Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
Redding auctions lot #100 This has to be a pretty special ’94 if it’s all legit as the provenance says. What’s Your thoughts. Lot # 101 is also a pretty nice ’94 that I hope stays reasonable, I sure would like to bring that one home
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
Henry Mero said
Redding auctions lot #100 This has to be a pretty special ’94 if it’s all legit as the provenance says. What’s Your thoughts. Lot # 101 is also a pretty nice ’94 that I hope stays reasonable, I sure would like to bring that one home
Hello Henry,
Model 1894, SN 26831 is NOT listed in the ARMAX survey which has a list of rifles with interchangeable barrels. So we will never know if in fact that the additional barrels were added during the supposed R&R’s.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
twobit said
Hello Henry,
Model 1894, SN 26831 is NOT listed in the ARMAX survey which has a list of rifles with interchangeable barrels. So we will never know if in fact that the additional barrels were added during the supposed R&R’s.
Michael
I was thinking the same thing.
Lot #101 almost looks too good.
I kind of like Lot#102, because not too many model 1894’s are inscribed.
Henry Mero said
Redding auctions lot #100 This has to be a pretty special ’94 if it’s all legit as the provenance says. What’s Your thoughts. Lot # 101 is also a pretty nice ’94 that I hope stays reasonable, I sure would like to bring that one home
Henry – only you will be able to decide if you want to put your hard earned money into a gun that did not originally leave the factory with 4 barrels. Even in the Madis Book entry for the gun, done before it was owned by Glen Hockett, George Madis said “PERHAPS” the gun was returned to fit the 3 other barrels. I knew Glen Hockett and in 1991 I was at his house in Great Falls Montana and saw this gun. My impression and as is evident by the auction photos, the gun looks factory – the gun looks right. I have seen multi-barrel sets that were not right and one of the first things that is evident is non perfectly matching wood on the front end – Winchester would have made sure all front ends matched the butt stock perfectly and on this one they do. I can tell you for sure Glen thought the gun was right. Glen used to display this gun at a lot of major gun shows. and as you can see in the auction literature, it won a lot of awards. But, any awards it won does not verify the originality or correctness of the gun. If there was ever a case where you wish there was better documentation for an R&R, this is it! My guess is that more than one potential buyer is going to believe the extra barrels were added at the factory during the R&R’s which will result in the gun selling for big bucks – it is tempting yet scary. Keep us posted on what you do and what the gun sells for.
Have we discussed this four-barreled rifle before? It seems to me it has come up for sale before.
steve004 said
Have we discussed this four-barreled rifle before? It seems to me it has come up for sale before.
Steve – I don’t remember this particular gun being previously discussed on the Forum. The discussion I remember was on a five barrel set which was too late to letter and which had one barrel of each 1894 caliber. As I recall, because the cartridge carrier was different for the smaller and larger calibers, the gun could not have been functional with all 94 calibers. The cartridge carrier for the 38-55 and 30 caliber were the same so the gun Henry is inquiring about is plausible from a functional standpoint. The ARMAX Survey has 118 total multi barrel 1894’s – 4 guns had 3 barrels – ZERO guns had 4 barrels. But, the gun Henry is inquiring about went back to the factory on 3 different occasions – for ????? The advice on this Forum is consistently buy the gun, not the story but it would be a lot easier to buy this story than a lot of them we see.
Burt Humphrey said
Steve – I don’t remember this particular gun being previously discussed on the Forum. The discussion I remember was on a five barrel set which was too late to letter and which had one barrel of each 1894 caliber. As I recall, because the cartridge carrier was different for the smaller and larger calibers, the gun could not have been functional with all 94 calibers. The cartridge carrier for the 38-55 and 30 caliber were the same so the gun Henry is inquiring about is plausible from a functional standpoint. The ARMAX Survey has 118 total multi barrel 1894’s – 4 guns had 3 barrels – ZERO guns had 4 barrels. But, the gun Henry is inquiring about went back to the factory on 3 different occasions – for ????? The advice on this Forum is consistently buy the gun, not the story but it would be a lot easier to buy this story than a lot of them we see.
I do remember discussing the five barrel set. I recall it was ultimately proven to be faked. Interesting that there are no verified four barrel set rifles out there. It is plausible however – which is oftentimes the case with an “R&R” entry. Unfortunately, “plausible” or, “logical” is not synonymous with verification.
tionesta1 said
I kind of like Lot#102, because not too many model 1894’s are inscribed.
Is that the one with the matted barrel? And the one with the extra rear sight cut into the barrel 🙁
steve004 said
tionesta1 saidI kind of like Lot#102, because not too many model 1894’s are inscribed.
Is that the one with the matted barrel? And the one with the extra rear sight cut into the barrel 🙁
#64383 started life as one hell of a gun – it is criminal what was done to it.
Burt Humphrey said
#64383 started life as one hell of a gun – it is criminal what was done to it.
Along those lines, I was initially intrigued with #105R – a .32 Special. It is listed as a special order rifle and the 25 1/2″ barrel length caught my attention as that would be a very rare special order feature. There is no mention that the barrel has been cut. Looking at the photos, it is clear a half inch has been cut off the barrel as the front sight has not been re-located. This is a particular tragedy given all of the other special order features – including DST’s that you don’t see on a ’94 every day.
105R. Winchester – Mod. 1894 – 32 Win. Spl. Cal. Factory Special Order Lever Action Rifle – w/25 ½” Octagon to Round Barrel
w/Sporting Front & Adj. Marbles Rear Barrel Sights – The Factory Special Order Features Are As Follows: Take Down,
Octagon to Round Barrel, Half Magazine Tube, Capped Pistol Grip, Hard Rubber Shotgun Butt Plate & Double Set Triggers
For a Total of 7 Special Order Factory Features – Blue/Brown Metal Finish – Minor Thin Wood to Metal Fit – w/Filled Sling
Eye Hole in Butt Stock – Tight Fully Operational Gun – Mfg. in 1907 – Serial #414121
steve004 said
Burt Humphrey said
#64383 started life as one hell of a gun – it is criminal what was done to it.
Along those lines, I was initially intrigued with #105R – a .32 Special. It is listed as a special order rifle and the 25 1/2″ barrel length caught my attention as that would be a very rare special order feature. There is no mention that the barrel has been cut. Looking at the photos, it is clear a half inch has been cut off the barrel as the front sight has not been re-located. This is a particular tragedy given all of the other special order features – including DST’s that you don’t see on a ’94 every day.
105R. Winchester – Mod. 1894 – 32 Win. Spl. Cal. Factory Special Order Lever Action Rifle – w/25 ½” Octagon to Round Barrel
w/Sporting Front & Adj. Marbles Rear Barrel Sights – The Factory Special Order Features Are As Follows: Take Down,
Octagon to Round Barrel, Half Magazine Tube, Capped Pistol Grip, Hard Rubber Shotgun Butt Plate & Double Set Triggers
For a Total of 7 Special Order Factory Features – Blue/Brown Metal Finish – Minor Thin Wood to Metal Fit – w/Filled Sling
Eye Hole in Butt Stock – Tight Fully Operational Gun – Mfg. in 1907 – Serial #414121
Steve – yes, it appears Redding Auction is not particularly forthright in the description of all guns. Getting back to the 4 barrel set (#26831) which Henry initially inquired about, it is evident the auction house is going out of their way to make it appear the gun had the extra barrels fitted at the factory and is legitimate. I am not saying it is not, I am saying I do not know.
- Redding Auction states “one can only conclude the extra barrels were completed when returned to the factory”. I have no idea how they can form that conclusion when there is no evidence to support it. As I stated previously, I have seen the gun and it sure looked right to me but there never has been and never will be any way to prove it.
- Redding Auction states “this is the only 4 barrel set in existence”. Once again, there is no evidence to support that claim and they should not make the claim.
If you look at the Summer 1985 edition of the Collector, you will see an article called “The Story of the Model 1894”. Therein is discussed a WACA display of the Model 1894 which was put together by WACA members for the 1985 NRA convention. The display included 21 of Glen Hockett’s 94’s, including serial #2681, the takedown deluxe with 4 matching barrels of 38-55 and .30 WCF. In the display, the gun was depicted as “POSSIBLY THE ONLY SUCH MODEL 1894 WITH FOUR MATCHING BARRELS”. So, there you have it, WACA was honest about the gun when it was displayed back in 1985.
I noted in a previous post that I thought the gun would sell for a lot of money – I still think it will. It sold for $85,000 at the Little John auction of Glen Hockett’s guns in 2007.
anybody know why these posts are not staying in the margins – started with a post Steve submitted and subsequently seems to be continuing – looks good and is within the margin until you hit submit.
Burt Humphrey said
#64383 started life as one hell of a gun – it is criminal what was done to it.
steve004 said
tionesta1 saidI kind of like Lot#102, because not too many model 1894’s are inscribed.
Is that the one with the matted barrel? And the one with the extra rear sight cut into the barrel 🙁
Oops. missed that extra sight. good catch.
tionesta1 said
Lot #101 almost looks too good.
The .38-55 rifle with several features. I agree, it looks too good and I wouldn’t be surprised if some restoration was involved. Thoughts anyone?
Henry Mero said
Lot # 101 is also a pretty nice ’94 that I hope stays reasonable, I sure would like to bring that one home
I agree, that’s a pretty gun. T/R
TR said
I agree, that’s a pretty gun. T/R
It is, but that’s my concern. No wear whatsoever anywhere, not even to the buttolate, in 113 years. Seems nearly impossible to look THAT pristine for this long.
I have owned several minty guns that seemed to good to be true, I couldn’t get past how they could be that old and still mint. These were guns I had in my hand, not pictures and I wasn’t sure if they were original. So, like a fool I sold them, I won’t do that again! T/R
mrcvs said
TR said
I agree, that’s a pretty gun. T/R
It is, but that’s my concern. No wear whatsoever anywhere, not even to the buttolate, in 113 years. Seems nearly impossible to look THAT pristine for this long.
I was very struck by the amazingly high condition. Most of the things that seem too good to be true, are not true. However there are exceptions. Which is which? I take the cautious approach and generally move along to something else. It’s the playing the odds thing.
1 Guest(s)
