Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
martin rabeno said
Yes to both Bert. She mentioned the old micro film records. I even came home and checked the number on the rifle tang kust in case it was typed wrong on the letter. It all matches. She really did not have an answer
Neither do I. That stated, I am much more inclined to believe the information that she provided to you is correct. There is no way to determine what Bill Porter was looking when he wrote that letter 45-years ago.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert. All I really know is that the rifle matches The description in Porters museum letter. Like you mentioned who knows what he was looking at when he wrote it. One thought might be the rifle actually started as the 45-60 mentioned in the records. But when it went back for the unknown rework, Could it have be changed to the 50 EXP at the factory. You did mention many of the workorders were lost. I haven’t got a clue. I have owned this rifle since the early 90″s and it is exactly like Porter described it. Go figure
All of the work orders from that time period are lost. We are simply infrequently lucky enough to occasionally find a ledger entry that mentions what work was done during the R & R.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
martin rabeno said
OK Now here is a dilemma and see if anyone can make any sense out of it. At the Baltimore show today I had Jessi run the serial number of my deluxe exp 29753 to see if there was any change or explanation as to the part saying returned for re-work , The letter is dated nov.3,1980 Signed by William L Porter. This description matches the physical features of the rifle.Now here is where it gets weird, The serial number as was run today states 1876 45/60 oct, set, checkered stock pistol grip.
So now how the heck can the same serial number read so totally different on two official searches. I also checked the serial number on the rifle just to make certain it was recorded properly an it was Everyone seems to be at a loss. Jessi said at tha time they were using a totally different reference system back then but ??????
Can anyone shed any light of this ?
How is the Baltimore show these days? Is it worth a 2 1/2 hour drive or is it not what it used to be at the turn of the Century, the last time I attended?
The show is an hour and twenty minutes from me so it is a no brainer for me to take a table. It is large with a lot of guns etc. Is it the same as 25 yrs ago? No. But what show is. That being said it is one of the still good collector shows around with no black guns.
So my gut feeling on my rifle is that it was changed by the factory to a 50 EXP according to whatever documents Porter was looking at and recorded re-work. He did not just make it up. Too bad records are lost and we dont know exactly what that was.
martin rabeno said
OK Now here is a dilemma and see if anyone can make any sense out of it. At the Baltimore show today I had Jessi run the serial number of my deluxe exp 29753 to see if there was any change or explanation as to the part saying returned for re-work , The letter is dated nov.3,1980 Signed by William L Porter. This description matches the physical features of the rifle.Now here is where it gets weird, The serial number as was run today states 1876 45/60 oct, set, checkered stock pistol grip.
So now how the heck can the same serial number read so totally different on two official searches. I also checked the serial number on the rifle just to make certain it was recorded properly an it was Everyone seems to be at a loss. Jessi said at tha time they were using a totally different reference system back then but ??????
Can anyone shed any light of this ?
Ask Jesi what the line says above and below the entry of your rifle. Perhaps it is an identical rifle to yours but in 50 Express? And when William L Porter drafted that letter on December 3, 1980, he read the wrong line.
Unfortunately, now your rifle doesn’t match the letter, and that becomes a problem.
Unless, of course, you are an unscrupulous seller, when it comes time to sell Plenty of them out there. Just present your existing letter and you are good to go! <sarcasm>
martin rabeno said
OK Now here is a dilemma and see if anyone can make any sense out of it. At the Baltimore show today I had Jessi run the serial number of my deluxe exp 29753 to see if there was any change or explanation as to the part saying returned for re-work , The letter is dated nov.3,1980 Signed by William L Porter. This description matches the physical features of the rifle.Now here is where it gets weird, The serial number as was run today states 1876 45/60 oct, set, checkered stock pistol grip.
Out of curiosity, did all the information from the Porter letter bear out against the information Jesi provided (including the R&R), but with the exception to the caliber?
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
I’ve read this thread through several times. It is quite the mystery. There are several potential explanations. Improbable explanations and none explain all the elements involved.
everything matched as far as the configuration of the gun except the caliber, and there was no mention of the R&R
martin rabeno said
everything matched as far as the configuration of the gun except the caliber, and there was no mention of the R&R
Likely a case of dyslexia when the original letter was drafted and you have such a letter corresponding to the configuration of another firearm.
The recent findings don’t necessarily mean your rifle has a replaced barrel. This may indeed be the case, or the ledger contains an error. The huge problem, unfortunately, is the letter doesn’t match your rifle.
Bert H. said
All of the work orders from that time period are lost. We are simply infrequently lucky enough to occasionally find a ledger entry that mentions what work was done during the R & R.Bert
Bert – is it possible the 1980 letter from Mr. Porter could have been faked? When I blow up the letter and look at it I wonder. But, it does appear to have the embossed stamp over the Porter signature.
Hi Guys
The original Porter letter does have the embossed stamp. everything in Jessies search matches my rifle with the exception of the caliber. Could it have been recorded wrong? Porter got his information from someplace? Jessies search lists order #563 whatever that pertains to
Burt Humphrey said
Bert H. said
All of the work orders from that time period are lost. We are simply infrequently lucky enough to occasionally find a ledger entry that mentions what work was done during the R & R.
Bert
Bert – is it possible the 1980 letter from Mr. Porter could have been faked? When I blow up the letter and look at it I wonder. But, it does appear to have the embossed stamp over the Porter signature.
Doubtful, but it is unlikely that a definitive answer to this mystery can ever be arrived at.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
martin rabeno said
Hi GuysThe original Porter letter does have the embossed stamp. everything in Jessies search matches my rifle with the exception of the caliber. Could it have been recorded wrong? Porter got his information from someplace? Jessies search lists order #563 whatever that pertains to
The order number #563 is the original sale order number. Any “R & R” entries in the ledger records will (or should) have a separate order number. There are no known surviving records for the sales orders, or the for the R & R work order numbers (and none of those records existed when Porter wrote that letter back in 1980).
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I have looked at a lot of letters, both from guns I have owned over the years and letters I could find on the internet, going back to the early 80’s when the Porter letter is dated. In my mind there is just something that is not right about the Porter letter. If authentic, it is at a minimum, not done in the professional manner your always see in these letters from the museum. The formatting is poorly done – look at the uneven left margins – the alignment is not correct and un-professional. I cannot find another like this. The word “serial” has been typed over – I just don’t think the museum would allow a letter, which somebody would have to pay for, to leave in this manner. Museum letters always end with a paragraph which says “No other information is available for this serial number” – as does the Porter letter. However, the Porter letter adds “Any other specifications not listed above must be considered as having been standard at the time” – I just don’t find this statement on other letters from this time period but others may know of other examples. And, the Porter letter states “case colored” as one of the features – I have owned 3 case hardened 76’s in my day and looked at other letters I could find on the internet. The letters I find state case hardened, not case colored as in the Porter letter. I know collectors use the terms interchangeably but the museum seems to use case hardened except for the Porter letter. Lastly, if you look at the features for the gun in the Porter letter you will see the listed features are all in lower case, until you get to the last 3 features – then, they are in upper case. I have looked at a lot of letters and consistently the features of the guns are in upper case. I am trying to be realistic and I realize this was back in the typewriter days, before word processing. So, maybe Mr. Porter was just not a good typist.
After re reading this article carefully. I couldn’t agree with Burt more, on this letter, by William Porter. I don’t have a letter by William Porter in my possession any longer, for comparison. But the points that Burt brings up are very interesting, to say the least. I noticed on the letter at hand, that the number 8, has a tic mark, above the number, on the right side, at every typed number 8 on the letter. Just for comparison sake, another letter from 1980, or this close time period could be of some help. The case colored part disturbed me the most, as I don’t think I’ve ever seen that terminology on a letter before.
Okay, so let’s say for argument sake that the letter wasn’t right, or possibly faked. Why? Why would the letter be faked? The mere fact that $$$ comes to mind, but did a previous owner not want to pay for a letter? Possibly!
I did find this 1979 comparable letter by Porter in James Gordon’s 1873 book, and everything that Burt points out, indicates it here for comparison, as far as I can see. With the exception of the start of his sentences, indented in, as the letter in question does.
If Mr. Porter used the same typewriter, which I would assume he did, the number 8 has no, high right corner, tic mark on the letter 8. As I find this also interesting.
Anthony
All very interesting points are made. The number 8 looks like the stamped 8 on serial numbers.
I got this rifle from a friend in Vermont back in the early 90″s. We both figured the rework was that the barrel was reblued. Not certain where he got the gun or the earlier history. The letter does have the raised stamp under Porters name.
So basically????? I don”t know. Either way it’s a screaming looking gun. If anyone is in my area and would love to look at it, you are most welcome to.
Anthony said
After re reading this article carefully. I couldn’t agree with Burt more, on this letter, by William Porter. I don’t have a letter by William Porter in my possession any longer, for comparison. But the points that Burt brings up are very interesting, to say the least. I noticed on the letter at hand, that the number 8, has a tic mark, above the number, on the right side, at every typed number 8 on the letter. Just for comparison sake, another letter from 1980, or this close time period could be of some help. The case colored part disturbed me the most, as I don’t think I’ve ever seen that terminology on a letter before.Okay, so let’s say for argument sake that the letter wasn’t right, or possibly faked. Why? Why would the letter be faked? The mere fact that $$$ comes to mind, but did a previous owner not want to pay for a letter? Possibly!
If Mr. Porter used the same typewriter, which I would assume he did, the number 8 has no, high right corner, tic mark on the letter 8. As I find this also interesting.
Anthony
After looking at the 1979 letter written by Mr. Porter I am no longer sure of the issues I described. Some of the things that bothered me are also prevalant in the 1979 letter and if I had seen the 1979 letter yesterday I probably would have refrained from making comments. Like Bert said, we will never know for sure. The one thing that makes me believe the 1980 letter is authentic is the embossed stamp over the Porter signature. Seems to me that would be hard to fake. It would be nice to see the ledger page for the gun has a 50 caliber gun just above or just below the gun in question. The way the ledger notes were cramped into the minimal space could have had Porter making a glance at the wrong gun.
Anthony
1 Guest(s)
