Jan C. Still Lugerforums banner
Cancel

Instructional: WaA or Proof ?

2103 Views 7 Replies 5 Participants Last post by  garfield, 
P
Instructional: WaA or Proof ?

Download Attachment: Instructional-Proof-or-WaA-5x100px.jpg
202.63 KB
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
C
Generally I always considered the WaA markings to be proofs. My reasoning is that they (as well as the Eagle/N & Crown/N) indicated acceptance.

I am aware that another view point is that the WaA markings are not proofs as these markings only identified what organization had approved/used the piece. There is merit to this as there are a number of different markings applied to the weapons over a period of time - examples of which could be the unit markings seen (usually) on early german weapons. Many of these would not be considered proof marks.
Reply
Save
Like
P
The terms, waffenamt mark, and nitro proof, are common usage.
You can call waffen acceptance marks, proofs;
and Nitro proofs, acceptance marks,
but it certainly would be confusing,
and most folks would not be certain what you are talking about.
Thus, when you tell me your pistol is proofed,
then, I would rightly assume you are referring to an E/N or C/N mark,
but you would actually mean a Waffenamt acceptance mark like E/WaA359.
Seems unnecessarily problematic to me.
Most folks understand proofs as proofs, and waffenamts as waffenamts.
Why not just call proofs tuna fish, and waffenamts cabbage?
It would be less confusing than intermingling terms.

It would seem particularly important for those who are visting this New Collectors Forum -folks new to collecting- to move forward using the more common, typical, and less confusing, terminology.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
G
I agree with Pancho; Waffenamts are not proof marks and proof marks are not acceptance marks. To use the two terms interchangeably is incorrect and would be only something that I would expect from a person either not familiar with this area of collecting or simply lazy. The use of proper terminology is very important. While it may seem pedantic to expect the proper terms to be used, if this simple rule is not followed, then communication is extremely labored or a total waste of time. Again, my opinion, only.

Having said that, I do not mean to imply that I do not fail in this effort from time to time.
Reply
Save
Like
D
I also agree with Pancho, but his post is a bit confusing. I have begun to use the term "power proof" as distinct from Waffenamt acceptance stamps, or the earlier Imperial Crown/letter acceptance stamps. It is also useful to distinguish these from Erfurt inspector marks.

--Dwight
Reply
Save
Like
C
quote:Originally posted by garfield

I agree with Pancho; Waffenamts are not proof marks and proof marks are not acceptance marks. To use the two terms interchangeably is incorrect and would be only something that I would expect from a person either not familiar with this area of collecting or simply lazy. The use of proper terminology is very important. While it may seem pedantic to expect the proper terms to be used, if this simple rule is not followed, then communication is extremely labored or a total waste of time. Again, my opinion, only.

Having said that, I do not mean to imply that I do not fail in this effort from time to time.
Click to expand...
You are corrfect in that they are different animals. On the board it is probably better to keep them separate. But it is easy to fall from grace at times. Also, on occassion, to refer to both as the same saves a lot of time in explanation. Again a sign of being lazy and/or the short attention span of the person to whom you are talking to.
Reply
Save
Like
Heinz
As to the proofs, for completeness I would note that the Imperial Army did not use either the eagle/N or the C/N on the P08 after 1910 and proofed the barrel, the reciever and the breech block with the hearaldic eagle. DWM and Erfurt Eagle styles vary slightly with some mixing of eagle styles on the DWM barrel and breechblock. (Still, Imperial Lugers citing "Instructions on Marking the Pistol 08 with an attached drawing", Berlin 1910; Haupstaatarchiv Abteilung IV Kreigsarchiv Munchen, File ASV 73/13

Would we call Imperial inspectors acceptance marks "proofs" or Waffenamps?

Proof is not a very exact term and originates long before the smokeless powder weapons in black powder weapons and alcohol ratings. One of the primary black powder barrel proofs is an "inspection proof." For whiskey supposedly 100 proof alcohol means black gunpowder will explode when soaked with the solution. That it will explode when soaked is true but I do not know if that is really the origin of 100 proof or a myth. (We just shook it up in a glass tube to see if it would draw a bead );)
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
G
Originally posted by Heinz
Would we call Imperial inspectors acceptance marks "proofs" or Waffenamps?
I would call itand acceptance mark/stamp. No doubt 'inspector's mark' is also acceptable.

The term "proof" is a very complex term. The meaning depends upon the context in which it is used. Again, depending on the context, very specific meanings are assigned to the term.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Reply
Save
Like
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Jan C. Still Lugerforums
A community dedicated to Lugers, Central Powers, Axis, Allied and related WW-I and WW-II pistols by their scholars, collectors, owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about the history, technology and extraordinary background associated with these design masterpieces.
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
New Collectors Board German: German Mfg. (non-P08) Pistols & Holsters. 1933-1945: Mauser Lugers. Army, Navy, Police German: Foreign Mfg. Pistols and Holsters. 1900-1918: P.08-Army Lugers
Top