Log In
September 22, 2011
Online
This one doesn’t letter with a nickel finish, which isn’t at all unusual. Dates from July, 1901.
For the longest time I suspected an after market nickel job, but the markings are mostly surprisingly crisp and edges are sharp.
And so what say you? After market nickels, or factory original?
I get it this belongs on the Marlin forum but good luck uploading photographs over there.
September 22, 2011
Online
And a few more photographs…
December 21, 2006
Online
Ian,I am not an expert on the Marlin nickel finish , but going by the pictures I believe it is a factory application, how ever it sure is coming apart in a very unbecoming manner. Looks like it’s had some moisture exposure that has got under the nickel plating causing oxidization between the metal and the nickel. Are You a Marlin member.
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
November 9, 2008
Offline
It appears factory to me, markings are crisp and clear and wood fits tight against metal
September 22, 2011
Online
Okay, good, others seem to agree. I bought this thinking it was neat but old aftermarket work, but now that I look at it I thought it original.
I will keep it, if deemed not factory it would head down the road.
November 19, 2006
Offline
I agree – factory application of nickel plating. I also agree with Henry that the nickel seems to be coming apart in an unbecoming manner – which is so often the case with nickel plating (including factory nickel plating).
By the way, personally, I have no objection to the posting of photos of a Marlin 
September 22, 2011
Online
Where is the finish wear you don’t like? Around the barrel markings or…???
I never found the wear to be objectionable. I think it probably looks worse close up in photographs.
I’m just pleased to have a Marlin Model 1897 with—the consensus is—original nickel finish, just because you just don’t see them out there much.
November 19, 2006
Offline
mrcvs said
Where is the finish wear you don’t like? Around the barrel markings or…???
I never found the wear to be objectionable. I think it probably looks worse close up in photographs.
I’m just pleased to have a Marlin Model 1897 with—the consensus is—original nickel finish, just because you just don’t see them out there much.
Ian –
I agree that it is a very nice find. I don’t recall seeing a nickeled Marlin 1897 before.
The flecking around the barrel address is an example of what I find less than pleasing. The contrast of nickel and then a fleck with no nickel stands out more than what a blued rifle looks like when the finish wears.
The flaking we see on some Winchester receivers is another example of less than pleasing appearance – as it stands out.
Here’s a nickel plated ’73 carbine I have. I like the rarity factor of the nickel, but I find the nickel wear more disagreeable than the wear on your Marlin:
December 9, 2002
Offline
I agree with Steve, that’s it’s a nice find.
I’ve often wondered what caused the start of, and the continuation of the breaking down, of the Nickel finish, on firearms, no matter what the brand. Due to the flaking, peeling, or even the corrosion of the nickel finish has steered me away from many a firearms because of it!, over the years.
Definitely many a rare examples have been seen, and with these issues, or even the start of it, as seen on you’re barrel, Ian, the small rust like pitting is evident as in most cases of the wear and tear of the nickle finish being evident. It might not bother some, but for me, I really don’t care what maker is on it, I would pass! IMHO!
Big Larry has posted his model 06 Winchester with some really nice nickle on it, and that one moved me, but not this one! But then again, I’m not a Marlin guy so to speak! IMHO!
Anthony
