Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
I don’t know about you guys, but that receiver sight absolutely ruins this gun! Actually, all side receiver sights minus the Lyman 21/38 make winchesters ugly in my opinion….now the question, how much does the sight on this gun actually lower the value. I sure wouldn’t pay 32k for that! I’d say, less then 10k.
Online
Seller is a fool to believe the #66 sight now on the gun is the one referenced in the letter. Surely had a Lyman tang as shipped, & how utterly stupid to replace that with the 66, which dates from about 1940.
clarence said
Seller is a fool to believe the #66 sight now on the gun is the one referenced in the letter. Surely had a Lyman tang as shipped, & how utterly stupid to replace that with the 66, which dates from about 1940.
I have seen this guy list other Winchesters with outrageously high prices… don’t know if he has ever sold any of them.
The Lyman No. 66 was introduced in the 1950s, and Winchester began listing it in their catalogs in 1956 (it replaced the No. 56 sights).
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
If you look closely you can see where it used to have a tang site based on the wear patterns.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
January 26, 2011
Offline
I don’t know about you guys, but that receiver sight absolutely ruins this gun! Actually, all side receiver sights minus the Lyman 21/38 make winchesters ugly in my opinion….now the question, how much does the sight on this gun actually lower the value. I sure wouldn’t pay 32k for that! I’d say, less then 10k.
I would think 10 is about the limit even if it didn’t have the obnoxious receiver sight. I’d be in for about 4, then take off the 66, add some nice filler screws, a Lyman #1, and pray that you get your money back someday. The more I think about it, I’m not even sure I would go that deep.
~Gary~
November 7, 2015
Offline
I like the sight and I like the gun but together it’s like putting ketchup on ice cream. Asking price is confirmation that some folks subscribe to a different version of reality than I do.
Mike
I think that rifle is priced tens of thousands more than what can be sanely asked for it.
The type of collector that would pay big money is usually a purest, the two extra holes in the receiver is a deal breaker. An open minded practical collector that could live with the holes isn’t going to spend that kind of money. I think the seller is looking for a buyer that doesn’t know what he’s looking at ! T/R
TR said I think the seller is looking for a buyer that doesn’t know what he’s looking at ! T/R
No shortage of those, as we see demonstrated all the time on GB! In this particular case, neither does the seller.
TXGunNut said
I like the sight and I like the gun but together it’s like putting ketchup on ice cream. Asking price is confirmation that some folks subscribe to a different version of reality than I do.
Mike
I agree Mike.
November 7, 2015
Offline
clarence said
TR said I think the seller is looking for a buyer that doesn’t know what he’s looking at ! T/R
No shortage of those, as we see demonstrated all the time on GB! In this particular case, neither does the seller.
P. T. Barnum was right!
Mike
The receiver sight like the one on this rifle slashes the value approximately 50%. So one must determine the value of this rifle without the receiver sight (which, by the way, is nowhere even close to what the seller values his rifle at with the ugly receiver sight) , and divide by two, and there’s the approximate correct valuation.
November 7, 2015
Offline
I think part of what we are seeing is folks bailing out on Wall Street and investing in commodities, namely blue steel and walnut. I’ve been hearing rumbles about the market losses today but quite frankly I’ve had enough bad news for this week. I think some of these new investors are naive, ill-informed or misled but I welcome new blood to our obsession. I hope they aren’t mistreated.
Mike
TXGunNut said I think some of these new investors are naive, ill-informed or misled but I welcome new blood to our obsession. I hope they aren’t mistreated.
Mike, I hope you don’t mean you think rich fools paying stupid money for guns they know next to nothing about is a GOOD thing! It is if you’re selling out, but what if you’re still collecting? “Investors” are NOT collectors, & they do not participate in our “obsession,” except in the most superficial & mercenary way. I hope they rue the day they departed Wall St.
November 7, 2015
Offline
clarence said
TXGunNut said I think some of these new investors are naive, ill-informed or misled but I welcome new blood to our obsession. I hope they aren’t mistreated.
Mike, I hope you don’t mean you think rich fools paying stupid money for guns they know next to nothing about is a GOOD thing! It is if you’re selling out, but what if you’re still collecting? “Investors” are NOT collectors, & they do not participate in our “obsession,” except in the most superficial & mercenary way. I hope they rue the day they departed Wall St.
I don’t think they’re all paying stupid money for guns and if so won’t be doing it for very long. I think some may become serious collectors in time but it takes awhile to learn even a small fraction of what you and others have learned over many years. But yes, we need more collectors to keep our hobby alive and I think if we treat them right we will all benefit.
Mike
1 Guest(s)
