More

 

The book is a great resource for serious collectors, especially those interested in the wider spectrum of Luger collecting such a German military and police Lugers that span 35 years and five makers…. There is nothing else like it to get you “on the paper” with obscure markings. Yes, it’s dated but so will a lot of things taken as gospel now on the forums will be in time. Yes the price of these books has seemed to drop in recent years because so many think that they are much smarter than they actually are but these books still seem to bring in the $100-$200 range. I think but am not 100% sure that the snail drum is an original, I’d need more photos of clear quality different sides and close ups to make a confident call. If real, it’s an earlier type 2 by that serial number and probably worth between about $1500-$2000 retail. The overstock last digit in the date is very interesting and not something that I recall seeing before. I believe it’s completely legit and is simply the result of using a 1917 end of year receiver on a 1918 build. The numbers the the base of the barrel are simply a metric bore size indicator. Very nice Luger almost solely issued to assault troops in 1917-1918.

 

Thank you for all the information sir... I'm pretty sure the Drum is original as it passed the (smell test) IE.... Serial numbers don't add up to 17, Winding handle looks correct compared to
Fake ones And it has the crown over something? At the very top of the mag.... At least that's what i've learned from this forum. But i'm by no means an expert.

 

Sorry I can not help with the “poster” but I’d think that it’s a reprint. Someone more know than I can tell you for sure. It may smell old because these were being reprinted in the later 60s or early 70s so they are old! They are older now than the originals were then when I stated collecting Lugers.

 

Thanks... I guess what I meant about the poster is that it's not a (modern) reproduction. I've looked those over and they look a bit different in size and material that they are printed on...

 

There was a thread on here about the same overstrike on the date... same year too 8 over 7... But they're really wasn't nothing said about that part of the gun..

 

Oh, yeah.I forgot to ask Why is there no letter code after the serial number?

 

the no letter in this case (DWM 1918) indicates the first 1918 production run at DWM. This furthers supports the likely hood of a 1917 receiver getting used up. This gun was probably getting built by mid January 1918. The more I looked at some of the drum photos the better I felt about it. Some of the Polish reproductions are very good and I can not say that every run has had the numbers totaling 17 like the ones from about 10-12 years ago did. The poster could be good but I’m simply not qualified to call it from photos.

 

Thank you again.... Even when I say (I'm not a luger guy) ....I still like to learn about the history of things.

 

Does the overstrike ding the value very much?

 

I would think if anything it will increase it. Some advanced collectors of say DWM military Lugers would really appreciate that “variant” in their collection. For example more G 98 rifles and Lugers are known that show a date/date like 1917/18 which is believed to indicate when a firearm had reached a major point in its assembly during one year but was not completed until the following year then the two dates were used. It might take a week or more to fully build and build a firearm….maybe several weeks given the rust blue process and test firing…so easily a year ended on a late December start and finished in January.
IMO yours is a little different in that a receiver got dated in 1917 but possibly never started assembly and was put into the assembly process early January 1918 with a date correction. Among other things this shows the urgency of that period of the war as DWM did not normally resort to work this “unprofessional” but clearly the military was okay with it on a limited basis. The overstrike is also very well done.

 

Wow, thank you very much for that information,It's interesting and that's the part I enjoy about Coming across items like this.. Do I care for this about the same as my other collectible firearms... a light coat of oil?

 

Definitely a light wipe down with a quality gun oil, including the bore and grip straps. I think that you need the poster further checked. I’m liking it more. I’ve handled other similar instruction “posters” from this period, primarily for the P.38 but I’ve seen original Luger ones as well mounted and framed. This one is nicer than the reproductions I’m familiar with.

 

Sarco has one of these posters but it seems much darker in the printing. I also found this one but it's half the size and There's extra printing in the bottom left corner.... Someone has to have one of these on here.... It's a luger fourm...lol. I know that this whole package hasn't seen the light of day for at least 25 to 30 years .

 

I don't want to be a killjoy but IMO the 8 over the 7 in the date is not factory. It's too thick and it's misaligned. I also have to ask why they made it to more than 5000 units before using a 1917 receiver. It's something of a mystery that may never have a satisfactory answer.

 

I agree with the OP, there is no killjoy downside to worry with and all opinions should be welcome. I’ll say this- if the Luger was made in 1917 as the original receiver date suggests it has to be a first month of 1917 as there is no letter block. If we agree on that then we must also agree that this would be one of the rarest variants of an LP-08 known because it omits both the front and rear sight fine tune adjustments almost a year prior to any other example known with both of these features omitted and many months prior to either feature being omitted. Generally the front sight adjustment was the first dropped and then later the rear adjustment was dropped very late in 1917……sometimes and usually but not always!
personally I don’t find the wide 8 that odd and it may be hand done for that matter I can not tell for sure but it was intended to well hide the 7. This gun starts sounding like the “issue”
Of the extra stitch on the AWM holster in the other thread……that is why fake it?? In any case if the November 1917 sight configuration can be explained on a January 1917 gun then I’m all ears.

 

if the Luger was made in 1917 as the original receiver date suggests it has to be a first month of 1917 as there is no letter block. If we agree on that then we must also agree that this would be one of the rarest variants of an LP-08 known because it omits both the front and rear sight fine tune adjustments almost a year prior to any other example known with both of these features omitted and many months prior to either feature being omitted. Generally the front sight adjustment was the first dropped and then later the rear adjustment was dropped very late in 1917……sometimes and usually but not always!

Look at the overstamped example in Mopar's link. It's roughly 12,000 serial numbers later and probably also a January, 1917 production if made in 1917. I have no explaination why they exist but I find it highly unlikely that DWM would overlook receivers that were date stamped and ready for assembly. Could they be Erfurt receivers supplied to DWM for final assembly? It's also been discussed here that production of a given year may have actually continued into the new year in order to finsh date stamped receivers of the previous year. If it was standard practice to overstamp the date then I think we would have seen many more examples. I don't know why it was done, to how many or by whom but I'd love to know the answer.

 

Thanks...no joy killed here at all.. I come here because this would be the best place to get answers on a subject like this... I appreciate any feedback I can get.... It can't be too unusual because I do remember finding a Thread on here on the same very subject... Same year same gun same over stamp... It's just that, that's not what the thread was about.... At least I think it was here...

 

https://www.lugerforums.com/threads...817a-matched-mags.21571/?post_id=135974&nested_view=1&sortby=oldest#post-135974 although not an artillery luger it seems the same situation....and the overstamp wasn't even the main topic...

 

I don’t believe that it was standard practice to overstamp receivers that started on builds in one year and completed the next year due to the year change “window”. For the reasons given in the post above, chiefly there were too many.
IMO the year date nearly always tracks with the serial number suffix. There are crazy exceptions such as some of the Mauser Banners that we have been discussing in other threads. As a stated in a previous thread it is clear that this LP08, made with no fine tuning sight provisions, was made in very late 1917 or 1918 as that is what the features on hundreds of recorded examples tell us. Given that this example is a no letter suffix it tells us that it can not be a later 1917 made gun. This is further supported by the overstruck 7 in the date. Why was this receiver dated 1917 and then not used until about two weeks into 1918? I have no idea but could speculate on several logical scenarios. It is certainly a fact that many other examples of older carryover parts are known in many different Luger models examples. Just one example are the few verified 1914 DWM Lugers without stock lugs. This 1914 use of pre-December 1913 made frames is actually an almost mirror case of what occurred with this LP-08 receiver.

 

It's also possible that some parts were held back for repair/replacement and then were used for completion of guns due to demand. The 8 does not appear to be an overstrike, it looks like it is pantographed or engraved. Can we get a good clear close-up with the white gunk removed?

 

I don't want to alter this gun in any way....I'll leave that for the next owner....it does appear to look exactly the same as the other guns number (8) over (7)...

 

It’s a fact that guns began and dated in previous year were completed and of course delivered the following year. This was a routine matter of course with all military contract firearms and is well documented. We are talking about later December guns being completed and delivered in January of the following year. What is less ageed on is exactly what stage the receiver was dated. Some believe when the receiver was completely finished (but not blued or assembled) and some believe when the entire was completed but not blued. Others have opinions as to a point in between those stages. A huge problem IMO is that most collectors view industrial age mass production as a toe to heel process more or less assembly line and sequential process. I contend that it was much more nuanced. We like to call mismatched guns, parts guns but the truth is they are all parts guns. This is to say that these guns were assembled from parts that were fed into the process and sometimes were many months (usually) or even years old.

 

I think I might have gotten into way over my head with this one....I just hope at this point I can recoup my $ it's too late to return it.

 

One has to really wonder what the benefit would be for faking the date stamp.

However, I would want to remove the white paint, too, especially on this date stamp.
It may look more like the other one from 2010 which wasn't painted in.
The size and the shape of the "8" look the same to me.
I think the paint has chipped out making the OP's LP.08 look more scratchy that it really is.

But, he did ask "How to remove it" and I'm not sure what I would do.


Regardless, it's a wonderful Luger and I really like the snail drum magazine, too!

 

Personally I’m taken by the extreme similarities that I see with 8 on both guns. Particularly its position and its relation to the 7. Whether engraved or struck it seems to make little difference for me as I certainly believe the work was done at DWM and is not any kind of post factory tampering.

The inside circles on the bottom and tops of the 8 on the OPs gun aren't even round, or close to the same size as the other example.

One has to really wonder what the benefit would be for faking the date stamp.

However, I would want to remove the white paint, too, especially on this date stamp.
It may look more like the other one from 2010 which wasn't painted in.
The size and the shape of the "8" look the same to me.
I think the paint has chipped out making the OP's LP.08 look more scratchy that it really is.

But, he did ask "How to remove it" and I'm not sure what I would do.

Hoppes #9 and a swab

 

I agree there's no advantage to altering the date. Only thing I can think of is to give the illusion that this one is a factory "re-date" (just made that up, maybe it's a thing) and would be of interest as such. The other would be that if an artillery was assembled from numbers matching parts and had 1918 characteristics BUT a 1917 receiver (and date) then changing the date excuses the inconsistency.

 

Here's a fun read on the subject sort of

 

Another example

 

I think that's the same one I listed above...

 

Thanks... I've been looking.
Everywhere for more threads on these overstamps... I see that the 7 looks a little (skinny)
On that one ..... Not sure that it makes a difference though.. I guess it's safe to say that this was something That was
Done by the factory?

 

... I've been looking.
Everywhere for more threads on these overstamps...

Here is another artillery, #3358: A Unique 1918 LP08 | Jan C. Still Lugerforums

Marc

 

I just grabbed it. It was a factory thing, and the sevens including your example are quite thin. The big difference I see is that the 8 in your example is very fat and looks rough compared to the others that are 100% stamped and legitimate IMO

 

Yes, I agree 👍

 

When you get it look at it hard, it could just be a bunch of worry over a crappy photo. Take some good close ups of the date, then remove the white gunk. If it's not pantograph or electro pencil you are good.

 

Will do... I'll leave the decision up to you guys if it's pantograph or electronic pencil.