Approximate value of JG Anschutz Drilling (1941?) & Cape (also 1941?)

[ellenbr]

Well, I'm glad to know that it is possible that we are on the same team as elements of this post and others would suggest something different due to the tone and unpalatable nature of Cate's post, which seem to be more the norm than not. I'm also delighted to know that we are taking old and new info and that if you post otherwise then you are to be belittled or nailed to the wall; with some quid pro quo there. Tone has a lot to do with it and in this case I think it is more semantics that anything. Maybe we need a German barrister who is a linguist??? Possibly it is an effective date that at some point all have to conform. So what if Ford is off a couple days or months. He's quoting law interpreted by someone else and it occurs in more than one reference. So if that is incorrect, come forward and publish it. I'm not big on taking folks word, so if you have evidence, come forth; show us say 100 examples. Prove it as the burden of proof is on you. No one person knows it all and all are subject to error. If anyone thinks they are at the pinnacle of info German sporting weapons, they are apt to get their clock cleaned. Why can't we work as a team as a means to an end? If someone has info or a direction to search, let's hear or see it. It can be ferreted out I am confident. I'm not a alone in my thoughts here & I'm sure this tirade is more centered toward the norm that not.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

[ellenbr]

I don't see any response from anyone yet, so I'll put out some more bait. Let's put some power to the Cate error train and pull it out of the station for all to see. For now, I'll leave um internet posts and the like alone as that might be too easy and scriveners errors are not considered. What I'll do is reference published text and if there has been a correct or addendum, I am not aware and don't know. Now my hat's off to anyone who gets a text published and in the open as it gives our obsession more press and exposure. But see page 11 of Cate's text where he description of the DRGM/utility model/novel addition where he states that it is for 6 years. From a purist's stance as that is not true unless you add the qualifier that at the end of the effective 3 year period an additional 60 marks had to be ponied up to extend the effective protection term for an additional 3 years. Next, flip to page 73 & 78 when he notes "CAL : 181(mm) S BERN" as noting some affiliation with the Bern Switzerland proofhouse. Wrong, wrong, wrong. That is a type of pattern welded tube, more than likely Bernard type or types, that was sourced abroad, more than likely from Liege but there is a non zero probability that it came from the Austro-Hungarian empire. By the way, info on tube sourcing is an obsession of mine. Now, flip to the back of our hymnal to page 246 where he notes that the initials HAL are from some mechanic that knitted the tubes or something. Here he totally misses the crossed pistols which is the quality control mark of H.A. Lindner and this completes the circle with Shoverling, Daly & Gales Suhl sourcing to Lindner & Sauer. I'm highly confident that Lindner was a fixture at the Sauer plant and utilized the talented mechanic pool at Sauer, along with others in Suhl, to complete his orders to S,D & G in the U.S. of A. Moving along to page 217 on Modell Nr. 98, he notes the 10/23(Oktober 1923) proof date but doesn't include the Suhl ledger number. 1st you could say that Sauer sent it to Z-M in Oktober 1923 and had it proofed. But until one has seen as many examples as possible proofed in Suhl for the period of Oktober 1923 till say April 1924, one had better consider the possibility or probability that the Suhl proof house did use a ledger. I invite any & all to get about the wagon-train, encircle & denounce that. Shall I go on?

So, the take-away is that we all make errors so if we have common ground, why bust Ford chops or beat up on Ford for quoting a possible inaccuracy?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

[Jim Cate]

Raimey, perhaps you should have taken the 7 years I spent working on the SAUER book and written it yourself. Then perhaps there would be no errors. You have mentioned nothing herein that has not been noted by others since the book appeared. I certainly was not trying to burst Ford's chops; but simply trying to get everyone on the right page as to when the German proofhouses started using the Eagle N. Actually I knew very little about Lindner when the book was completed. Yes, his quality is legendary, but he was no firearms genius and he never designed a particular addition to the firearms world. He took Sauer guns and made them better, but the guns were still Sauers. The DRGM/utility model information came directly from Martin Krause, patent attorney in Germany, and collector of Sauers. I believe that info is still correct. Lastly, the vast majority of caliber information came directly from members of the GGCA who are much more familiar with ammunition that I am. I am sorry if any information in my book offended you or Mike. Regards, JIM

[germanguns1234]

Jim's book, by the way, is still the best out there. The GGCA only has a few left and we have been turning down offers from non-members.

[mike ford]

For what ever it's worth, I wasn't especially offended.The way I see it, we could could both be right. As stated before, if the law required everything to be done by a certain date and some of it was done at an earlier date; that doesn't change the law, but only reflects an actual date. Since I spent a major part of my life dealing with contract law, I will compare this to a contract.They had a contract with a contractual completion date of 1 April 1940, but the date of substantial completion was 15 Janurary 1940 ( substantial completion means the work can be used,but some requirements are still left to be done. Of course full completion can be accomplished before contractually required, also).Raimey, thanks for sticking up for me. Every thing I know, or think I know, I learned from someone else. If they were wrong, then I may be wrong( I hope no one finds a gun with old style proofs, dated after 15 jan. 1940).
Mike

[ellenbr]

I'll keep it short. Once again Cate, you have propagated a misnomer about Lindner. Like Scherping, he was king when it came to quality control. He knew what his clients wanted to see. He did design a few things with one be a single trigger if I recall correctly and also a whale of a single trap that Daly pretty much called his, being a Verschluß für Kipplaufgewehre which found protection under D.R.G.M./Gebrauchsmuster geschützt #555768. With his refining, or his mechanics, he was a bit more than the firearms merchant under Daly's thumb that most Germans want you to believe. I have suspicions that he catapulted the A&D Body Action with upper and lower scears to the pinnacle of perfection. Actually nothing in the text offends me in the least it as I can make up my own subtitles, but it is the author who penned the text with which I have the beef. Like Wonder Woman and her bracelets, you deflect criticism to sources from which you obtained. But when Ford deflects to his sources you seem to crucify him. Seems you may have a compilation other folks info, but indeed 7 years is a quite a spell to dwell on one topic. I would assume any text I might be would be more of a fishing expedition as I don't have full access to the full monty of reference materials I deem critical.

Good to see School-Master Spencer on the playground trying to turn a buck.

Ford, glad to tow the line for you; nothing more than I ask of the Boys Ellenburg each & every day. And I really don't have a dog in this fight as what's a couple days before an effective date? Really a mountain out of a mole hill. Now, talk about Gebrüder Merkel sourcing Liege for tube steel, yeah I'd have keen interest there. If an examples exists post 15/01/1940 with pre-1940 proofs, I'll find it for you.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

[ellenbr]

Ford, do keep us abreast of your condition/rooster spurs/surgery & recovery.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

[Steve Whitley]

Just stumbled across two letters from Genschow to Major a. D. Orth, Direktor der Preuss. Beschussanstalt, Suhl from August and September of 1939. Both are requesting (or in reference to) images of the new proof marks for inclusion in the 1940 Geco calendar (not catalog). Unfortunately, they offer no further information as to effective date of the new proof marks. Somewhere, I recall seeing what I had considered definitive proof of 15 Jan 1940 being required for implementing these, but I am still searching for that.

Steve Whitley