Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
I am intrigued. Thoughts?
Once again, they mention the Madis serial number range date (1898)- which is completely irrelevant given the factory letter states the serial number was applied in 1897.
Wish it was in My rack
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
I don’t care for the “climbing Lyman” covering half the engraving on the receiver. A tang sight would of been a much better choice. Other than that, it’s a fine rifle in a nice configuration.
Erin
November 7, 2015
Offline
I believe RIA is possibly on thin ice speculating about/asserting where the engraving was done. They may have an expert on staff who can verify that but I suspect talented engravers outside the factory were (and still are) capable of duplicating factory patterns. If I were in the market for a factory engraved Winchester I’d want it in the Cody letter or a letter from Pauline Muerrle before shelling out that kind of money. JMHO, of course.
Mike
Mike,
I mirror your thoughts… the CFM letter does not mention the engraving, which tells me that it was not factory work.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I would question the engraving as well. But would also wonder if anything such engraving could have been done during an R&R.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
I’m obviously missing something. I thought the .33 was Introduced by Winchester for the Model 1886 in 1902.
November 7, 2015
Offline
RickC said
I’m obviously missing something. I thought the .33 was Introduced by Winchester for the Model 1886 in 1902.
Maybe. According to the letter it’s safe to assume the rifle was assembled after the 33WCF was introduced. The serial number was applied to the receiver years before the actual assembly date.
Mike
Rick if You read the letter the ser# was applied in 1897 the receiver probably sat in a pile until it was assembled and shipped in 1904. That’s not unusual with these guns I have that 30″ ’73 that sat in the warehouse for 7 years and s few others similar.
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
RickC said
I’m obviously missing something. I thought the .33 was Introduced by Winchester for the Model 1886 in 1902.
In November of 1897 the serial number was applied to a lower tang. (Under BATF current legal opinion that is when it became a firearm. Because serial numbers on metal make firearms, not firing pins or anything else. If it made sense the Government wouldn’t do it that way, because that would be to easy.)
Now if that lower tang was attached to a receiver or not, I don’t know for certain, but likely so. Either way these parts sat in a bin and were assembled with the remaining parts that make a fully assembled firearm and sent to the shipping warehouse in September 1904. Then you have a return & repair in 1911 and again in 1913.
Hope that helps.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
Thank you gentlemen that would explain it. Yes I remember now not uncommon of course for the receiver to sit idle for a few years. Personally I prefer serialized, sent to warehouse, & shipped all in the same year for this kind of money.
Not to mention another climbin Lyman 21 receiver sight on an engraved rifle. Ugh!!
Well Sir, I wouldn’t mind having that “ugly” gun in My rack 
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
Bert H. said
Mike,
I mirror your thoughts… the CFM letter does not mention the engraving, which tells me that it was not factory work.
Bert
Bert –
What do you think about the possibility the engraving was done at the factory during one of the returns?
Good grief but how I wish they would have recorded in the ledger, what work was done when there was a return and repair.
Here’s another example where that would have been very helpful:
Henry Mero said
Well Sir, I wouldn’t mind having that “ugly” gun in My rack
I can’t say I wouldn’t want it lol.
steve004 said
Bert H. said
Mike,
I mirror your thoughts… the CFM letter does not mention the engraving, which tells me that it was not factory work.
BertBert –
What do you think about the possibility the engraving was done at the factory during one of the returns?
Good grief but how I wish they would have recorded in the ledger, what work was done when there was a return and repair.
Here’s another example where that would have been very helpful:
Steve,
I think that it was very unlikely that it was engraved during the “R & R”. In a fair number of cases, it is not difficult to determine what work was accomplished during the R & R, but it takes a hands on detailed examination of the gun to include partial disassembly. Quite frequently, the order number listed for the R & R can be found stamped somewhere on the gun (barrel, inside surface of the lower or upper tang, stock, etc.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I wouldn’t be very happy if I purchased this rifle and found the engraving not to be factory and any other misrepresented discrepancies or my own expectations, especially if it goes for the upper end of the auction pricing or more.
Rick
RickC said
I wouldn’t be very happy if I purchased this rifle and found the engraving not to be factory and any other misrepresented discrepancies or my own expectations, especially if it goes for the upper end of the auction pricing or more.Rick
I think the target audience for these auctions (e.g. auction house or internet site) is NOT knowledgeable collectors. This usually works out for the sellers as there are plenty of non-knowledgeable collectors out there spending their money and driving the bidding up.
For the engraved .33 in question, I wouldn’t mind owning it but I surely wouldn’t pay anywhere close to what I would pay had the ledger noted the factory engraved it. However, some bidders will probably buy RIA’s assertion (and rationale) that the engraving (to quote RIA), “… the engraving is certainly factory.” And of course, if you are bidding against others who believe the engraving is factory, you will quickly be lost in the dust.
steve004 said
I am intrigued. Thoughts?Once again, they mention the Madis serial number range date (1898)- which is completely irrelevant given the factory letter states the serial number was applied in 1897.
Steve if time permits can you post the hammer prices of a couple of the guns discussed when the RIA auction is over.
Rick
1 Guest(s)
