Researching WW1 Luger Markings

[Alan Smith]

The purported unit marks on this 1918 dated pistol do not look "right" to me. It's hard to explain exactly why I feel this way - part of it is the font, the depth of the strikes, and the overall wear in the area of the markings.

As everyone else has pointed out, finding unit marks on a 1918 pistol would be highly unusual. 1918 dated P.08, however, just happen to be the least expensive of the WWI-era P.08 (and, thus, more attractive as raw material for a not very well educated faker). All of these factors, plus my personal gut feeling from having looked at lots of correct guns, cause me to believe that the unit markings in question are fake.

This is too bad, as it looks like the gun was a pretty nice example of a late war P.08. To me, it has been ruined by the fake markings.

From talking with old collectors it seems that, way back in the 1950's and early 1960's when American collectors did not know much about WWI German unit marks, some so-called "collectors" believed the unit marks to DECREASE the gun's collector appeal. Thus, some fakers back in the day would fill in/obliterate/refinish front gripstraps so as to get rid of the "ugly" markings and increase the $$ value of the gun.

It's interesting to see that the tables have turned and now, rather than the fakers removing the markings and ruining good guns, the are still ruining good guns, but via adding markings.

[Chad1]

Other input

Since the idea of the markings being fake has been reintroduced, I would like to hear from anybody else that shares that opinion. My goal is to be as objective as possible here.

As for the physical characteristics of the markings (outside of the abnormal font), I don't see anything about them that leads me to believe they were anything close to recent additions.

There is a region of slight wear around each letter and numeral that seems (to me) to be consistent with the rest of the gun.

Furthermore, I don't think the content of the markings suggest fakery either.

While it is probably not the best policy to try to get into a faker's head, I have a real hard time believing that a guy would fake with THESE markings. Does a marking for a busted-up unit of supply troops and returning wounded (which is what Landwehr Infantry Regiment 387 was) really add any monetary value? Not to mention the fact that they were deployed on an already quiet Eastern Front at the end of the war. To even a half-way educated faker, this has got to rank as practically a "non-unit" in the German Army. If it were me doing the stamping, I'd go for a more celebrated unit and actually make my artistry pay.

On the off-chance that the marking was for the Lehr Regiment (which I am buying into less and less anyway), I don't believe them to be fake either. Frankly, it took too much homework to find out that this so-called "Training" regiment was actually in the 3rd Guards Division for the entire war. I'd be willing to bet that if you did that much homework, and you wanted to fake something that obscure, you'd at least get it closer to the standard convention than the markings presented here.


Furthermore, I have a hard time convincing myself that someone would make sure to put a period after the last number (an insignificant, but as discussed here, universal attribute to original markings), while at the same time not really following the standard format for the marking with regiment type, number, kompany, and weapon number.

Once again, I am trying to be objective here. So please weigh in with an opinion if you have one.

[Chad1]

One more question...

One more thing I just though of.

What have you guys seen about the difference in the size (height) of the numbers used to indicate the regiment number and the the numbers used for the weapons issue number?

As for the font type, can anyone post pictures of the numbers 3 and 7 on their unit markings? The 3 on mine has a little curl at the end. I was just curious as to if that is typical on other markings.

[GWA]

Chad, the directive for marking army weapons dated 1909 set letter and numeral sizes. The first photo attached is a good illustration of a unit marked P08 that pretty much adheres to the directive. The '09 directive indicated that unit numerals would be at 3.1 mm, unit letter designator would be at 4.2 mm and weapon number would be 2.1 mm. In the case where a roman numeral designator, such as for battalion or corps, was required that marking would be at 4.2mm.

Both the regiment number, 4 and squadron number, 1 are at about 3mm, the unit designator "U" is at about 4mm and the weapon number, 19 is about 2 mm.

The second and third photos illustrate that regulations were not always strictly followed but you will see that the style or font is pretty consistent.

[GWA]

A slight difference in numeral size denoting regiment and squadron

[GWA]

A substitution of the lower case of the letter L for the roman numeral III to indicate third battalion staff. In all these things it seems that the only absolute is that nothing is absolute.

[Chad1]

good pics

GWA- thanks for posting the pics. It all helps.

[Chad1]

Roman Numeral?

After scrutinizing the picture of the markings again, I paid more attention to the definate difference in height between the "I" and both the "L" and "R". The "I" is noticably taller, so I was wondering if it really indicates which battalion it was from.

If this is significant enought to mean something other than Infantry, it could lean it towards the Lehr or Leib regiments, which don't show up in my sources titled as infantry regiments, specifically.

One last thing, has anyone ever seen markings that were touched up during the period? Say the strike was not that deep, or even, so something was just used to "fix" the mark and merely make it more legible (I'm thinking about the straight leg on the "R" here).

[Chad1]

developments

I've been real busy, so this update is long overdue, but anybody that took interest in this thread might like to know what else I found.

This spring I searched for the "L. I. R. 387" marking on http://luger.gunboards.com.

There is another guy who posted pictures of his pistol, with the exact markings of mine. By exact, I mean that all the little oddities that are present on mine are also on his, and are pretty obvious in the pictures (the funny shaped "R", the uniform heights of the characters, etc.).

The guys on that forum seem pretty sure that it is for the Landwehr Infantry Regiment 387.

I tried to do a little background searching on my source for this pistol as well. It wasn't conclusive, but by wading through faded memories, it seems more likely this was brought back by a WWII vet.

That at least explains how a gun that was in the Ukraine for all of 1918 and never would have been captured by a doughboy might have made it to the States anyway, just 25+ years later.

I guess it shouldn't be a big surprise.

It seems reasonable to guess that a large portion of the Luger bringbacks, both Imperial and Third Reich manufacture, were actually brought back after WWII?...after actually being conquered and occupied, as opposed to just walking home in 1918?

[phild]

I think that your conclusions on the guns markings make sense.

As to the point of Imperial era Lugers being brought back from WWII, well of course that is well known fact. Some pretty well researched and thought out estimates point to maybe around 200,000 Imperial era Lugers being in service by the start of WWII. I would think that almost every field grade and above officer in the German Army during the late 1930s would have owned an Imperial era Luger. While your example bears unit property stamps, it does not show the 1920 property date or other signs of being in the "system" of the 20s and 30s. This would lead me to believe that it was the property of an officer that would have been of a higher rank by WWII.