In >this thread<, I presented my 2018 P226 X6 PPC with the date code of BI, not the expected BJ. Knowing that member 220parts does a lot of business with SIG Germany, I asked for his assistance in clarifying this. He sent me a few pics of his 2018 SIGs from Germany that actually made things more puzzling. The two P210s have the BJ date code, but the barrel from a P229 has the BI date code similar to mine. So, which one is the error code? One of his SIG Germany contacts emailed him the current date codes, saying that the BJ is the error.

PICS (used with permission from 220parts):

Theories could abound. They use different letters for pistol parts designated for America, because I in the US looks like a 1, where in Europe, a "1" is written more like a "7"? Maybe they changed the code system to "I" but the P210 is so old, they kept it "J". Or those workers are segregated and never got the memo. The guys doing the P210s forgot they made the change and no one noticed until they'd already done 2,000 of them, so they stuck with it until next decade. Maybe they're going to go Dutch and start with "IJ" soon. Maybe someone is using stamps based on old script?


There you go...the stamper is so old, he thought the J was an I based on his pre-Hitler primary school education.

My bet would be someone who's been working there for over two decades set the machine for what he was used to, and forgot they made a change. I mean, the last time they had to choose between I and J was in 2008, right?

ETA: or maybe they'd recruited someone from HK or Walther, cuz they used I and skipped J didn't they?

SIG used 'J' for the number '8' back in the 1980s, didn't they? So why would it be wrong today? What I'm not clear on is who is responsible for stamping the date code, SIG or the proofing house?

One webpage I came across said that Kiel (whose 'cartouche' is on the frame in the picture) typically uses the letter 'I' to represent the number '8'.

SIG proof marks and date codes

The article on this website also implies that it's kind of a garbled mess when it comes to the number '8' and the code that's used. The way I see it there's really a simple solution: use the character '8' to code the number '8', and follow through and use NUMBERS for the rest of numerals. Then again, some smartass will probably think that it should count backwards to go forward, or randomly jumble the numbers. Can't have codes easily understood, else why call them codes at all? Right?

quote:

Originally posted by BuddyChryst:
.......

Kurrent and Sütterlin are prewar writing styles. Nobody of the current labor force generation can neither write nor read it anymore because the two styles are not thought since pre WW II.
Knowing it is handy if one wants/has to deal with original manuscripts of the WW I ear and before. Paul Mauser, Georg Luger and others used this writing style but I doubt somebody in a government institution like a proof house will use it as a hoax to confuse SIGSauer collectors around the world.

quote:

ETA: or maybe they'd recruited someone from HK or Walther, cuz they used I and skipped J didn't they?

The proof marks and the “date code” is not SIGSauer owned. It’s property of Proof House in Kiel an bureau of the State of Schleswig Holstein. Neither is the proof house in Ulm (Antler) owned by Walther nor Heckler&Koch. This proof house is an official bureau as well but of the State of Baden-Württemberg in South Germany.

So if one want‘s to find the cause for the errors on a SIGSauer, the proof house in Kiel has to be addressed, not SIGSauer.

At one time the letters I and J in certain handwriting styles were very similar in appearance. Before the development of portable mechanical printing devices (typewriters) it was easy to confuse the two if they were used in lists or sequence codes like street names rather than in words when the context made them clear. I remember as a kid my father explaining why there was no “J” company in the US Army (then, it’s changed since), for that reason.

Here is a discussion of that issue. When all written orders were produced by hand, no one wanted the commanders of I and J Companies to confuse which ones applied to them.

I suspect the German/European date code thing was a holdover from previous practices for the same basic reason, except, perhaps, that using J and not using I was considered to be clearer and less confusing.

quote:

Originally posted by OTD:
I doubt somebody in a government institution like a proof house will use it as a hoax to confuse SIGSauer collectors around the world.

Oh, come on, OTD, everyone knows that everything any governmental organ does is motivated by a conspiratorial design to keep the man (i.e., all the rest of us) down as a minimum, and more likely just because everyone who works there is simply evil. If they do something that would ordinarily look like a mistake or even an unexplained change in policy if were committed by anyone else, we can be certain they’re only doing it to screw with someone.

(What’s amazing, though, is that all government workers are also totally incompetent, so how do they manage to be so efficiently wicked?
Oh, wait, wait, I know: They’re not incompetent, in fact they’re actually the best and brightest who are hired to screw with the rest of us in the most effective ways possible. The government’s being evil is the entire explanation for something that I was never able to figure out before.
Whew! Glad it finally became clear to me before I shuffled off this mortal coil.)

Yes:

It is only possible when people realize who’s in charge for proof tests. Since we all know it’s SIG, because we know it from the internet, the evil can precede acting in the background. Based on such concerns you might ask yourself if the proof would be valid when marked wrongly and if SIG chose to export such item for disposal to countries without CIP membership for that reason.
Another theory could be the pistol being of Walther or HK manufacturing, made for SIG and pre proofed in Ulm for Kiel. This one would be my favorite case and preferred theory for an upcoming discussion when this one vanishes to page 3. Wait and see. Until then I’m taking such observation as a Monday work of a trainee. But I agree, it can be confusing and probably concerning for some.