Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
http://www.rockislandauction.com/viewitem/aid/59/lid/1100
after all the talk about fakes I was wondering about this rifle. sure is nice
The only thing I don’t like about it is that somebody obviously messed with the finish. It looks like someone polished the brass. It looked much better on the cover of the book with its original patina.
I am somewhat confused by Pauline’s statement about polished brass. According to the auction listing (and from visual observation), the original bronze parts are gold plated (washed)?
In general, it looks very nice to me, but likely to be very pricey.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Gold, brass whatever. Look at the cover picture on the book with the nice aged color. This is an accurate photo as I have other copies of the photos that were used. The gun has a nice aged coloring, a soft tone, the way the gun looks now it is "brand new" shiny. It takes away from it in my opinion. Way too shiny.
Online
I would air on the side of caution, especially if I was intending on buying such a gun. Due to my opinion (and certainly its my opinion but maybe shared) that the author’s credibility has gone way down.
I do however believe the gun to be original. I think what Pauline maybe seeing is a difference in lighting between the two photos. But wouldn’t be all surprised if it has been toyed with. Photography can most certainly be misleading.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
P.Muerrle said
Gold, brass whatever. Look at the cover picture on the book with the nice aged color. This is an accurate photo as I have other copies of the photos that were used. The gun has a nice aged coloring, a soft tone, the way the gun looks now it is "brand new" shiny. It takes away from it in my opinion. Way too shiny.
Hmmm… it does make a difference what alloy of metal we are talking about. Specifically, gold does not "age" or tarnish, whereas bronze does. Gold will look the same regardless of how old it is. The fact that the high relief areas are all gold plated does make a difference.
Did you examine all of the pictures on the R.I.A. website? In my opinion, that rifle has not been fooled with or had its finish touched up. In regards to the pictures on the cover of Larry Wilson’s book, the lighting and contrast was set to make the gun look old on purpose. Cameras and the lighting and contrast used will make a very noticeable difference in the appearance of the exact same item. The camera, lighting, and contrast used by R.I.A.’s photographer are superior to those used by Wilson. Take a real good look at all of the close up pictures, and then tell us where you see any signs of it being "polished" or cleaned up.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
A modern day photographer with a good digital camera and the right computer program can make any under or over lighted photograph look any way he or she wants it to look. At the photographic show in N.Y. a couple years back I watched different programs do things to change photographs so fast it gave me chills. It’s not in the camera anymore, it’s in the computer and the programs used to alter the photo. The programs can give that metal any amount of sheen wanted. Hell, they can make a blued rifle gold or pink for that matter. It’s just how familiar you are with the program. 😯
Gene
Are you kidding me? Gold most certainly does take on different hues with age and handling. I have seen countless old inlaid guns. The gold does not look pristine and as shiny. The same for older gold washed or plated guns. Many of them take on an almost gold brassy appearance. Take even a wedding ring that has been worn for many years and use some jewelers rouge on it. You will see a HUGE difference in color.
P.Muerrle said
Are you kidding me? Gold most certainly does take on different hues with age and handling. I have seen countless old inlaid guns. The gold does not look pristine and as shiny. The same for older gold washed or plated guns. Many of them take on an almost gold brassy appearance. Take even a wedding ring that has been worn for many years and use some jewelers rouge on it. You will see a HUGE difference in color.
No, I am not "kidding" you… and you apparently are ignorant of the properties involved with gold. In the electronics industry (which I am highly involved with as part of my profession), it is used exclusively for circuitry that can not tolerate any oxidation, corrosion, or adverse reaction to any oxidizing agents. Gold plating on electronic components provides an extremely stable, and very predictable continuity path. It has been used for decades by NASA and the U.S. Military (submarines) for sensitive electronic circuits, components, and equipment. Simply put, gold does not change color ever.
What you are seeing on the gold washed surfaces, is the color appears to change as the "wash" thins out due to handling and wear. In many cases, Winchester used a copper wash beneath the gold to get it to adhere better, and reduce color bleed through. The remaining gold wash only appears to change color due to what is actually underneath it, but in of itself, it does not change color, or oxidize. Additionally, and like any other metal surface, if you leave oil on it long enough, the oil will dry and create an off color. Clean it off, and the gold will be bright and shiny. Jewelry (such as a wedding band), will accumulate a layer of grime that causes the color to "appear" to change. You can clean the jewelry with simple hot water and soap, and it will be shiny once again. The jewelry industry has done a fantastic job of selling cleaning solutions that are no better than common soap!
Bert
(Senior Electronic Systems Engineer)
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I don’t work in the electronics industry. I work on Winchesters where apparently you don’t seem to realize that I have worked with gold for years doing inlays. The change in color is not a simple matter of removing grime as you suggest. Never mind that old gold was not nearly as purified as the gold being purified today, especially in the case of the electronics industry. You also are not taking into consideration what karat was used.
Pure Gold will not tarnish. But 10K gold most certainly does and will change color. Some gold can form a gold oxide with oxygen. Also if Gold is not pure it will tarnish.
Check out this Youtube video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQYY89F0B_s
I doubt you would use (or Winchester for that matter) pure gold in a wash or in an inlay. It would be way to soft. You can dam near cut pure gold with your fingernails. So having it coming off willy nilly wouldn’t be wanted. And Yes you can clean gold.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
Very informative. Especially explaining the difference in karats. Thanks Maverick!
IMHO in viewing the photos very carefully for quite some time what leads
me to think the receiver has been cleaned at some point is if you will look carefully around the screw heads, especially the one pictured on the fore-
end cap. Also on the top of the heal-cap on the butt-plate I notice that
it may have been over buffed.
I was always under the impression that gold wash was of far less quality
than gold plating as the gold wash was a by product of gold
plating ??????? not sure about that also I like the term gold gilted
better LOL.
That being said I think that it was very Rude of Bert to call
P.Muerrle ignor>?t especially With Bert being a Moderator I
think that shows poor taste. Bert you should reframe from such outburst. You are very knowledgeable and bring forth at time great information
but you really should chillout a bit.
quantrez said
That being said I think that it was very Rude of Bert to call P.Muerrle ignor>?t especially With Bert being a Moderator I
think that shows poor taste. Bert you should reframe from such outburst. You are very knowledgeable and bring forth at time great information but you really should chillout a bit.
And you apparently do not know what the term "ignorant " really means. I refuse to be labeled or accused in the manner you just did just because you are ignorant of what a word really means. Try looking it up in a dictionary so that you too are not "ignorant" of what the actual meaning of the word is. Way too many people these days are not "educated" in the proper use of the English language!
Bert
p.s my minor in college was English.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
My God, has this discussion been reduced to dictionary definitions! I don’t post on here as often as others but when I do I try to offer actual facts, based on first hand experience or opinions that are based on what I know or what other Winchester employees have been kind enough to share with me. I believe that is what this forum was intended for. I was called "ignorant" by someone who obviously knows nothing about me. I believe that others have been either thrown off of this forum or publicly reprimanded for such behavior. I don’t use this forum to go on about my career. I could respond with all of my college ed courses or other such irrelevant stuff. I find that totally unproductive. Who cares what anyone took in college? Trying to twist the language to make it sound as though you didn’t try to belittle someone and then insult someone else in the process is just childish in my opinion. I don’t think that this is what this forum was intended for and I don’t think others appreciate it either. That is my thought on the matter. Maybe you ought to throw me off of here too. If it is acceptable for you to be rude and try and insult other forum members and then threaten them when they reply in kind then I guess this forum has been reduced to another level.
Pretty sure that most gold, as applied to firearms does tarnish. I work extensively with natural gold and it all has impurities that change the hue; even nuggets that are up to 98% pure…
"He was like a cock who thought the sun had risen to hear him crow". George Eliot
I don’t think that gun has been tampered with in any way. The gold wash is fragile and couldn’t hold up to heavy buffing. And that’s the original gold on it. Photos can be deceiving. Different cameras, light sources, etc. can change the appearance. That being said, like Pauline suggested, it may have been "polished" up a little. I still say it’s 100% right.
oakridge said
I don’t think that gun has been tampered with in any way. The gold wash is fragile and couldn’t hold up to heavy buffing. And that’s the original gold on it. Photos can be deceiving. Different cameras, light sources, etc. can change the appearance. That being said, like Pauline suggested, it may have been "polished" up a little. I still say it’s 100% right.
I agree with your assessment about it being original 100%. That stated, it is not possible to "polish" gold wash without adversely damaging it. The instant you start trying to clean something as thin as the gold wash Winchester used on those old Henry or Model 1866 bronze frame guns, the gold plating instantly starts to deteriorate, and it is very easy to spot. In the case of this gun, the gold wash is still in remarkedly good condition, and the pictures on R.I.A. clearly show that.
I asked for an explanation of what visual evidence exists that that gold wash on this rifle has been cleaned or polished, and none was provided other than "it looks to bright". As has been stated by several different people, the camera, lighting, contrast, and software used for the current pictures on R.I.A. is the reason that it looks "brighter" than when it was published years ago by Larry Wilson.
In regards to gold plating, the gold used in electronic circuitry is 18-karat, and it does not turn color or oxidize with time (age). Pure 24-karat gold is way to soft, and is heavier (weight is a concern in many applications) than what is used in the electronics industry. While I do not know what the purity of the gold wash was that Winchester used, I suspect that it was relatively high. If anyone can definitively say (or prove) what the purity of the gold wash was, please educate me (and everyone else). Again, gold does not require abrasive polishing to clean it… simple hot water and soap will do the trick.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
P.Muerrle said
My God, has this discussion been reduced to dictionary definitions! I don’t post on here as often as others but when I do I try to offer actual facts, based on first hand experience or opinions that are based on what I know or what other Winchester employees have been kind enough to share with me. I believe that is what this forum was intended for. I was called "ignorant" by someone who obviously knows nothing about me. I believe that others have been either thrown off of this forum or publicly reprimanded for such behavior. I don’t use this forum to go on about my career. I could respond with all of my college ed courses or other such irrelevant stuff. I find that totally unproductive. Who cares what anyone took in college? Trying to twist the language to make it sound as though you didn’t try to belittle someone and then insult someone else in the process is just childish in my opinion. I don’t think that this is what this forum was intended for and I don’t think others appreciate it either. That is my thought on the matter. Maybe you ought to throw me off of here too. If it is acceptable for you to be rude and try and insult other forum members and then threaten them when they reply in kind then I guess this forum has been reduced to another level.
Pauline,
I always endeavor to use my words in their proper context. If you (and others) do not understand the exact meaning of the word(s), or the context in which it was written, then it is up to you to educate yourselves as to what a "word" really means. Being told that you are "ignorant" of a subject very simply means that you are not fully educated. It is not an insult, or derogatory. If you choose to view it as such, then it is you that needs to re educate yourself. I refuse to take the blame for using a term (word) in its proper context. Seriously, I do not ever set out to insult or belittle anyone on this forum. Unfortunately, written text is sometimes difficult for some people to accurately interpret. My style of written speech is typically quite direct, to the point, and without wasted words. I use words as they are defined in the dictionary, and I expect others to do the same. The unfortuante aspect of internet forums, is that they do not allow us the opportunity to use non-verbal cues and communication, or to "read" or "hear" how someone is saying something, which is why it is important to use accurate terminology.
For those people here on the WACA forums who do not know me personally, I suspect that some of what I write here is mis-understood, and that is unfortunate. My intent is to as clearly as posssible present information to those seeking advice or answers to their questions. Please keep in mind that I am not always 100% accurate, or perfect in how I respond to each and every topic… nobody can attain that level of communication.
Regards,
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
1 Guest(s)
