[Lyn Islaub]

I had posed this question to Jan earlier and he has suggested that I put it on the Forum for comments and thoughts from the membership. </u>
I recently purchased a reworked military DWM 9mm, s/n 2983k, with a re-stamped chamber date of 1920. It has a sear safety and police numbered magazine magazine fairly typical of the period and the sideplate and rear toggle link have been restamped to have the complete 4 digit s/n on them. It also has an "S" in a circle stamped into the side of the left receiver just in front and above the serial number. In surfing through Weimar Lugers trying to identify this pistol I found 2 others with the same marking on pages 46 and 125. In both cases, the origin of the circled "S" was listed as unknown. With mine now making at least the third known example, I was hoping that one of you might know what it means. Costanzo seems to suggest that it could be a Simpson rework stamp, but I would have thought that Jan would have mentioned that if he had believed it. Any of you have some thoughts on this?
Thx, Lyn

 

[taudelt]

Lyn... I have a double date with mag and sear safety and police numbered mag that has the circle S and also had what Sam suggests is a Simson proof on the new barrel. I know Sam and observed him gathering info at local Cleveland shows for many years. Unless somebody comes up with info that disbutes what Sam is saying I have a tendency to accept what he is suggesting.

 

[Jan C Still]

With a lot of other collectors, I learned when Sam’ s (Costanzo) book came out in 1977, that just because Sam says it, doesn’t make it so. While his list of markings is accurate, he offers no basis for many of his assertions (designations). His debates in AUTO MAG concerning the designations in his book did not add any clarification, often did not stand up to the evidence, and ended up with one prominent respected collector writing (concerning the debate) that hot air was made for blowing up balloons.

That said, to the best of my knowledge, the indications that connect the circle “S” reworks to Simson are:
1. The “S” in the circle is the first letter of the Simson name. The circle S is found on the left receiver. A manufacturing logo usually is found on the middle toggle link or uncommonly over the chamber. Weimar Lugers, page 46, 81, and 125 show the circle “S” reworks.
2. The barrels of some of these reworks bear the same style of acceptance or proof stamps as found on Lugers manufactured by Simson(The same inspectors that stamped the Simson Lugers also stamped these reworks). Also, many (non “S”) Weimar Era reworks with replaced barrels are stamped with the same style of stamps that were also used by the inspectors that inspected Simson Lugers. The circle S rework shown on page 81 (Weimar Lugers) is a Navy Luger that retains its original Imperial Navy barrel and does not bear Simson style barrel proofs.
3. An October 19, 1922 decree by the Prussian Ministry of the Interior ordered the major repair of the K98, MG 08, MP and P.08 to be undertaken by Simson and Co. Suhl Factory.
Simson contracted with the Reichswehr-ministerium to supply military Lugers from April 1, 1924 to March 31, 1934. Clearly Simson was a important P08 reworker and P08 supplier to the Weimar military and police during the period 1922 to 1934 and a prominent candidate for any reworked Lugers of that period (including those stamped with the circle “S”).

Its not obvious to me that the circle “S” is a Simson rework stamp for the reasons stated in 1., above. While these Lugers may have been reworked by a Simson rework facility (as were many Lugers of that period with or without the circle “S” stamp), it is not obvious to me that the circle “S” signifies Simson rework. Rather than speculate that the circle “S” signifies Simson rework, I would prefer to say that I do not know, based on the current evidence .
Jan

 

[garfield]

quote:Originally posted by taudelt

Lyn... I know Sam and observed him gathering info at local Cleveland shows for many years. Unless somebody comes up with info that disbutes what Sam is saying I have a tendency to accept what he is suggesting.

Dave:

I don't know Sam. I have his book. It is an excellent reference. It is also fraught with errors and inconsistancies.

I have seen Charlie Kenyon at many shows searching out information. I have his books. They also contain errors and inconsistancies.

Jan Still's books have errors and inconsistancies. Not many, tho.

The point that I am attempting to make here, is, the fact that someone has written a book on a particular subject does not mean that a person must accept everything stated therein as gospel. Both Constanzo and Kenyon fail, for the most part, to support their statements with data. Constanzo is particularly lacking on this point. On the other hand, you will find that the information in Still's references are supported by data. You may not agree with Still's data, however, if you disagree, you had better be able to support your arguement with something other than rhetoric. At least with Still, one has an idea where he is comming from. With Constanzo; who knows?

 

[Edward Tinker]

I have seen a couple of the circle "S" marked Lugers, a friend has one, I have also seen lugers with a K or other letter on the front trigger guard (I have one like that). From my experience, a letter such as the S or K stands out and could be property markings. However, this is pure conjecture and I do not have any data or hard evidence to support this SWAG.

Ed

 

[garfield]

Deleted
Jan C. Still

 

[taudelt]

Garfield....... I don't know that I understand how you think my comments could be construed as indicating that I disagree with Jan's data. I am not in the place you put me.

 

[garfield]

quote:Originally posted by taudelt

Garfield....... I don't know that I understand how you think my comments could be construed as indicating that I disagree with Jan's data. I am not in the place you put me.

Dave:

Sorry for any misunderstanding. My comments regarding agreement or disagreement were directed at "you" in the general sense, not you, personally. I have edited my post in this regard.

 

[garfield]

quote:Originally posted by garfield

quote:Originally posted by taudelt

Lyn... I know Sam and observed him gathering info at local Cleveland shows for many years. Unless somebody comes up with info that disbutes what Sam is saying I have a tendency to accept what he is suggesting.

Dave:

I don't know Sam. I have his book. It is an excellent reference. It is also fraught with errors and inconsistancies.

I have seen Charlie Kenyon at many shows searching out information. I have his books. They also contain errors and inconsistancies.

Jan Still's books have errors and inconsistancies. Not many, tho.

The point that I am attempting to make here, is, the fact that someone has written a book on a particular subject does not mean that a person must accept everything stated therein as gospel. Both Constanzo and Kenyon fail, for the most part, to support their statements with data. Constanzo is particularly lacking on this point. On the other hand, you will find that the information in Still's references are supported by data. A person may not agree with Still's data, however, if one wishes to find fault with that data, one should be prepared their arguement with something other than rhetoric. At least with Still, one has an idea where he is comming from. With Constanzo; who knows?

 

[taudelt]

Garfield.... Thanks for the clarification.