Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
January 26, 2011
Offline
deerhunter said
Thanks for that info Gary. Glad to add another to the survey as well. If the wood wasn’t messed with, I would expect the price to be about double what it is now from this seller. What do you think?Don
I notice you added “from this seller” …… so yes, I was a little surprised at the price and would have expected nearly double that. Pretty reasonable for a semi-deluxe short rifle with a couple oddities.
~Gary~
After looking at the forearm a bit closer, the fit is odd. It’s very good where it meets the receiver but terrible at the forearm cap. I wonder if the forearm has been replaced from a rifle with a standard weight barrel??
January 26, 2011
Offline
Who knows, the color is slightly different as well. Almost looked like over zealous sanding but its only at the fore end cap where its most obvious. A picture form directly above might show how the barrel fits in the wood better. It should almost look free-floated if it was from a standard weight barrel. Anyway ……… Im not a buyer.
~Gary~
Hi Gary,
Here’s another for your survey. Looks like serial number is 415558? Hard to read that last digit…
deerhunter said
Hi Gary,Here’s another for your survey. Looks like serial number is 415558? Hard to read that last digit…
It looks like 415588 to me.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Gor
deerhunter said
And another:
Gorgeous wood! That is at least XXX and could be XXXX.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Gorgeous wood! That is at least XXX and could be XXXX.
Agreed. That’s about the finest wood I’ve seen on an 1894. If you scroll through the photos, the tang is marked XXXX.
Don
deerhunter said
Agreed. That’s about the finest wood I’ve seen on an 1894. If you scroll through the photos, the tang is marked XXXX.
Don
I did not scroll far enough before I replied to your post… I agree that it is XXXX, and that is very rare on a Model 1894! It is cheap at the current bid. I expect that it should be worth at least 2.5 times the current bid amount.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
deerhunter said
Agreed. That’s about the finest wood I’ve seen on an 1894. If you scroll through the photos, the tang is marked XXXX.
Don
I did not scroll far enough before I replied to your post… I agree that it is XXXX, and that is very rare on a Model 1894! It is cheap at the current bid. I expect that it should be worth at least 2.5 times the current bid amount.
I agree, this is a very nice rifle. I really like the features (particularly the fancy wood!). It is fortunate the seller has a Cody letter as the serial number places it at 1902. He doesn’t show the letter and I’d sure want to see it before I went for it. If it is legitimately an antique that surely adds to the desirability.
steve004 said
I agree, this is a very nice rifle. I really like the features (particularly the fancy wood!). It is fortunate the seller has a Cody letter as the serial number places it at 1902. He doesn’t show the letter and I’d sure want to see it before I went for it. If it is legitimately an antique that surely adds to the desirability.
Steve,
That rifle is not an bona fide “Antique”. S/N 139712 was manufactured in February 1902.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Steve,
That rifle is not an bona fide “Antique”. S/N 139712 was manufactured in February 1902.
Bert – I just looked through all the photos and found he does actually show the museum letter. There is no reference to the 1898 date in the letter. I suspect he is using the Madis manufacture dates – which is particularly concerning when he also shows a museum letter that shows it is not an antique. I find it disturbing that his ad clearly states no FFL is required.
It looks like this is an older letter that omits the serial number applied date since it only states received in the warehouse dating. Seller is likely going by the inaccurate Madis dates to peddle as “antique.”
I sent him a “friendly” warning message about the “lack of antique” status… will see if he responds.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Hi Gary,
I came across this one on GB. Do you have this one in your survey?
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/888149789
Don
That’s a nice rifle with some rare features. I certainly like that it is a .32-40. The roughness of the finish would prevent me from spending a lot on this rifle. It seems honest enough, I just don’t like the corrosion. I’d prefer less finish it was smooth.
I was thinking about the buttplate. I think the seller is correct. I think we would more commonly see a shotgun butt on a rifle with these features. I know the crescent butt is preferable given the rarity factor as well as the general desirability factor among the majority of collectors. However, given my taste for the shotgun butt, that would have been my preference on this rifle.
I was thinking about this rifle and the buttplate this morning. I was thinking, if I could have any butt that had been available, what would be the order of my preference. I’m thinking as a collector presently vs. the original owner. I came up with this list in order of preference: Swiss butt, Winchester recoil pad, carbine butt, hard rubber shotgun butt, steel shotgun butt, crescent butt. I’m suspecting no one else here would but the preceding preference list in the same order?
steve004 said
That’s a nice rifle with some rare features. I certainly like that it is a .32-40. The roughness of the finish would prevent me from spending a lot on this rifle. It seems honest enough, I just don’t like the corrosion. I’d prefer less finish it was smooth.I was thinking about the buttplate. I think the seller is correct. I think we would more commonly see a shotgun butt on a rifle with these features. I know the crescent butt is preferable given the rarity factor as well as the general desirability factor among the majority of collectors. However, given my taste for the shotgun butt, that would have been my preference on this rifle.
I was thinking about this rifle and the buttplate this morning. I was thinking, if I could have any butt that had been available, what would be the order of my preference. I’m thinking as a collector presently vs. the original owner. I came up with this list in order of preference: Swiss butt, Winchester recoil pad, carbine butt, hard rubber shotgun butt, steel shotgun butt, crescent butt. I’m suspecting no one else here would but the preceding preference list in the same order?
Your preferences are exactly the reverse of mine. But my opinion is just my opinion.
Notice what the letter says about the stock. Plain Pistol Grip. Some call these deluxe and in this case semi deluxe. It is neither. So when collectors call stocks deluxe, semi deluxe or plain pistol grip they are at least 33% correct according to some.
Chuck said
Your preferences are exactly the reverse of mine. But my opinion is just my opinion.
Notice what the letter says about the stock. Plain Pistol Grip. Some call these deluxe and in this case semi deluxe. It is neither. So when collectors call stocks deluxe, semi deluxe or plain pistol grip they are at least 33% correct according to some.
Chuck – I very much suspect that you are not the only one with preferences that would be the reverse of what I listed. At least when it comes to buttplates, I march to beat of my own drummer. I am familiar with the plain pistol grip stock. Here’s one on a ’92 I have:
deerhunter said
Came across another for the survey:Don
Interesting rifle. Many desirable features, particularly the factory engraving. Someone must like it as I see it is pending sold status. It is very desirable that all of the features are on the letter -especially the engraving (including the inscription). This rifle has some condition issues. There are some wood repairs that Leroy mentions. However, the left side of the receiver is an eyesore for me. The large circle – it looks like Bubba has tried to freshen or deepen the engraving. I’m basing my reaction on a photo only, but from what I’m seeing, it would be enough to steer me away from the rifle – it would just bug me every time I looked at it.
1 Guest(s)
