Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Online
This one is so interesting I feel we must have discussed it last year – but I couldn’t find where we had. One aspect of this rifle and the documentation included had to do when Winchester starting proof marking rifles. The 1898 letter from James Lewis of Winchester regarding how Winchester was, “thinking about” putting proof marks on their rifles – and went ahead and did it on this rifle – and hoping the buyer didn’t mind! Fascinating. His statement sort of implies this could this be the first rifle Winchester proof marked? Again, this sounds like something we might have discussed but I couldn’t find it.
Aside from the proof mark topic, this is a very interesting rifle which was elaborately special ordered. The purchaser clearly had an exact idea what they wanted. I notice there is a, “return and repair” notation and RIA suggests this means it was factory rebarreled. That seems believeable to me given the the original .30 takedown half-octagon barrel was ordered with no sight seat – and that’s the exact specifications of what is on there now.
Another factor I find puzzling. RIA states, “The finely detailed engraving may have been done by John Ulrich but is unsigned. Regardless, it is certainly the quality of the work of a very talented engraver.” Wait a minute, why don’t they quote the letter from Winchester from James Lewis – that letter (to the original purchaser) begins, “John Ulrich has finished your custom engraving you order.” So they have factory documentation the engraving was done by Ulrich yet they have to speculate on Ulrich and even concede it my be the work of some other, “very talented engraver.”
This rifle is very special and the specific engraving ordered (e.g. the crest) is very unusual. The proof mark aspect is fascinating if not historic. There are elements that leave me suspicious – especially the 1898 letter. I’m generally in Caveat Emptor mode and these days, that seems prudent.
Thoughts and comments? Anyone recall if we discussed this rifle?
Steve,
I remember this rifle was discussed on the forum, and especially the 1898 letter from Winchester. I believe the consensus was that the letter was a fake?
Al
tionesta1 said
Steve,I remember this rifle was discussed on the forum, and especially the 1898 letter from Winchester. I believe the consensus was that the letter was a fake?
Al
Al – yes, I’m having a little better memory of it. RIA must have thought the letter was a fake too – as they didn’t use it to substantiate the rifle was Ulrich engraved! I suppose the consignor included it in the documentation and wanted it included in the auction. And I suppose RIA couldn’t prove either way if it was a fake. Still, they must have had enough doubts to not quote it. I suppose this scenario does put the auction house in an awkward position. Look at me – having sympathy for a big auction house. You don’t see that every day!
November 7, 2015
Offline
Nice rifle and I also recall discussion of the letter, still doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Mike
I agree – the letter doesn’t pass the sniff test – but the rifle matches the factory letter. I suppose the proof marks suggest it was rebarreled – and the James Lewis letter indicates they are original to the time of the factory shipment. However, the factory letter does mention the return and repair. Given it is a fairly unique barrel, I would sure think the rifle had the exact same barrel replaced at he time of the R&R. Other than being refinished, I think the rifle is authentic and very impressive given the engraving, crest and all the special order features. Actually, what spoils it for me is the refinishing.
1 Guest(s)
