Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Hello all,
This is the third time I have seen this rifle. The first time was at RIA in Feb of 2018 as Lot 2949. It was a standard rifle back then. Then it showed up at Montrose in Mar of 2018 as Lot 284. Now it is at Montrose again in Sept 2019 as Lot 1272 and has been “restored to factory new condition” and the barrel has been switched to an octagon LR only configuration!
So I guess the question is “Did Montrose do the “restoration” or the consignor???”
At RIA Feb 2018:
At Montrose Mar 2018:
At Montrose Sept 2019:
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
Michael,
Thanks for the great investigative work. Makes me question every “pristine” model 61.
Al
tionesta1 said
Michael,Thanks for the great investigative work. Makes me question every “pristine” model 61.
Al
It is depressing to say the least!!
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
Weren’t we just discussing a military marked gun from this same seller?
Montrose auction clearly (and honestly) stated that the rifle is “Professionally restored”. Accordingly, there was no attempt to deceive anyone about the pedigree of that rifle, or a reason to label it as a “Fake”. I have edited the title of this topic accordingly. I strongly urge all of you to more carefully read the auction descriptions, and too not be so quick to pass judgment.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Chuck said
Weren’t we just discussing a military marked gun from this same seller?
Yes, and the Model 1894 in question is legitimate.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Montrose auction clearly (and honestly) stated that the rifle is “Professionally restored”. Accordingly, there was no attempt to deceive anyone about the pedigree of that rifle, or a reason to label it as a “Fake”. I have edited the title of this topic accordingly. I strongly urge all of you to more carefully read the auction descriptions, and too not be so quick to pass judgment.Bert
Bert,
I fully realize the description list the gun as restored. My rub is the “factory new” portion and the fact that they do not point out the fact that the barrel is NOT correct for the rifle.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
Bert H. said
Yes, and the Model 1894 in question is legitimate.
Bert
I didn’t say there was a problem with the 94. I just said it was weird that there were no pictures of the military marks. I am no expert on these guns. Their descriptions are not helping their cause.
January 26, 2011
Offline
twobit said
Bert,
I fully realize the description list the gun as restored. My rub is the “factory new” portion and the fact that they do not point out the fact that the barrel is NOT correct for the rifle.
Michael
There’s a huge difference between restored and upgraded with different parts to make it more valuable. The description should have read “Professionally restored with a completely different barrel configuration than it left the factory with”, then I might have been satisfied. And yes Michael, its depressing.
~Gary~
1 Guest(s)
