Jan C. Still Lugerforums banner

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Gold Bullet Member 2012
Joined
·
5,317 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
There has been some concern recently with the fake Navy rods being offered on Ebay, GB and at gun shows. These rods originate from CMR in England, sell for $85.00 + shipping, and are correctly marketed as reproductions. By the time they appear here in the US, they are sold as originals for $200.00 or more. Since genuine examples sell for several times that amount, this should be your first red flag. Your second red flag should be the artificial looking patina on the brass shaft. Flag #3 are the dimensions of the handle. Genuine rods, both Navy and Artillery, conform very closely to the dimensions specified in the original drawings, 17.0mm wide at the middle, 13.5mm at the ends, and 40.00mm long. The repros are 1.0mm wider at their ends and 1.5mm longer overall. When compared side by side with an original, they look distinctly less barrel shaped. The most obvious "tell" however, is the shape of the butt end of the shaft, the repros are much more convex than the originals. You can easily feel the difference with your fingers, a useful thing to know at a poorly lit gun show!
The first three photos are of genuine rods from my collection, the brass rod is early, the steel ones date from the war years. Photo #4 is a scan of the original drawing, showing the handle dimensions, and the last three show one of the repro CMR rods alongside a brass original. Take particular note of the butt ends of the shafts.
Regards, Norm

DSC_7624.jpg DSC_7653.jpg DSC_7675.jpg Scanned Image 112060000.jpg DSC_7694.jpg DSC_7708.jpg DSC_7697.jpg
 

·
Moderator / Gold Bullet Member
Joined
·
9,925 Posts
Good and useful analysis Norm! You are quite correct...the wooden barrel shape and dimensions are the first thing to look at on Navy or Artillery rods.
 

·
Diamond Member with Oak Clusters and Swords
Joined
·
569 Posts
Norm,

Thanks very much, great info and pictures! Your posts are always top notch, really appreciate you sharing your knowledge.

Jerry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,637 Posts
Norm, I remember a long talk about Navy Luger and Navy items with Hans Reckendorf. Hans Reckendorf is well known in Germany as an expert for the Luger and all Prussian pistols. He was the first expert in the German archives. He mentioned that the brass rod came in 1910. The first rod was the steel with the brass tip.
Regards
Klaus
 

·
Gold Bullet Member 2012
Joined
·
5,317 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Norm, I remember a long talk about Navy Luger and Navy items with Hans Reckendorf. Hans Reckendorf is well known in Germany as an expert for the Luger and all Prussian pistols. He was the first expert in the German archives. He mentioned that the brass rod came in 1910. The first rod was the steel with the brass tip.
Regards
Klaus
Hi Klaus, This is not what Görtz/Sturgess say in "Pistole Parabellum". They write that the brass zig-zag rod was the first one issued with the P04. It's not clear exactly when it was replaced with the brass tipped steel rod, but it was certainly before 1914 when the LP08 was introduced, with an identical brass tipped rod, but with a longer shaft. The steel tipped rods, for both the P04 and LP08, were a late war expedient to save brass. Best regards, Norm
 

·
Moderator - Diamond Bullet Member
Joined
·
2,627 Posts
Excellent educational post, Norm

You didn't say anything about markings on the rods. Are the genuine rods proofed with a C/M? Is the metal stamped, or only wood? Where are the markings, if any, located?

Thanks
 

·
Gold Bullet Member 2012
Joined
·
5,317 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Hi Mike, A very few Navy rods have been reported with C/M marks struck in the ends of the handles, here are photos from my data base. I personally would feel more comfortable buying a Navy rod without marks.
Regards, Norm
DSCN4086.jpg DSCN4087.jpg
 

·
Moderator / Gold Bullet Member
Joined
·
9,925 Posts
Mike, Markings on rods are rare. Genuine markings are really rare. Most rods are not marked.Imperial Army or Navy. I don't know the ratio of marked rods but it must be very small. I have seen only a very few I thought were authentic.
 

·
Moderator / Gold Bullet Member
Joined
·
9,925 Posts
Christian, I will see your boast and go you one better..I don't know anything... but I would bet you are correct. It would be easier to find a marked LP08 than a Navy. My brass ZZ Imperial Navy is marked with a Crown M on the barrel end and a UA on the face of the barrel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
Jerry, I have had several (at least 5) authentic double marked LP08 rods in my collection that I found out on the internet (they are sold now since I am out of collecting). I am not saying they were easy to find out...and while I used to spend thousands hours (more) hunting on the internet I never saw a marked Navy rod for sale, and very rarely unmarked ones ! I would be curious to see the markings of the yours, if you have time to post some photos.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
The two C/M stamped rods that Norm re-posted belong to me. You can see them in the C/M Variations sticky. I own several Navy rods and I do not have any doubts about these.
Best regards,
Joe Pirolo
 

·
Gold Bullet Member 2012
Joined
·
5,317 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Hi Joe, I was not suggesting that there's anything wrong with your two rods, I just think that authenticity should be judged by a rods physical characteristics, and not by it's C/M marks. The sad fact is that there are people out there with as much Navy Luger knowledge as a chimpanzee, who happen to own a genuine looking Navy punch and a hammer. As an example, check out the 1906 Navy "rig" just listed by PIA and look at the pouch.
Regards, Norm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Hi Norm,

Sorry for bothering you, but may I kindly ask you to share your opinion on whether a cleaning rod I have is original?

It has wooden (probably walnut) handle swivel and their dimensions correspond with the ones you mentioned above. The length of the metal part is just over 9 inches. The overall length is slightly less than 10 inches. Steel shaft with a brass tip. I suppose that the colour of the iron part of the rod was lighter, but it has not been used for dozens years, so it is entirely covered with patina. There are no markings on the wooded handle, but there is a small marking on the rod. Hopefully it is all clearly visible on the photos. If not, I can post a few high res photos.

Many thanks in advance,
Lenny IMG_7409.JPG 2.jpg 3.jpg 4.JPG 5.JPG 6.jpg 7.JPG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
927 Posts
This is really a great thread and learning tool. Many thanks to those who have contributed....I haves learned a lot from your posts.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member 2012
Joined
·
5,317 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Hi Lenny, Welcome to the forum! I don't like the look of your rod's handle, and particularly the spacing of the rings and the profile of the butt end of the rod. You should check the dimensions again, the two central "rings" on the handle should be 14.0mm apart and the steel washer should be 9.5mm in diameter. I suppose it's possible that the handle was replaced at some point. Also, that Third Reich marking is very much out of place on an Imperial rod!
Regards,Norm
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top