the witness mark on the barrel extension.

There is a discrepancy between the cannon and the frame. 9 mmP 1939 Banner Lugers were typically hot salt blued, but the frame on this gun was rust blued.

The top of the middle toggle link looks to me to have been very aggressively buffed. Buffed enough depress the middle surface and almost obliterate the “MA” part of the Mauser banner. I can see some other evidence of buffing, and of the possible removal some markings so new marking could be stamped in the place of the removed markings. I’m of the opinion that it’s not possible to determine how any part of this Luger was originally marked; I believe there has just been too much work done to it.

That’s my sense of the gun, and how I arrived at that assessment, offered entirely FWIW.

[Jasta2]

Don and Kyrie. Thanks your varying opinions. And the details of your options, Asking questions is the best way for me to learn more. For me it helps to know about issues in regards to later original or reworked Lugers. I do well know about Lugers matching numbers and their reason for. Replying on just a few photos and not having in hand would "maybe" change if examined in person. Thanks again.

[DonVoigt]

Well, the more we look the more we see.

According to Mauser Parabellum, of the 171 banner mauser pistols examined, some were in fact rust blued after 1937 and others were hot blued. These are intermixed by serial number.
There is a pretty comprehensive list in the long chapter on these commercial Banner Mausers lugers.

[Kyrie]

Originally Posted by Jasta2

Don and Kyrie. Thanks your varying opinions. And the details of your options, Asking questions is the best way for me to learn more. For me it helps to know about issues in regards to later original or reworked Lugers. I do well know about Lugers matching numbers and their reason for. Replying on just a few photos and not having in hand would "maybe" change if examined in person. Thanks again.

You are very welcome, sir :-)

On the subject of DDR Lugers, here is a jackpot gun:

https://simpsonltd.com/veb-ernst-tha...-police-luger/

[Kyrie]

Originally Posted by DonVoigt

Well, the more we look the more we see.

According to Mauser Parabellum, of the 171 banner mauser pistols examined, some were in fact rust blued after 1937 and others were hot blued. These are intermixed by serial number.
There is a pretty comprehensive list in the long chapter on these commercial Banner Mausers lugers.

Yes sir, and they also broke down by chambering. Those chambered for the 9mmP cartridge were typically hot salt blued, and those chambered for the 7.65P were usually rust blued.

Simpson has 100+ commercial banner Lugers. It's easy to page through them and just look for strawed parts to pick out those chambered for the 7.65mmP. The exceptions to the "9mm-hot salt" and "7.65-rust blue" appear to be mostly the foreign military (Turkish, Portuguese, Swiss, etc.)

But then there are no certainties in the world of Lugers. Just folks with opinions - lol

[Jasta2]

Trying to do more research online about DDR reworks. I found a couple of statements that all DDR replaced barrels have the "Crown over N" proof mark to show it's a new barrel and proof tested. Might that mean if the barrel on the Luger does not have that proof, it's original to that Luger. Most pictures of DDR reworks have replacement plastic grips, or is that hit or miss with the wood grips? Not trying to drag that post out to long, but it's a interesting case study on the history of this particular Luger. Some deeper digging. Found another DDR Luger where the replacement barrel does have that proof mark, but lacks a S/N. Guess I should stop here. I morphed my original post "Ballpark figure on this Luger" into a study of DDR reworks and if the Luger in question a rework or not. Thanks of all your replies. I've bid on it and winning but I expect it will go much higher.

[Kyrie]

Back away slowly :-)

DDR Lugers are, IMO, the single largest and the least understood of all the Luger variations. The programs (and there were many separate programs) of refurbishing, rebuilding, restoring, and even the manufacture of new Lugers in the DDR began circa 1947 and continued even after the Reunification, in the newly created nation of Germany.

That’s over fifty years of periodic Luger re-manufacture for a host of different purposes, using a host of different refurb/restore plans, that produced at least tens of thousands of serviceable Lugers that were spread around the globe for many different purposes.

When it comes to DDR Lugers, expect to find anything. There just aren’t any rules.

Just for fun, here is a pop quiz. The photo slide show at the end of the following URL is a DDR Luger. It has three visible characteristics that identify it as a DDR rebuild. What are those three characteristic?

http://s295.photobucket.com/user/Kyr...%201936?sort=9

[Jasta2]

DDR rebuild. I would guess, the plastic grips, Large numbers on takedown lever, and magazine marked 2/1001. Correct?

[Kyrie]

Originally Posted by Jasta2

DDR rebuild. I would guess, the plastic grips, Large numbers on takedown lever, and magazine marked 2/1001. Correct?

Yes sir, right on target for all three. The "2/1001" indicates the magazine was made at the Ernst Thalmann facility in the DDR.

[DonVoigt]

I'm amazed it still has some strawed parts!
Maybe a post re-work, "improvement" ?

Here is my Thalman made DDR luger, with a good view of
the EG Eagle/Crown/U; the barrel is dated June of 53(653).

Also shows the peculiar shape of the DDR made take down lever.

[Lugerdoc]

Don, I wouldn't call your N prefix luger a 'rework", as your is one of only 150 made with all new DDR made parts. TH

[Jasta2]

Don, Is your Luger the same, new post war DDR Luger that Simpsons is asking $12,000 for?