Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Comments on this old 1895 for sale in regards to the "original" finish would be appreciated. Thanks, Peter
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=341381350
Offline
oakridge said
Looks like a refinish to me. 0% original finish. Am I wrong?
Plus 1, it’s refinished 100%
Total new refinish, new screws, as well as the Win 65 he is selling
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=341384247
even more obvious
Phil
Yep. A pair of "falsies." And pretty dang obvious.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
The chips in the wood along the tang are a dead giveaway. Not to mention no story. If a 1895 sat unfired for this long there would be a story and the story helps sell. NO STORY someone is hiding something.
The refinished 1895 sold for $3425 , and the 65 sold for $5726. I cant believe that anyone laying out this much for a gun would be that inexperienced to be fooled by the re-finish, So my question is : is there a different category of collector that just wants a gun to look like new? and willing to absorb the refinishing cost ? like a customer of Turnbull?
Also the only way a shyster would be able to make money on a deal like this would be to initially buy the guns cheap as refinished. Because to first buy the gun ,(must already be in pretty good cond ,especially with good bore ) and then pay the extravagant restoration cost, there certainly wouldnt be much profit to be had especially risking the label of fraud and the potential hassle ?
Phil
It is amazing what some folks will pay for something if they want it enough! I went to a local auction within the last two years that featured an 1886 octagon barrelled rifle in .40-82 with a serial number in the 9,000 range, I think. It definitely had a 4 digit serial number and I seem to think it was in the 9,000 range. It had an octagon barrel and no other features. Finish on metal maybe 20 or 30 %. Stock replaced with a poorly fitting replacement–looked like from a Kentucky rifle, with a poorly fitting Scheutzen buttplate. Definitely not original and an obvious replacement. Buyer’s premium at 13%. Debated whether or not this thing was even worth a grand as a parts gun or major restoration project. Amazed to see it go for $5,250, not including the buyer’s premium, sales tax, etc. An idiot and his money are quickly separated…!!!
25-20,
There must be people like that out there. They’ve helped to keep Turnbull in business. But, in this case, I think they just don’t know better. This gun doesn’t look new, it looks refinished.
About the Model 65. I am seeing a butt plate and a forearm tip that have flaking and wear and do not appear refinished (from internet pictures). I am seeing proof marks that are proud, struck on top of the blue. I cannot tell for sure that the receiver is refinished, it certainly may be, it just looks too good and the polish doesn’t look right, but I am not seeing definitive proof in the blurry pictures. Only that it is too good and the screws are all replaced, which doesn’t really prove anything. So, what are you folks seeing on the Model 65 that is the nail in the coffin that proves it is refinished?
Link to the 65: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=341384247
CJS57 said
So, what are you folks seeing on the Model 65 that is the nail in the coffin that proves it is refinished?Link to the 65: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=341384247
I saw nothing that was/is a positive sign or clue that it has been refinished. The Model 1895 on the other hand was most certainly a refinished gun.
Bert H.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
CJS57….I’ll make an attempt here to answer your question. Please remember that I am no expert, but this is how I think and what I see. First and formost, the 1895 is a pretty obvious refinish, thus I would suspect anything that looks to good to be true from the same seller, especially when selling it at the same time. I am not sure about the barrel etc, but the receiver/lever definitely look refinished as the color and shine seem wrong, especially when compared to the barrel finish. Also, the buttplate is really worn down with most of the finish being gone. This does no match the rest of the gun in my opinion, and furthers the suspecions of a refinish. I’m sure you will get other answers from those more knowledgeable than me. Hope this helps, Peter
PS: I do feel sorry for the buyers in both of the cases. It is hard for me to believe that either of them knew what they were buying and the money they just threw out the window.
On the 65 the pic that shows the 2 proof marks ,(6th pic down). you can see the polishing scratch lines thru the bright blue, and the receiver in that pic just looks like new blue, but the next down end cap pic is the most obvious where the new blue didnt take and the shiny new blue is flaking . this is whee Uberti repros always flaw first, because for some reason blue doesnt adhere . Even in old Origional Wins the foreend cap, and the mag hanger did not take the blue well, but you will not see fresh shiny parts like this 65 Win pic
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=341384247
I should have said I think that end cap is actually a new Uberti part because see it does not fit the fore end wood correctly,and probably that button tube protruding thru it as well
Just looked at my 65 and the button Rad is just protruding thru cap, not the tube Diameter
1 Guest(s)
