Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Anyone else have to deal with sellers who use Madis or the Proof house reference for DOM ?.
Even after I explain the Winchester records have been acquired by CFM & the research by Bert & others to confirm DOM, they still argue or deny the WACA app is not correct. These are seasoned collectors, sellers, dealers, etc. I can only think their reasoning is for selling purposes because 99% of the time it’s off by a minimum of 2yrs almost always making it older. I can only surmise to gain antique status or pre 64 but frig I’m surprised how many still use the other references.
AG
This is purely my opinion on the subject… the dealers/sellers who insist on using the outdated and proven erroneous DOM information published by George Madis (and republished by many other sources) do it for one of two reasons;
(1) Greed (the intense desire to sell a Winchester at an inflated price), or
(2) They bought the gun at a premium under the pretense of it being “antique”, only to find out later that it is not, and are unwilling to take a loss on it.
I know several dealers that personally harbor ill feeling about my efforts to set the records straight and educate interested collectors in regards to the accurate DOMs. I have received more than my fair share of “hate” mail over this exact topic.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I look young for my age and EVERY TIME I get my phone out to look up the year of something I am looking at, the year they have on their tag is almost always off by a few years.The majority of the table holders( I am going to refrain from using old timers) say something in reference to kids and the dam phones.I try to explain too, what the WACA is, and what tool I am using, where the dates come from, but they usually pull out some other book, or possibly two, and tell me how those books are the accurate ones. Once the‘ I know better than you kid’ attitude comes out, I usually thank them, and start walking away.
I hate to say it but…. sometimes it hard to teach an old dog new tricks
Bill Hanzel said
The majority of the table holders( I am going to refrain from using old timers) say something in reference to kids and the dam phones.
Anybody with dreck for brains knows “written in black & white” is all too often FAR from the definitive truth on any subject, even when the ink is hardly dry on the page, & often merely perpetuates errors better research has discredited, BUT, compared to “facts” pulled out of the ether, the reaction you describe is not really unreasonable.
Anyway, it’s folly to argue with strangers under the circumstances of a gun show, esp. when, to them, you’re “running down” something they’re trying to sell. Years ago, before I learned better, I tried to “educate” ebay sellers about items they were grossly mis-describing; I was pissing into a nor’easter.
Bert H. said
This is purely my opinion on the subject… the dealers/sellers who insist on using the outdated and proven erroneous DOM information published by George Madis (and republished by many other sources) do it for one of two reasons;(1) Greed (the intense desire to sell a Winchester at an inflated price), or
(2) They bought the gun at a premium under the pretense of it being “antique”, only to find out later that it is not, and are unwilling to take a loss on it.
I know several dealers that personally harbor ill feeling about my efforts to set the records straight and educate interested collectors in regards to the accurate DOMs. I have received more than my fair share of “hate” mail over this exact topic.
Bert
I gave your info to a local shop and they just ignore it. What about the flack that David Kennedy got for releasing the info on the polishing room records.
November 7, 2015
Offline
I’ve found that most serious collectors are well aware of the correct dates and the source of those dates. Their reasons for disregarding them don’t matter to me, I’ll determine the correct date and act accordingly. I’ve only been an active collector for a few years and despite coming from a family of educators I have little interest in correcting someone with decades of experience. I prefer not to alienate someone who at some later point may teach me a thing or two and there’s always a chance they may have something I want or they may want to buy something I’m offering.
Mike
TXGunNut said
I’ve found that most serious collectors are well aware of the correct dates and the source of those dates.
Wouldn’t be too sure about that, Mike. But it’s very wise to “play dumb” with people you don’t know well, as the odds of correcting their misunderstandings are much less than the odds of creating ill will, which, as you say, may come back to haunt you. On the other hand, someone you do know well (which doesn’t include folks you run into at gun shows a few times a year), ought to be open to reasonable persuasion, unless their brains are totally fossilized.
Chuck said
I gave your info to a local shop and they just ignore it. What about the flack that David Kennedy got for releasing the info on the polishing room records.
What was the David Kennedy polishing room records flack about ? Sellers getting called out on their DOM’s ?
AG
AG said
What was the David Kennedy polishing room records flack about ? Sellers getting called out on their DOM’s ?
AG
When the polishing room records were made public it showed that many 92’s and 94’s aren’t actually antique like Madis had said. On the good side it showed that more 97’s are antique than Madis had said.
Bert has more inside information about what went on.
Ah ok thanks Chuck. For me it’s bravo Mr Kennedy but I guess some collectors bought prior thinking a different DOM, & that sucks, but I would rather know the true DOM even after the purchase.
AG
I will add my most likely unpopular stance on this subject. The use of one data set versus another to determine the “antique” status of a rifle is only important if you are, for some reason, willing to spend thousands of dollars more for a rifle so that you don’t have to spend $100 for an FFL transfer. I have stated before that I think this is a foolish idea to pay more for a rifle supposedly manufactured during the last week of 1898 versus the first week of January in 1899. What do you do when the receiver is serialized in 1898 and the factory letter clearly shows that the rifle was actually manufactured during 1899 or later but argue that the serialization date is the DOM when we all know that is not when the rifle was truly manufactured.
Before the PR records came into use there were thousands of collectors in and out of WACA who used Madis info and happily spent money buying “antique” rifles. But then all of a sudden they find out that their purchases were not real and they could easily be out tens of thousands of dollars because the “ground rules” have changed. I would not blame them for being “unwilling to take a loss” and in fact suggest it points to the foolishness of the practice. It is a totally arbitrary date and there is no mechanical variation in the guns to support the designation. What happens if the ground rules were to change again and a law comes into use that changes the determining date. What if it were changed to 1950? Would all those rifles made between 1898 and 1950 all of a sudden be worth any more money.
So you can all pull out the slings and arrows and fire away but that is my 2 cents worth.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
Fair enough Michael. I do understand your points, especially
“for a rifle supposedly manufactured during the last week of 1898 versus the first week of January in 1899. What do you do when the receiver is serialized in 1898 and the factory letter clearly shows that the rifle was actually manufactured during 1899 or later but argue that the serialization date is the DOM when we all know that is not when the rifle was truly manufactured”.
AG
Michael I see your point and really can’t blame you or the others that got caught up in this. But the truth is what it is and the Federal law is quite clear. I am not a fan of the law at all. Clearly, we know there is no difference between a gun made before 1899 and one made after 1898. I am not a dealer but when I go to sell or trade I don’t have the hassle that comes along with a “modern” gun. I actually prefer guns made during the period 1860’s to 1880’s.
Buyers need to know the truth so they won’t buy a modern gun that the dealer says is antique. There is a lot more to loose if you get caught up in this than just the money. You can loose your hobby altogether.
AG said
Fair enough Michael. I do understand your points, especially
“for a rifle supposedly manufactured during the last week of 1898 versus the first week of January in 1899. What do you do when the receiver is serialized in 1898 and the factory letter clearly shows that the rifle was actually manufactured during 1899 or later but argue that the serialization date is the DOM when we all know that is not when the rifle was truly manufactured”.AG
The serialization date is the date of manufacture. The received into and out of the warehouse is not.
November 7, 2015
Offline
Antique status means little to me because most of the firearms I buy are C&R eligible so the dreaded transfer fee is a moot point as I have a C&R license. I don’t know why more collectors who buy & sell on a regular basis don’t have one. Most objections can be overcome by spending a little time on the BATFE’s Q&A page. There is really little reason to involve a dealer in most transactions involving C&R firearms as the BATFE evidently doesn’t feel these transactions require much scrutiny or regulation on their part. Once you do a few transfers it’s really no big deal.
Mike
TXGunNut said
Antique status means little to me because most of the firearms I buy are C&R eligible so the dreaded transfer fee is a moot point as I have a C&R license.
Mike, it’s not a moot point to the many Class 1 FFLs who say “up yours” when you flash your C&R. Well, maybe they don’t say that exactly, but they refuse to ship to anybody but another Class 1 dealer. If you haven’t run into that situation, you’ve been very lucky.
Chuck said
The serialization date is the date of manufacture. The received into and out of the warehouse is not.
My understanding is that ATF has accepted Madis’ dates as “revealed truth,” because of course his dates were for so many years unchallenged.
Bert H. said
This is purely my opinion on the subject… the dealers/sellers who insist on using the outdated and proven erroneous DOM information published by George Madis (and republished by many other sources) do it for one of two reasons;(1) Greed (the intense desire to sell a Winchester at an inflated price), or
(2) They bought the gun at a premium under the pretense of it being “antique”, only to find out later that it is not, and are unwilling to take a loss on it.
I know several dealers that personally harbor ill feeling about my efforts to set the records straight and educate interested collectors in regards to the accurate DOMs. I have received more than my fair share of “hate” mail over this exact topic.
Bert
Personally I appreciate the countless hrs & effort put into the “real” numbers & DOM’s by Bert, John Hawk, John Madl, Jessica Bennett, & others. The hate mail proves the authenticity of your research & findings.
AG
clarence said
My understanding is that ATF has accepted Madis’ dates as “revealed truth,” because of course his dates were for so many years unchallenged.
Well I’m in money on more than a few if that’s the case Clarence. Is there a Midas reference app or Midas serial # lookup the ATF & others use ?
I’ve only had the Proof House app until I joined WACA & found the correct DOM app.
AG
clarence said
My understanding is that ATF has accepted Madis’ dates as “revealed truth,” because of course his dates were for so many years unchallenged.
Not true… in my discussion with the ATF, they refer to the records at the CFM. It is pure “here say” when someone states that the ATF uses the Madis dates. Further, a diligent prosecutor will use the actual verified dates from the serialization records versus a document published nearly 60-years ago by a collector.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
1 Guest(s)
