Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
So, I’ve been learning so much from you guys and have especially enjoyed doing the detective work I’ve learned in my short time as a member here on my own small collection. I am also a photographer and when I first saw that GI post, it occurred to me that, when I photograph a rifle, I often do it in sections and stitch those sections together using photoshop because, if you try to photograph the whole length of a rifle in one frame, you sacrifice resolution by photographing a lot of empty space.
I don’t know enough to judge, and Bert has pointed out how to definitively tell, but often when you stitch images and are not careful to clean them up properly, you get ghosts of one part of the image elsewhere and other distortions (I have a post in the rimfire section of my Model 63 and if you look at the picture of the entire address, you will see it is slightly warped as I used the pano function on my phone instead of taking time to properly set it up and photograph).
For comparison I composited the two images and to me, it is possible that the stitching left a trace of the “2” over the “D”. Having seen this many times before in various pano projects, it is completely plausible if one has used this technique to photograph the roll stamp.
Again, its just a thought, but it is possible that this is an artifact of one very popular photographic technique.
Steve
WACA Member. CFM Member. NRA Lifer.
November 5, 2014
Offline
I have no dog in this fight, but am finding this an interesting discussion. I’d applaud Charlie for joining into the discussion. That does not happen often when the authenticity of a rifle is questioned on this site… Either b/c the seller already knows they are misrepresenting their merchandise and/or b/c they are targeting a ‘different class’ of buyer (ignorant) and do not give a damn what WACA members think??? So THANKS Charlie for standing up!!!
My observation is that critiquing odd/rare/impossible rifles that goes on in this forum is something of a cross between “community service” and “blood sport”. Like cock fighting – only legal… Overall this is a GOOD thing as long as the discourse is civil (has it has been in this case) and does not wantonly disparage (slander).
My expertise in photography is/was limited to B&W film (boy am I OLD!!!). But Supergimp’s side-by-side (as well as comparing with the photo in Madis) raises an interesting point. The ‘2’ that is evident underlying the ‘D’ in the GI photo has certain characteristics in common with the ‘2’ in ’92’ in the same photo (especially along the bottom edge of the ‘2’). Digital artifact? Could be…
What I think I am hearing is that the gun listed by Cauthen & Sons is the exact gun pictured in Madis’ book, which George thought enough of to include. Also that there are some issues, like the ’92’ being smaller than the other letters, that raise questions about when the barrel was installed, how it came to be marked as it is, and by whom.
If Charlie is willing to make the effort to get pics of the underside of the barrel it would likely go a long way to solving the mystery. It’s unlikely that the barrel was made before the cartridge was introduced (duh…), but the data would help sort things out!!!
Thanks for ALL you do…
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Steve,
Interesting information concerning photo manipulation. I am not sure why it would be necessary to stitch multiple pictures together to create the single picture shown. While I am not a photo expert, I have learned how to take reasonably clear and detailed pictures of old Winchesters and the markings on them without the need to “photoshop” them.
Regardless of what has transpired (or not) with the subject pictures, it does not explain the odd difference in the different font used for the “218 BEE” section of the marking. I would like to see the markings on the underside of the barrel before changing my opinion of the subject rifle.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
FWIW: I dug up my copy of Madis’ Big Book and found the photo on page 396, not 390. Nowhere could I find a reference from Madis as to the serial number of the rifle pictured, which would have helped clarify the questions brought up here. I did notice, however, that the side of the of the forearm pictured in Madis’ book has some distinct gouges that do appear to be identical in the GI photos and 1 gouge in Madis’ book (right next to the receiver) that seems to have disappeared in the GI photo. Of course, we are comparing an old B&W photo printed in a book to a color digital photo so the gouge that is missing in the new photos might have been repaired or not shown up as B&W photos have more contrast.
Based on the grain pattern and the identical damaged spots on both photos I’m of the opinion that the forearm, at least, is the same one in both Madis and GI. Just MHO.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Bert H. said
Steve,I have learned how to take reasonably clear and detailed pictures of old Winchesters and the markings on them without the need to “photoshop” them.
Bert
Bert,
Trying to be brief (which I am not good at), when I did commercial product photography, I would always try to shoot things that didn’t match the frame aspect ratio (roughly rectangular) in pieces. The reason? A digital photo can be thought of as small squares. If my frame is 20 squares tall by 30 squares wide, and my subject (rifle) is taking up all 30 wide but is only 3 squares tall (extreme exaggeration) then if I crop or zoom in, there is no resolution left to do so (becomes blocky).
If I am shooting for a client, I don’t know of the client might come back and say, “give me a close up of this part” and if I don’t have the resolution I have to reshoot. While you may have enough detail in a pic for your own use, as a commercial photographer I’m going to hedge my bets and take more closer pics and stitch them together.
Also, if you bring the two photos into Photoshop and overlay them, the shape and contour of the “2” matches almost perfectly forgiving the slight highlight difference given camera angle. With these pics as the ONLY evidence I would guess that if they were stamped afterwards it was EXACTLY the same die.
Again. This is 100% speculation because none of us have the item in hand and the photos presented are far from their original source/resolution.
Steve
WACA Member. CFM Member. NRA Lifer.
Bert H. said
Steve,Interesting information concerning photo manipulation. I am not sure why it would be necessary to stitch multiple pictures together to create the single picture shown. While I am not a photo expert, I have learned how to take reasonably clear and detailed pictures of old Winchesters and the markings on them without the need to “photoshop” them.
Regardless of what has transpired (or not) with the subject pictures, it does not explain the odd difference in the different font used for the “218 BEE” section of the marking. I would like to see the markings on the underside of the barrel before changing my opinion of the subject rifle.
Bert
Bert,
I am perfectly willing to take the gun to my gunsmith, and disassemble the forend and magazine assembly. What are we looking for as far as markings go? I think its fair to inform me in advance, since I’m the only one with anything on the line here. We will photograph, of course. I may just see if he can come over to the store and do this.
The following is directed to all who are contributing to this discussion:
I cant tell you all how wonderful it is, to read all the comments from experts in every field applicable to this particular situation. We have never, and will never misrepresent, or try to counterfeit ANY firearm. If we thought for one second that this rifle was not the rifle on page 390, not page 396 as stated by another poster, I would take it out in the yard, and break it in two over a tree stump. I only wish you guys were in Texas, so we could get together in person. Face-to-face is the preferred method of resolving conflicting views that can cost a businesses’ reputation. Our storefront is in Fredericksburg, Texas, on the main thoroughfare. You are all welcome, any time. Also, there are more Winchesters on our website. Just search JE Cauthen & Sons. Please let me know if any of you find fault in our other firearms. I can be reached by phone at 830-992-3306.
If any of you take offense to what Ive just shared, please keep in mind that we do this for a living. Its not a hobby. You could not imagine the expense, monetarily and mentally, it takes to build a business like this. I became a member here because of this thread, and the potential damage it could do to our respected reputation, which we have worked our tails off for. Again, the shop phone is listed above. If I dont catch the call, leave your number. I’ll buzz you back.
God bless,
Charlie Parcus
Manager, JE Cauthen & Sons Fine Sporting Arms
Fredericksburg, Texas USA
November 5, 2014
Offline
FWIW…. Not much but in the interest of keeping ‘on topic’ rather than getting side-tracked…
There must be a page number difference between printings of Madis’ ‘big book’. In my copy (1st edition – 1977 printing) the photo is on p 396 (not 390). I suspect that in some printings (earlier or later????) it’s on p 390.
I’ve run across this minor page number discrepancy before on this site when folks reference Madis.
Best…
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
As I said before, page 396. This is the 1979 Copyright edition.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Charlie,
In response to your question, you should find a 2-digit year number on the bottom of the barrel very near where it screws into the receiver frame, and you should also find a caliber marking a bit further down the barrel. For the 218 Bee, it should be marked with a “B” as shown in the pictures I have attached.
If you would like to chat with me, contact me at [email protected] and I will provide my phone number.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Charlie,In response to your question, you should find a 2-digit year number on the bottom of the barrel very near where it screws into the receiver frame, and you should also find a caliber marking a bit further down the barrel. For the 218 Bee, it should be marked with a “B” as shown in the pictures I have attached.
If you would like to chat with me, contact me at [email protected] and I will provide my phone number.
Bert
Here is a link to the photo, Bert.
Charlie
Charlie,
I am not an 1892 expert so I have no input regarding your rifle but I wanted to let you know that I am impressed by your willingness to participate in the discussion and aid in the research of these rifles. Based on your comments and expended effort to share your information I don’t believe you have hurt your reputation in any way. Although I have made no purchases from you in the past I would not hesitate to do business with you in the future as you seem to be upfront and honest.
I hope this discussion has not given you a bad impression about WACA, we are all trying to learn as much as we can and unintentionally get a bit critical sometimes.
I hope you remain with us after this discussion and share in future conversations.
Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
Charlie,
You got my attention. I’ve been enjoying browsing your inventory. Lots of interesting possibilities.
Steve
WACA Member. CFM Member. NRA Lifer.
JWA,
I greatly appreciate your kindness! We are just as serious about the integrity of the firearms we collect and sell, as the members here. I plan on sticking around. I just get a little more intense about the integrity/reputation issues, due to the tremendous investment. I hope to get time to find my way around here real soon.
Kindest Regards,
Charlie
Charlie,
Ditto to what the gentlemen have said previously.
I too will have you on my inventory check list.
Bill
Charlie,
The serial number dates the receiver frame to the year 1929. The 218 Bee cartridge was introduced in the latter half of the year 1937. Production of the Model 92 and Model 65 ended in late October of 1945. Finally, the barrel on the subject rifle is dated 1950.
I am having a difficult time connecting any of the information pieces together to make a clear picture (explanation) for this rifle. Logically, the receiver and barrel are 21-years removed from one another, and as such, they are unlikely to be an original pair. The caliber marking on the bottom of the barrel does not conform to the way Winchester marked them in the 1937 – 1945 time period. The conclusion that I have arrived at is this… the rifle is very unlikely to be in its original as built configuration, but the possibility exists that it could have been returned and rebarreled by Winchester in 1950. Without having concrete documentation to support any reasonable hypothesis, each one of us is left make his/her own opinion about the rifle.
As Jeff (JWA) and Lou have mentioned, and I will reiterate, the WACA and this forum are not viewing you, or the business you manage, in a negative light. Your forthrightness has been evident and very much appreciated. We (those of us that frequently use this forum) are a highly curious group of dedicated Winchester collectors, always seeking to learn new information. As such, we frequently discuss many of the oddities that we collectively encounter in our travels and research. Hopefully at the end of each topic that we discuss, something new has been discovered or learned. I hope that your experience here has been a positive one, and that you will visit us in the future. I would also like to extend an invitation to you to become a WACA member. Membership provides a number of desirable benefits.
Regards,
Bert Hartman, WACA 6571L Historian
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert,
Many thanks for the information, and the chance to explore the origins of this rifle. Like alot of things I run into with rare guns, its clear as mud:) I’m going to New Mexico for a week to see if my son can win his second SASS World Championship. Yep, our vacations include guns, pretty much always!
I’ll get a membership for myself, so Jim can have his name back on the forum. If any of you ever have a firearm of high-interest for sale, please let me know. We love collectible, antique firearms:)
There is a really neat piece on Guns International of ours. Its an ’86 Deluxe, with WW2 history. Awesome story behind it. Bert, I think you’d like the backstory, as it is about a family who served in our Armed Forces. Great stuff.
God Bless you guys,
Charlie
I do not know the answer to your question. The Model 43 barrel marking is nearly identical to the barrel on the subject rifle though.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
January 26, 2011
Offline
Ok, this just took an interesting twist. I think Podufa may have stumbled onto something. I just took apart my M43 218 Bee manufactured in 1951 and it has the exact same barrel markings as the subject gun. It simply has “218B” and a 51 close to the receiver. Could this be a M43 barrel on a 92 frame? As Bert mentioned, it would have to have been something sent back to Winchester as a special order modification. I guess its possible, but seems very odd to me. So we have two choices now…….either its a factory modification where they may have used a 43 barrel they had on hand to update an old lever action to a more modern caliber, or its something someone deliberately made up outside the factory. They may have not intended to deceive anyone at the time and had no idea that a collector community would be dissecting it 65years later. Either way, its forever going to be a story gun that you have to try and explain. Now that I think about it, I suppose it could have been a 92 frame that sat around the shop for all those years and someone decided to create this anomaly rifle….but I think that’s really a stretch.
I do want to say that I agree with several others comments with regards to Mr. Parcus’ willingness to discuss this rifle directly with us. Since I do happen to serve on the WACA board of directors with Bert, I would also like to say that we do not want to develop a reputation for discounting Winchesters that are being marketed out on the internet. I like how Bert explained that we are a very curious, investigative, community that is always trying to learn more about the specimens we collect. Quite often, this does not work out well for the seller. In this particular case, I’m not sure we will arrive at a definitive answer but we have narrowed it down to a few options. It is up to the potential buyer to decide the rarity and value of this rifle. Thank you to Charlie for participating in the discussion and kudos to him for defending his company’s reputation in a very respectful and pleasant manner. I hope that this doesn’t shed any negative light on our association.
~Gary~
1 Guest(s)
