Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
My two cents worth:
First, I agree with Bert, this topic has been beat to death.
You will find that quite a few BATF folks are not pro gun, for the most part they range from ambivalent to very anti gun.
Most of you probably don’t know this but about two years ago the ATF came out with a new ruling that refinishing (re-bluing, color case hardening etc) a firearm was considered manufacturing, and anyone doing this needed a manufacturing license. This contradicted their own regs/policies, and had the potential to put a lot of folks out of business.
Luckily the NRA took up the cause, and we got a favorable resolution, but it took the NRA with their political and financial clout to make it happen.
Sometimes its best not to ask the question that you may not want the answer to, remember you might be in the right, but it will probably cause a lot of pain and suffering to prove it; kind of like finding out if a dog has rabies by letting it bite you.
HUH???? Would you repeat that one more time. TWICE was not enough for me to get your point.
oakridge said
HUH???? Would you repeat that one more time. TWICE was not enough for me to get your point.
I have no idea what point "quantrez" was trying to make either, so I deleted his last message (it was wasting a lot of space).
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
With those non-factory holes, my opinion is that the value is something in the $1200 – $1400 range, though it might be tough to get it.
If it did not have those holes, it could have easily been in the $2400 – $2600 range.
Wanted to post a follow-up on my extra light takedown. I paid more than 3x the low range of the estimated value and sold it for more than 2x the high range. It sold to an old time Winchester collector. He didn’t like the holes, but said he liked the rifle well enough to not worry about the holes. Takedown missing from the letter didn’t bother him either. After looking the rifle over, he said it was obviously original and unaltered.
mentallapse said
It sold to an old time Winchester collector. He didn’t like the holes, but said he liked the rifle well enough to not worry about the holes.
For a rifle in very high condition like that one, there are fellows who value the condition more than the extra holes. It is a beautiful rifle.
Nice rifle, indeed. I don’t doubt that this Winchester sold for that amount at all.
I believe that the rule-of-thumb that deals with extra holes drilled in either the receiver or barrel, roughly 50 & 25 percent deductions as I see it, respectively, are simply guidelines that might be fairly accurate for most appraisals that deal with worn or well worn pieces, or like in this case, grossly inaccurate. The condition of this rifle, and its modification which appears to be identical to what later became a standard feature, seem to have been two of the biggest factors in it bringing such a good price. The rifle might not have brought nearly as much on the market had the receiver been modified to accept a scope mount base. In my opinion, the seller and buyer seem happy with the transaction and that is what counts the most.
Randy,
Happy to hear that you found a willing buyer, and that you got a good price on it.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
This has been a good learn, at least for me. Several lessons come to mind after reading and listening to the comments. First and formost, to me anyway, there are all kinds of collectors out there with very different values and things that are important to them. There are those that would not touch this gun because of the extra holes in the receiver and the fact that the TD feature is not included in the letter. Then there are those that are not bothered by those two items, especially with an old rifle as nice as this one is. I was bothered by both of the above mentioned, but really, when you think about it, why?? The extra holes were probably for a Lyman peep sight, which was/is a good sight for hunting. The TD feature not being on the letter initially sounded terrible to me, but how could you fake that? The receiver is stamped with the correct serial # that matches the work sheet from Cody, and the receiver is obviously a TD receiver. Everything about the barrel matches the TD receiver in patina, stampings, caliber, and configuration. To me an obvious mistake by either the person who wrote the ledger or whoever copied the ledger for the Cody work sheet. I was told that many times Winchester would do a run of TD and use ditto marks to indicate same as above. This might go on for 5-10 guns. I have looked at copies of original ledgers and can sure see how this might be missed. Not sure if the records have been checked to see if this was the case with this rifle. Anyway glad Randy sold his gun. Peter
I, quite recently, requested a search on an 1894 take down and the information sheet came back with no take down feature listed. I thought, how can this be? I called and asked them to recheck and this time it was listed having the take down feature.
Honestly, sometimes these things can test the credulity of a rational mans mind! (I always wanted to use that line.) 😀
Gene 🙄
1 Guest(s)
