[jph6]

Just browsing through an unnamed auction sight we all know well and came across this. I am curious regarding the capture papers. Haven't seen or researched proper capture paper documentation so does this look legit? Also, here are some pics of a pistol with capture papers from the same seller. Here we have a CE 1941 and Mauser pistol model 1934. 1st and 4th pic are for pistol and 2, 3, 5 and 6 are for rifle.
J

View attachment 517659 View attachment 517662 View attachment 517660 View attachment 517661 View attachment 517658 View attachment 517657

 

[Bob in OHIO]

BB Paper w/o rifles SN does not connect the two objects in May '45, IMO.

 

[Turbo Archie]

Most all the rifle papers are like that except for Bob's

Most likely correct for that rifle but you will never know.


..

 

[jph6]

View attachment 517935 View attachment 517936 Alright. Here's another question about the differences between two CE 1941 k98's. In the first pic, why are the CE letters further apart and the barrel reads 7.91 when the second rifle has the CE closer together with only a 7.9 on the barrel? Were the recievers hand stamped? Why the difference on the barrel numbers? Am I just over anylizing these things?
J

 

[MauserGuy85]

View attachment 517935 View attachment 517936 Alright. Here's another question about the differences between two CE 1941 k98's. In the first pic, why are the CE letters further apart and the barrel reads 7.91 when the second rifle has the CE closer together with only a 7.9 on the barrel? Were the recievers hand stamped? Why the difference on the barrel numbers? Am I just over anylizing these things?
J

That was a point I wanted to bring up as well. My ce41 has the CE close together as well as my ce42, and ce43. All my examples look like the second photo you posted. Unless its a very strange abnormality, I would say its questionable to say the least. From what I understand, CE receivers were roll marked, not hand stamped.

 

[Vulch]

Papers are NOT genuine IMHO. Faked aging, ink for the handwriting too new, and handwriting style not very consistant with MOST US handwriting style of the period.

The 7.9 and 7.9 are the barrel gauging - varies between rifle depending on how it gauged when assembled.

Sauer varies considerably with finish, fonts, etc. Real wild card maker sometimes, but one of my favourites.

 

[jph6]

View attachment 517951

Ok. So with the variations in marking, is this CE 43 legit? I like the font.

 

[mto7464]

that looks really odd to me. Looks cut in but I am not expert. You should post this on a new thread. They did have a font like that though.

I wonder if it has been enhanced?

 

[jph6]

Thought it would make a good pic to post. That CE font pic is just another pic from an auction but I have seen ones like that before. Are there really any guidelines out there in the world that have any authority as to what should be what? With all the variations and potential fakes out there it seems things can get tricky. How's the Backbone of The Werhmacht book? Along with this forum being a great place to share information and gain knowledge, what other sources have you all been able to confidently research and base your knowledge upon? Any good recommendations?
J

 

[PK 637]

Papers are NOT genuine IMHO. Faked aging, ink for the handwriting too new, and handwriting style not very consistant with MOST US handwriting style of the period.

+1. Handwriting varies not only by individual, but overarching standards change considerably over time and tend to be quite consistent within a given time period. That writing looks nothing like how people wrote in the 40's.

 

[mto7464]

Thought it would make a good pic to post. That CE font pic is just another pic from an auction but I have seen ones like that before. Are there really any guidelines out there in the world that have any authority as to what should be what? With all the variations and potential fakes out there it seems things can get tricky. How's the Backbone of The Werhmacht book? Along with this forum being a great place to share information and gain knowledge, what other sources have you all been able to confidently research and base your knowledge upon? Any good recommendations?
J

I looked at some other pics and yes there are others that look like that so I guess its good. Just looks strange from the few ai have seen.

 

[Helmetz]

Not a fan of the capture papers.

 

[jph6]

Not a fan of the capture papers.

Hi Helmetz. In your opinion what are you seeing that is not right about them.
J

 

[jph6]

That was a point I wanted to bring up as well. My ce41 has the CE close together as well as my ce42, and ce43. All my examples look like the second photo you posted. Unless its a very strange abnormality, I would say its questionable to say the least. From what I understand, CE receivers were roll marked, not hand stamped.

After further research, I'm thinking that both the close together and the further apart script lettering is correct. Have found rifles to be both ways although further apart is less prevalent. The rifle in post #1 with the script CE further apart also has the correct WaA markings for that year. Also, in 1943 the script CE was changed to a block style CE toward the end of the "b" letter serial range, which you may already know. However, the CE in post #7 that I posted looks different compared to the others I have seen.
J

 

[MauserGuy85]

After further research, I'm thinking that both the close together and the further apart script lettering is correct. Have found rifles to be both ways although further apart is less prevalent. The rifle in post #1 with the script CE further apart also has the correct WaA markings for that year. Also, in 1943 the script CE was changed to a block style CE toward the end of the "b" letter serial range, which you may already know. However, the CE in post #7 that I posted looks different compared to the others I have seen.
J

JPS is my favorite of the Manufacturers/Assemblers of k98ks. JPS was more of an assembler since they did not manufacture their own receivers. There are many variations thats why I originally posted that the big split ce marking is "questionable" or a strange abnormality. I have not come across any that can be touched and inspected so far in my collecting with such a distance between the C and E. This in general reaks of JPS though. They definately were not Mauser Oberndorf by any means which in my experience is pretty spot on in regards to the "way they did things".

Having said that, the top receiver markings on the CE41 from post #1 look legit to me. The seperated C E looks to be more uncommon or dare I say "rarer". Yes they are further apart than in my ce41, but mine is a "L' block which puts them far apart from each other so that doesnt help much. The FP and serial font "b' block look legit as well and exactly like my "b" block 42. Overall IMO the rifle in question is a nice looking bolt mistmatch, but the capture papers seem bogus.... The ink just looks too fresh for one

Here is my CE41 Slant Script RC with uncommon "dfb" BSW barrel. Walther supplied receiver "359"

Here is my CE42 Slant Script with uncommon "dfb" BSW barrel. Walther supplied receiver "359"

"Also, in 1943 the script CE was changed to a block style CE toward the end of the "b" letter serial range"

Unfortunately this statement I find to be completely untrue so Bob Jensen got it wrong or simply did not have access to enough examples or serial studies and here is why....

My CE43 receiver. Script CE. Barrel removed by gunsmith for bubba. Erma supplied receiver "280" with gothic Mod 98. Serial 9352 "d" block, so pretty close to the start of the "e" block

I have a "C" block barreled receiver "resto" assembled by Sauer with an AR43 top receiver code and Erma "280"proof on the right side. Just to throw that out there as another variation of JPS....

 

[CCubed]

Never seen a "ce" receiver marking like that. Here's my RC ce 42 receiver.

 

[jph6]

Response to MauserGuy85 post#15

"Also, in 1943 the script CE was changed to a block style CE toward the end of the "b" letter serial range"

Unfortunately this statement I find to be completely untrue so Bob Jensen got it wrong or simply did not have access to enough examples or serial studies and here is why....



I should have said that "I read" that the CE was changed to block style CE toward the end of the "b" letter serial range. I understand that Jenson and friends researched and wrote about these things a while ago and they are only one source of research. Thanks for the pics and information/correction. Maybe it was the time in which they started somewhat of a transition?
J

 

[Vulch]

Here's a little snippet about Sauer: Sauer manufactured K98's from actions made by, usually, Walther (though Walther is never listed as a K98 manufacturer) and MAYBE their own made actions. Sauer marked the bare receivers with the roll stamps, and THEN polished them and blued them - this is why you see odd faint markings from Sauer, or ones that look linished etc. Their polish varies a LOT.

 

[Helmetz]

Hi Helmetz. In your opinion what are you seeing that is not right about them.
J

Original capture papers I own and have handled typically demonstrate a uniform aging and don't look intentionally distressed. There are other properties that are evident on originals in hand, that I'd rather not discuss on an open forum.

 

[Cincinnati Kid]

Fountain pen ink contained iron (which oxidizes), which is why the ink turns brown with age. The paper with the blue type has most of the details written in black ink, and the signature in blue. The ink should have turned brown by now if it was actually 67 years old.