Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
All of the warehouse ledger entries that I have read & viewed simply state “CH” or “CCH”.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
So what have we got here?
1- A signed stamped letter by Porter stating the description of my rifle using terminology that is different than other letters
2- Cody ledger of my serial number entry that is exactly like my rifle with the exception of the caliber.
3- Uncertainty what is meant by the phrase “re-work” which is not mentioned in the Cody ledger
4- Both ledger and letter list the same serial number which is the serial number of my rifle
The rifle is real as are both the letter and serial number search which have some differences between them. Which one could be in error?
I have an opinion which is the ledger is incorrect in that everything matches but the caliber. Could it have been recorded incorrectly? Mistakes have been documented in the past. Is the caliber correct and the gun converted to a 50 during there-work mentioned by porter? He had to be looking at something
martin rabeno said
So what have we got here?1- A signed stamped letter by Porter stating the description of my rifle using terminology that is different than other letters
2- Cody ledger of my serial number entry that is exactly like my rifle with the exception of the caliber.
3- Uncertainty what is meant by the phrase “re-work” which is not mentioned in the Cody ledger
4- Both ledger and letter list the same serial number which is the serial number of my rifle
The rifle is real as are both the letter and serial number search which have some differences between them. Which one could be in error?
I have an opinion which is the ledger is incorrect in that everything matches but the caliber. Could it have been recorded incorrectly? Mistakes have been documented in the past. Is the caliber correct and the gun converted to a 50 during there-work mentioned by porter? He had to be looking at something
Porter apparently either took his own liberties with the “re-work” notation on the letter, or more likely, he looked up the wrong serial number in the records. There were no other records that he could have looked at. In your shoes, I would try looking at the ledger entries for serial numbers 27953 and 28953.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert
If either of those numbers are a 50. How would it explain that the serial number listed by Porter is in fact my number on my gun and it matched my guns description?
That”s what I find puzzling
Martin,
Look at this letter, that I posted, on a refreshed older post for a model 1886, that I neglected to post the letter when I was in the process of verifying the rifle.
I didn’t want to hijack this thread, so I chose to only post this letter for more referencing and comparison.
If you take a look at my original post on the 1886 rifle that I refreshed with this Letter, it will help to explain what I’m trying to say, here.
I had doubt’s on my 1886, and at the end of my 1963 letter it states,’ returned to the factory for some work and re-turned to the customer”!
My point being that these letters are great documents, that help us, to try to disseminate and determine what went on, a long time ago, to help us with the history of these fine specimens. You have a great rifle, and I wouldn’t discount the fact, that more than one thing, might have been changed on it, at the factory, when it was sent back, for Re work as the letter states.
Anthony
martin rabeno said
BertIf either of those numbers are a 50. How would it explain that the serial number listed by Porter is in fact my number on my gun and it matched my guns description?
That”s what I find puzzling
Looking up a serial number in the records is one event, and then typing a serial number on a letter is a second (separate) event.
The fact that the factory ledger records do not match Porter’s 1980 letter is the one irrefutable fact to keep in mind. As I previously mentioned, it is very unlikely that the reason why Porter’s letter does not match the ledger record can be answered, but I personally suspect that Porter made a mistake in the specific rifle he looked up in the ledger records.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Anthony said
Martin,Look at this letter, that I posted, on a refreshed older post for a model 1886, that I neglected to post the letter when I was in the process of verifying the rifle.
I didn’t want to hijack this thread, so I chose to only post this letter for more referencing and comparison.
I had doubt’s on my 1886, and at the end of my 1963 letter it states,’ returned to the factory for some work and re-turned to the customer”!
My point being that these letters are great documents, that help us, to try to disseminate and determine what went on, a long time ago, to help us with the history of these fine specimens. You have a great rifle, and I wouldn’t discount the fact, that more than one thing, might have been changed on it, at the factory, when it was sent back, for Re work as the letter states.
Anthony
Unless I misunderstood Martin, when Jesi looked it up in the records, there was no mention of a R & R (re-work) for the serial number in question. That leads me to believe that Porter looked up the wrong serial number in his initial research.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Anthony said
Anthony
My experience with museum letters is the term “case hardened” is used. Does anyone have a letter signed by Porter which states “case hardened” rather than the “case colored” used in the 1980 letter.
Burt Humphrey said
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.
I was hoping this may be a case of a barrel swap like Houze mentions occurred (especially with the changes from 45-75 rifle barrels to 45-60 when the latter cartridge was introduced). That said, nothing was noted by Houze regarding 50 Express barrel swaps (or any others for that matter to a 50E), so that was a dead end as far as general info goes.
However, to the point of the authenticity of the letter, and having only one example to go off of offered by Anthony, the signature on the 29753 letter is significantly different than the 1873 letter signed by Porter 16 months prior. Have no idea how old Mr. Portner was in 1980, if in diminished health, age, or capacity at the time of the 1980 letter, and without getting into all the variances, the two signatures dont match. That said, these are just two examples, I would try to find other Porter signed letters for comparison.
I would still hold out hope there was an error in recording that can be identified, but the 1980 letter, with the signature and “case colored” comment instead of “case hardened” are problematic.
Best of luck.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
Bill Porter was still actively working in and for the CFM records office as late as 1993.
As Chris has pointed out, his signature on the two letters is noticeably different… one of them is highly likely to be a fake.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert,
The points that Chris bring up are a concern, no doubt, and pretty spot on.
Chris,
Like you, I was hoping this was a barrel swap, and possibly something else done, as wanted by the previous owner, in 1889.
As I posted the letter from James Gordon’s book, I did notice a difference in the Signatures, and was hoping that it was possible just a Signature difference as many do, when signing something. Not being a signature analyst, never the less I do have my doubts. When I look at the letter in question, it looks to me to see some type of shadowing in the background like some printing mistakes. I wish over the weekend at the Baltimore show Jesi, could have examined the embossed stamp on the letter as I was wondering what that truly shows or looks like, as if the letter is possibly, “not right”, that would have to show something, or at least possibly be suspicious. I don’t recall a letter having type corrections on it like this one. In the bottom left corner, the two initials, that verify who helped with the search, have the letter, “J”, in JW, corrected, as is another area in the letter showing a, “white out”, correction made.
It seems to me that each researcher, indicated by their signature has their own, so called style of recording letters. If we compare each letter as from different researchers, it’s evident in their descriptions, some differences. Then there’s William Porter, who seemed to like to start the beginning of his sentences, indented, on his letters, that we’re comparing, here. It would be nice to see other William Porter letters for comparison sake, as far as I am concerned.
I also posted a letter from 1963, unfortunately not from Porter, but showing a similar situation I found myself in, with an 1886 rifle that I own, that was posted in another thread. I can understand how the current owner feels, as it leaves a lump in you’re stomach, knowing possibly that you’re rifle isn’t correct. Through a few members here, and John Madl, the model 1886 researcher, we determined that the rifle was correct. The difference though is that the letter wasn’t suspected as being incorrect, in any way.
So why fake a letter? If it is faked! Is the gun right? It sure looks correct, and a very nice specimen. I can also agree with some previous comments, as far as, “We may never know”!
Anthony
I just re-examined the letter and the signature is over the top of the embossed stamp as expected. If anyone is in my area and cares to look at the rifle and letter, you are most welcome to do that.
Marty
I would be looking for any changes to the barrel prior to it originally being shipped, and not necessarily due to the R&R work. The SN dates to 1882 but left the warehouse 7 years later, so it sat for a while. In that time anything could be possible.
Ive got a 76 that caliber was not mentioned on letter, but notation that it was changed to 45/60 with plain trigger instead of set trigger (the lower tang is milled to accommodate a set trigger, but it is now plain, at least one physical point of confirmation).
And apologies to Mr. Porter for my comments above, if your reading any of this, we’ve never met and I had this conjured image in my mind of an old wiskered researcher from back in the day diligently pouring over records,
kudos. The first thing I would do with this questionable letter is get verification from Mr. Porter regarding the signature.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
Chris,
I didn’t see where it sat for a while, and the 7 years part threw me. Am I missing something?
On the letter from martin rabino, it states that the rifle was received in the whse. on 10/10/1882, and left on 10/11/1882, and returned to the whse. on 11/15/1895, for re work, 14 years later. Is it possible that the rifle, was originally a 45-60 caliber, as Jessi, claimed her search indicated, at the Baltimore show? Possibly returned, on 11/15/1895, and re worked in the .50 caliber rifle that it is now, as part of the re work, the brass lifter changed, and whatever else might go along with a larger caliber, increase that is required, as a re work, like William Porter, indicated.
Also, you apologized to Mr. Porter, which I have to admire you for! Is he still around?
Anthony
Anthony, your right, I misread the letter regarding time of into the warehouse and out of warehouse (probably distracted looking at a different letter, who knows
).
No, I dont know if Mr. Porter is still around.
Chris
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
Chris,
I’ve been there before. It can get confusing for me trying to compare the dates, and all the numbers, especially when trying to look at more than a couple letters. You had me double checking my eyes. LOL!
On the work of Mr. Porter, he had is own style, and interpretation, as did some of the others. I have a hard time trying to figure out how in the heck anyone can read the ledgers from the records, as it’s not easy. All the more reason I tip my hat to our current members who do research, and have helped out with it, doing the many surveys, that we have going on.
Anthony
Here is an Express rifle previously unknown to me. It has some condition issues but it’s pretty hard to find any 1876 Express rifle below $10K unless it’s really bad.
I call myself a collector as it sounds better than hoarder
I have not seen forearm checkering like that on a 76 – sure don’t like the wood/metal fit forearm to receiver.
Ive seen that checking before on 76’s, its an earlier stile akin to what you see on the earlier 73’s I think. It seems like Ive seen the pistol grip style with the rounded or bulbous bases before, there seems to be several different variations just looking through Madis and Houze.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
2 Guest(s)
