Jan C. Still Lugerforums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
41 - 60 of 114 Posts
Gentlemen, check out the proof marks in the pictures and placement of same compared to other Erfurts.
If Spandau had done (or reconditioned) a whole bunch, then it would be a common gun.
If they only did a very few, for whatever reason, then I own a very rare Luger.

Fred
 
One of the problems with the whole Spandau theory is the German premise that German production at DWM and Erfurt could not keep up with demands and a so the Spandau production was initiated . The theory goes on to say Spandau relied on previously rejected Erfurt parts to supply desperately needed P08s.

None of this makes any sense. There was no shortage. DWM and Erfurt had excess production capability in 1918. Spandau was never the inspection depot for Erfurt. Spandau inspectors accepted DWM production, Erfurt had it own resident Army inspectors
 
Ed, I have never come across another source other than Walter as to what transpired during the Simson acquisition of the Erfurt machinery? (even Jan Still didn’t offer much as to this- that I read anyway in his Weimar Lugers, perhaps I overlooked this?)
You say Simson paid nothing for the machinery? Walter says they paid 800,000 + for it?

Just curious as to your source?

As for Spandau, I suspect you refer to their capacity as it relates to the P08? Spandau was in Imperial times THE arsenal and if I had to pick a fraudulent source for my fake P08 or anything else Spandau would be that choice, especially as I know a thing or two about the facility.
They are said to have had 7,500 employed, 6,000 on the Gewehr98, and by wars end had mfg approximately a million rifles (surely 1899-1917, not just during the war). Though by 1917/1918 with the shift in doctrine they were pulling away from rifle production significantly (I don’t think they “completed” a single Gewehr98 in 1918- receivers exist but all so far “seem” to be Weimar assembled), and speculation is Spandau moved that excess capacity to the MG as they were significant in that regard.
Fact is no arsenal or firm (not even the Suhl firms which have a long tradition of cooperation for military contracts) were more geared towards subcontracting parts in 1917/1918 and Spandau would be a perfect facility to handle assembling rejected parts as Walter suggests.
That said, I too have doubts, namely the c/K is like no acceptance I have seen on a Spandau product; and though doctrinal changes were pushing more towards the handier Kar98a, pistols, grenades and above all the MG I can’t see a need for Spandau to take on such a project (in 1915 several firms, Suhl and Danzig especially took on a similar project with the Gewehr98, - Dresden as well 1915-1918 as it relates to rifles) considering the success of DWM and Erfurt with the P08?
I mean every other time such was done there was a genuine need- the 1915 build up and the shortage of the Gewehr98 that drove doubling of firms making the rifle (the expediency was done as a stop gap), in 1918 the 98a starting at Danzig was because of the fact only Erfurt was making the 98a so another firm familiar with the production was chosen.

As important as the P08 or 98a was to doctrine the MG was paramount and this is shown in the 1917-1918 period… perhaps Spandau tinkered with this P08 project as a potential source for its excess manpower as it moved away from the Gewehr98? Perhaps they did as most suspect- move towards the MG?

What is sure is if someone fraudulently made these Spandau P08 they were knowledgeable to events and picked the best arsenal to use!

quote:Originally posted by Weimar_Police

New manufacturer would take hundreds of thousands of marks for the tooling (and specific tooling required for luger manufacture, so Spandau being an arsenal rebuild facility would be immaterial). As an example; Simson received their tooling at no cost to themselves from the Erfurt factory, this is documented in their 1920's contract. They simply did not want to, nor did they feel they could afford the manufactuer of the tooling, and this was for what was eventually a 12,000 gun contract. If Spandau had made complete guns, then there would be thousands of them remaining, not a handful.


Ed

PS: As another example of where handguns.mag.com is wrong; Vickers put DWM parts together, but did not "make" lugers.
 
For the Simson information, it is in Goertz and also in their Simson Legende' book, both in Deutch, plus other articles. It is new infromation, and why we included it. This infromation is in our book that is coming out in July.


The vast majority of fradusters know exactly what to do, so when I hear, well we shouldn't be talking about that because "folks might be listening".. What bull****, of course they are listening, most of them are smart folks, we just have to keep ahead of them...

Ed
 
You're speaking of Joachim Görtz? I wasn't aware he did another book on the P08 (besides his and Walters collaboration on the Navy Luger?) Of course his Small Arms markings is excellent... I can't say I saw anything relevant to Simson Suhl/Erfurt in either book? Perhaps it was an AutoMag article?

Still kind of hard to believe… though I have found John Walter inaccurate at times, his statement seems more plausible than a freebee from Erfurt.

As to Fraudsters, I can't say I agree, the vast majority are idiots and easily spotted, - at least outside of the P08 world. I suppose with $20k on the hook you tend to draw the more informed? (one of the downfalls of P08 collecting, having a better quality scumbag to take the extra time to do it right.)


quote:Originally posted by Weimar_Police

For the Simson information, it is in Goertz and also in their Simson Legende' book, both in Deutch, plus other articles. It is new infromation, and why we included it. This infromation is in our book that is coming out in July.


The vast majority of fradusters know exactly what to do, so when I hear, well we shouldn't be talking about that because "folks might be listening".. What bull****, of course they are listening, most of them are smart folks, we just have to keep ahead of them...

Ed
 
As collectors we all want rare lugers to exists, it wouldn’t be much fun otherwise.
Why do thousands of hours of research looking for a rare variant if it wasn’t still possible to find one? I honestly hope Spandau lugers do exist, and that absolute proof is found to substantiate them. I have no idea what Spandau lugers are suppose to look like and neither does anyone else, so we need to be fair and careful criticizing this variation. At the same time we need to point out what would be normally considered problems.

The picture shown is of the 2’s & 7’s pictured on the luger. All three 2’s are a mismatch as are the two 7’s.

If this was a standard luger you would have to be suspect, could this be normal for a Spandau, each collector will need to decide for themselves. Tread carefully my friends.

Vern


Download Attachment: Aspandou.jpg
5.76KB
 
Joachim Görtz `Die Pistole 08´ Verl. Stöcker-Schmid Switzerland 2000,
Varia und Curiosa, p. 279 `Die „Spandau Luger“´

Görtz concludes that (a) examples have only been found in the United States, none have been found elsewhere (b) all examples were manufactured from Erfurt parts (c) no machinery for manufacturing Lugers ever existed in Spandau. Thus, the Spandau Lugers are obvious fakes.

Görtz further addresses the question as to whether Spandau Lugers could have been Erfurt pistols, reconditioned in Spandau. Although an Acceptance Commission was undeniably stationed in Spandau, this Commission was solely responsible for the acceptance of munitions, it resided in the munitions factory and was not responsible for weapons.

As a last resort, proponents of the Spandau Luger argue that they could have been the personal weapons of the Spandau Munitions Factory Acceptance Commission etc. Görtz considers these arguments to be far fetched. Furthermore, Görtz points to the dubious abundance of up to five acceptance stamps, as well as proof stamps and RC stamp, all on the right hand side of the receiver.
 
thanks Villers, I wish Die Pistole 08 was in english, but I enjoy the german copy I have. He also discusses the Simson guns, in fact covers it in 7 or 8 assorted pages. Graham and I had them translated, just to ensure we were on the right track (Graham's deutch is much better than mine).

Joachim dies unexpectadly several years ago, but he provided several excellent books that have an excellent reputation to this day (they are accurate). So, take heed of what Villers stated from the book...

Ed
 
I wonder whether the "known" Spandau lugers, when held side by side at that Texas gun show had identical markings, or had subtle variations between them? Any way to get that information?
 
Just an aside. Speaking of Joachim Görtz, I met Don Bryan's( Görtz & Bryan's German Small Arms Markings) nephew about a month ago. I asked if he had any of his Uncle's collection. He said that when Don died his step-aunt disappeared before the estate was settled, and so did the Luger collection. They don't have any idea where the Lugers went.

Ron
 
Couple of interesting posting over on the Luger Forum back in 3-2-2002 about Spandau Lugers :

By LF Member Johnny Peppers :

" I think a lot of people have trouble understanding the existence of a pistol from an arsenal that had no manufacturing facilities for that particular pistol. If the pistols were indeed reworks, the simple Spandau C/K proof would have been sufficient for military purposes. To create a die to mark the toggle, and the associated extra work to apply the marking would have been a waste of time when Germany was trying to speed up production.

I think even Jan Still indicates that even if the Spandau is legit, the survival rate for such a low production pistol is amazingly high. "

By LF Member "MLM" :

" From my experience in military contracting and repair work, I find it plausible that a factory would be contacted to undertake a rework program. The expectation would be that field returned guns would be in contracts separate from factory reject reworks, or reworks of captured weapons. At least, I would expect those to be separate projects as they would differ in systematic ways across the contracts (yep, armchair speculation here). The Spandau's all look to be recent manufacture (17-18 dates) so would have been virtually new and I would suspect factory rejects or a single large damaged shipment (severe damage such as a supply ship sinking such that a factory rebuilding,following failed inspection of several lugers, would be in order before issuance).

If Spandau had been contracted to make new lugers, they would not evidence the ability to make them by providing 300 reworked Erfurt guns. There would be new made guns of new made parts. It puzzles me why they would rework a bunch of guns and make new or completely restamp toggles when the guns are not "Spandau" made. Additionaly, Spandau, inspection stamps would seem more appropriate because that would correctly indicate the work done--parts replacement and inspection of rebuilt gun. Why go to trouble making spandau toggles--few would need replacement and they would suggest the gun was Spandau manufacture--not true.

Perhaps the Spandaus were actually the product of a few Spandau parts including toggles and a large body of parts in excess inventory from Erfurt or DWM. The Erfurt factory might have had lots of extra parts but lacked critical parts (such as toggle shortage) to complete the guns. But, then, why not just make some toggles and parts and send them to Erfurt so Erfurt can make the lugers?

Much of the Spandau luger story is difficult to fit into my understanding of manufacturing. "
 
I don't disagree with any of this except in regards to Spandau not having the means to accept other than munitions; I mean geez Louise their MG facilities accepted 78,000 MG's in 1917 alone (more than half with subcontracted parts); they also made significant numbers of the gewehr98 during 1917; as to 1918 they phased out the MG08 and "completing” the Gewehr98 to focus on the MG08/15 and its aircraft counterpart LMG08/15 (DWM taking the MG08 demand from Spandau.)
There is no doubt that Spandau had the means to accept other than munitions, whether they could do the P08 seems easy enough to expect as the Revisions-Commission & Gewehrprüfungskommission was based in Spandau?

Every thing originated in Spandau and it was a huge facility by all I have read made up of many branches & facilities, whether they took on such a project is possible though doubtful? (John Walters statement that these were possibly assembled from rejected or salvaged pistols is the only reasonable explanation that could be possible- those that write of “new production” are off point- these certainly couldn’t be new production.)
While double-checking statements I came across a possible correction, - Devils Paintbrush stated by 1917 Spandau had 8,966 employed, while Dr. Storz suggested the earlier figure I quote.

As to excessive “acceptance” it does seem a bit excessive however it isn’t totally out of bounds either as during Imperial era rifles occasionally sport more then the typical 3 acceptance stamps on the right receiver during upper level rework and in Weimar era easily they can get carried away. (Clarity of that side of the pistol is too poor for me to do comparisons to other Spandau products, and I can’t say I would even try to come up with an explanation to each stamp! The rifle acceptance stamps represent aspects of completion which are known, as I’m sure the P08 collectors have determined for the P08, however on reworks, especially Weimar jobs the excess stamps are undetermined though very likely simply represent repetition of the earlier steps? (very often the receivers are the only original part to a Weimar rework and besides the hardness the others would have to be done again?- total salvage jobs would require re-acceptance.)

Ed, as to your book, I look forward to it, Simson Suhl is my favorite subject-


quote:Originally posted by villiers

Joachim Görtz `Die Pistole 08´ Verl. Stöcker-Schmid Switzerland 2000,
Varia und Curiosa, p. 279 `Die „Spandau Luger“´

Görtz concludes that (a) examples have only been found in the United States, none have been found elsewhere (b) all examples were manufactured from Erfurt parts (c) no machinery for manufacturing Lugers ever existed in Spandau. Thus, the Spandau Lugers are obvious fakes.

Görtz further addresses the question as to whether Spandau Lugers could have been Erfurt pistols, reconditioned in Spandau. Although an Acceptance Commission was undeniably stationed in Spandau, this Commission was solely responsible for the acceptance of munitions, it resided in the munitions factory and was not responsible for weapons.

As a last resort, proponents of the Spandau Luger argue that they could have been the personal weapons of the Spandau Munitions Factory Acceptance Commission etc. Görtz considers these arguments to be far fetched. Furthermore, Görtz points to the dubious abundance of up to five acceptance stamps, as well as proof stamps and RC stamp, all on the right hand side of the receiver.
 
The c/K is not a Spandau acceptance from the database I maintain, however that proves nothing; as to the processes that have been documented to have occurred in Imperial era that would be similar to this example- in 1915 many old Gewehr98's were sent to the Prussian State Arsenal at Danzig, and many of the Suhl start ups that were coming on line for Gewehr98 production- these rifles were overhauled and most parts replaced- new acceptance was placed on the right receiver (not half a dozen like this Spandau P08 but an additional acceptance, plus they were re-fireproofed)
During the same period but continued beyond the 1915 rifle crisis, a facility in Dresden was established to "assemble" rejected rifle components- these rifles are called sterngewehrs and are hand assembled because of off standard parts- some old pre-war parts were utilized (some from pre-war receivers).

There is precedence for this process, and Spandau I suspect had some excess capacity in 1918 as they were gearing towards specialized MG production (dropping the MG08 to DWM) and away from Gewehr98 production.

Lastly, of all the arsenals and commercial firms, Spandau is the king of subcontracting parts- they did it in the MG production and in Gewehr98 production (Suhl is famous for it as well) no one else I know of did it on such a level as Spandau.

quote:Originally posted by Pete Ebbink

Couple of interesting posting over on the Luger Forum back in 3-2-2002 about Spandau Lugers :

By LF Member Johnny Peppers :

" I think a lot of people have trouble understanding the existence of a pistol from an arsenal that had no manufacturing facilities for that particular pistol. If the pistols were indeed reworks, the simple Spandau C/K proof would have been sufficient for military purposes. To create a die to mark the toggle, and the associated extra work to apply the marking would have been a waste of time when Germany was trying to speed up production.

I think even Jan Still indicates that even if the Spandau is legit, the survival rate for such a low production pistol is amazingly high. "

By LF Member "MLM" :

" From my experience in military contracting and repair work, I find it plausible that a factory would be contacted to undertake a rework program. The expectation would be that field returned guns would be in contracts separate from factory reject reworks, or reworks of captured weapons. At least, I would expect those to be separate projects as they would differ in systematic ways across the contracts (yep, armchair speculation here). The Spandau's all look to be recent manufacture (17-18 dates) so would have been virtually new and I would suspect factory rejects or a single large damaged shipment (severe damage such as a supply ship sinking such that a factory rebuilding,following failed inspection of several lugers, would be in order before issuance).

If Spandau had been contracted to make new lugers, they would not evidence the ability to make them by providing 300 reworked Erfurt guns. There would be new made guns of new made parts. It puzzles me why they would rework a bunch of guns and make new or completely restamp toggles when the guns are not "Spandau" made. Additionaly, Spandau, inspection stamps would seem more appropriate because that would correctly indicate the work done--parts replacement and inspection of rebuilt gun. Why go to trouble making spandau toggles--few would need replacement and they would suggest the gun was Spandau manufacture--not true.

Perhaps the Spandaus were actually the product of a few Spandau parts including toggles and a large body of parts in excess inventory from Erfurt or DWM. The Erfurt factory might have had lots of extra parts but lacked critical parts (such as toggle shortage) to complete the guns. But, then, why not just make some toggles and parts and send them to Erfurt so Erfurt can make the lugers?

Much of the Spandau luger story is difficult to fit into my understanding of manufacturing. "
 
Jan Still in Imperial Lugers DWMs estimated total Luger production in 1916 was 160,000 including 20,000 LP08. DWM may also have produced an additional 7900 Naval lugers in 1916. DWM produced 180,000 Lugers in 1917, 90,000 each P08 and LP08. 1917 is obviously the source for the storm troop LP08 armament. Their estimated 1918 production is a total of 143,000 including 25,000 LP08.
The Erfurt production estimates of interest are; 1918, 80,000 P08; 1917, 180,000 P08; and 1918, 175,000 P08.

Also Important is that Russia signed the Treaty of Brest-Litvosk on March 3, 1918 ending the war on the Russian front.

The great storm troop offensives were:
Operation Michael, March 21 to about April 5
Operation Georgette, April 10 to April 29
Operation Blucher, May 27 to May 30
Operation Gneisenau, June 9 to June 11.
After this date the German Armies were greatly weakened by Ludendorf's storm tactics and were stopped. At the battle of Amiens in August 1918 the Allies began driving the Imperial Army gradually back to the Hindenburg Line. The primary German Army need during the withdrawal over open country was the machine gun.

Both DWM and Erfurt increased their production capability by lowering standards of finish and non-esssential fitting on 1918 weapons. Weapons for the German 1918 spring offensive were supplied by DWM and Erfurt from primarily 1917 production, an estimated total of 270,000 P08 and 90,000 LP08.

There was no apparent need for Spandau production of pistols as opposed to a critical need for Spandau production of machine guns.
 
Don, good question. Obviously there is a "standard marking" as they did produce weapons during that timeframe.

I think your point is that we should be able to look at original Spandau markings and compare the markings against Erfurt markings; while comparing to Spandau Luger markings.


Ed

PS: Graf, I'd love to meet you, at a minimum we should chat on the phone :)
 
Photographs of three SPANDAU Lugers are available to identify the right receiver acceptance stamps. One is shown above in this series of posts and the others two are shown on page 79 and 80 of Imperial Lugers. All have five right receiver acceptance stamps as compared to the three found on 1918 Erfurts. Based on marginal quality photographs, the right receiver acceptance stamps appear to be as follows:

1917 SPANDAU, serial number 12, has E, N??, (C/RC) B, O M or W?, P (S. Fox collection)
1918 SPANDAU, serial number 27, has E, N??, (C/RC) B, O, P (Ralph Shattuck, collection at one time)
1918 SPANDAU, serial number 108, has E, N??, (C/RC) B, O, P (Ralph Shattuck, collection)

The five acceptance stamps on the two 1918 SPANDAUs, serial numbers 27 and 108 appear to be identical (however, the letters may not be properly identified). The five acceptance stamps on the 1917 SPANDAU are identical to these except for the fourth stamp from the left. The three right stamps (C/RC) , B, O, P found on the two 1918 SPANDAUs are commonly found on 1918 Erfurts. (Note: the identification of the B stamp is tentative.) The first stamp (from left) is an E. The second stamp appears to be a partial stamp and I cannot identify it (perhaps an N).

It would be interesting to see photographs of the right receiver stamps of the other SPANDAU Lugers and 1918 dated Spandau rifles.

Also see post below.
LUGER RECEIVER ACCEPTANCE STAMPS 1 2 http://luger.gunboards.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8713
 
41 - 60 of 114 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top