Can anyone identify the maker of this cartridge? It is dated 11 06 (or 90?) and has what appears to be a script I or perhaps J.
Hard for me to read on my screen, due to little contrast in the photo, perhaps, but it is possibly a product of Hauptlaboratorium Ingolstadt (also spelled Jngolstadt), Germany. If not that, then I don’t know. Perhaps one of our German friends, for whom reading these early German letters is second nature, can do better than did I.
Thanks. I tried photographing the headstamp and the results were much worse than the scan. I believe the raised Mauser-type head is the reason the scan is unfocused out towards the edges. It sure makes getting a clear picture a problem.
Guy - part of the problem is my computer screen I believe. It is not consistent in its resolution, at least to my eye. Right now, the picture’s contrast is better than the first time I looked at it. It might also be the lighting in my room - right behind my screen is a large window, since my office faces the Western neighborhoods of San Francisco, and offers a good view. It also offers the morning and early afternoon sun in my eyes. Pictures are clearer to me at night on my screen, so it is likely more the room’s lighting and my poor eyesight that is the culprit.
It certainly is a “J” but it is not formed quite like that on the 7.9 x 57 headstamps of WWI and before, from which I know best the Ingolstadt headstamp. On 9mm Luger, the “J” appears just as I have typed it here, and is not stylized or “German Gothic” as I almost certainly incorrectly call it.
Maybe soon Willem or one of the other Dutch or German collectors will chime in on this and confirm or dispute my identification. Either is important of course - it is only important that we learn positively who the headstamp represents, not whether we are right or wrong.
Thanks. I tried photographing the headstamp and the results were much worse than the scan. I believe the raised Mauser-type head is the reason the scan is unfocused out towards the edges. It sure makes getting a clear picture a problem.[/quote]
Guy, the flat part of the head is clear, deteriorating as it gets further off the glass plate on the scanner. Looks like you have the wrong scanner, fine on flat paper but no depth.
I suspect I could play around with the settings and perhaps get a better scan. I very seldom use the scanner, so don’t know what its capabilities are. I’d hate to have to break out the owner’s manual.
John, as I told you before, eye’s like an eagle. It is Ingolstadt, November 1890.
Does anyone have any ideas as to when they changed from the 3 postion headstamp to the more common 4 position? The only 3 position one I have is by “N”.
Guy, As I mentioned on prevous threads, I have gone through a number of scanners looking for a compact one that is acceptable for scanning cartridges, not just flat objects. Most makes seem to have the depth of focus problem your demonstrates in your scan, and there is no way to adjust for it. It is locked into the design of the scanner. Look for a scanner that says “depth of focus” or “3-dimensional focus” or something similar. I have found that all the HP scanners I have tried work fine with great depth of focus. Some other brands are also good, but others like Xerox are pretty bad and give results just like your scan.
With most headstamps, there is a fairly obvious orientation for reading the characters, usually with the makers name or mark occupying the 12 o’clock position on the head. Not so with this one. I had assumed that the three elements in the headstamp would be properly read by rotating each to the 6 o’clock position. This would result in J 11 06. On the other hand, if held stationary with the 11 at 7 o’clock and the J at 5 o’clock, then the year would be 90, as Dutch pointed out, but this relegates the maker’s mark to a ‘lower status’ position in the headstamp, than if it were at the 6 o’clock or 12 o’clock position.
Guy, I also had massive problems when my previous “good” scanner got hit by a power surge from a lightening bolt. I tried a few different makes including Lexmark and Cannon, which would scan something flat quite well, but nothing 3 dimensional with any clarity. Eventually I phoned around looking for a company that could demo the scanner before I bought so I did not have to take it back to the shop I bought it from & explain to the sales people that it worked but not well enough. Epson’s head office just happened to be quite close to where I stay & they had a demo room so I popped over & the sales people were very helpful and did not even flinch when I pulled a 12.7x99 BMG out of my pocket to scan. I think all the Epson scanners will all do a good job on cartridges. The people there told me it is something to do with the quality of CCD’s that they use that allows the 3-D funcitionality, but that is all beyond me. I now have a Epson V100 photo, but it is probably discontinued already.
I too use an Epson, a model 1640SU. It handles three dimensional objects really very well. This is getting on for ten years old now and I have a dread that it’ll cease working at some point. It’s not completely in focus but look at the rear edge of this Enfield charger which was about 11mm away from the glass plate.
One can’t ask for better than that… or not at a reasonable price anyway.
Happy collecting. Peter