Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
The “quality” of the engraving suggests to me it isn’t factory work.
Also note the poor fit of the forearm to the frame and forend cap. This tells me that the wood may have been replaced.
Conveniently, too late for a factory letter.
Comments?
I agree that it is very unlikely to be factory original engraving or stock work.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
It the same gun from Perry White’s collection that was offered up in November. It did not sell. Was listed at $25-35k. Down to $12-15k. One of the few i would have to disagree with Amoskeag about. Notice the proof on the receiver has been double struck and is full of blue. I also find the barrel proof in an odd location.
oldcrankyyankee said
It the same gun from Perry White’s collection that was offered up in November. It did not sell. Was listed at $25-35k. Down to $12-15k. One of the few i would have to disagree with Amoskeag about. Notice the proof on the receiver has been double struck and is full of blue. I also find the barrel proof in an odd location.
Yes, I too thought the barrel proof mark to be in an odd location.
I didn’t realize, or had forgotten, that this same rifle failed to sell in November.
If the preauction estimate was revised and dropped that much just between two auctions, Amoskeag must have come to the conclusion the work is not factory.
I would not want this one in my collection, no matter how low the price. I think the pre auction estimate is still too high based on what it is. What type of collector would collect this and how high would they go?
I guess it’s the same reason I avoid New York engraved revolvers. Some of the folks out there like it, however, despite the work not being factory.
Here is the November listing.
I like the tang sight and if their description of the bore is accurate, I would buy it as a shooter. I would pay a high price for a factory engraved rifle, but this one is not. Hence, why pay a factory engraved rifle price for a rifle that is not? Non-factory engraving varies greatly. We’ve all seen bubba engraved guns and I would not carry one of those in the woods. The same is true for many reblued rifles. This rifle had better treatment then Bubba buffing the hell out of it and throwing it in a hot blue tank. And as I said, I like the tang sight 
Steve I too like that sight. If was a high post it would look great on a elw deluxe I have recently acquired.
steve004 said
I like the tang sight and if their description of the bore is accurate, I would buy it as a shooter.
That’s A LOT of money for a “shooter”.
I value it less because it’s been reblued after a non factory engraving and the wood is replaced. My shooters might be a little weak in finish but it’s at least original.
The value is in the aesthetic appeal of the engraving which is subjective—plus the tang sight. I would be more interested in the tang sight individually than the rifle.
If a collector considers his guns as an investment, the return on restored or clone guns has been very low, unlike original. That coupled with the lack of interest among fellow collectors usually leads to their sale. If you buy one of these don’t consider it an investment. When the gun can not be lettered it will never be worth more than the cost of recreating it. T/R
mrcvs said
steve004 said
I like the tang sight and if their description of the bore is accurate, I would buy it as a shooter.
That’s A LOT of money for a “shooter”.
I value it less because it’s been reblued after a non factory engraving and the wood is replaced. My shooters might be a little weak in finish but it’s at least original.
The value is in the aesthetic appeal of the engraving which is subjective—plus the tang sight. I would be more interested in the tang sight individually than the rifle.
You are correct – and it would have to be available at a shooter price for me to be interested.
There is a market out there for non-factory engraved rifles – if the engraving has some quality to it. I’m referring to rifles where there is no attempt made to pass the engraving off as factory. Some guys want their gun engraved and they have it done. This does not appeal to me at all, but as I mentioned, it does to some.
steve004 said
mrcvs said
steve004 said
I like the tang sight and if their description of the bore is accurate, I would buy it as a shooter.
That’s A LOT of money for a “shooter”.
I value it less because it’s been reblued after a non factory engraving and the wood is replaced. My shooters might be a little weak in finish but it’s at least original.
The value is in the aesthetic appeal of the engraving which is subjective—plus the tang sight. I would be more interested in the tang sight individually than the rifle.
You are correct – and it would have to be available at a shooter price for me to be interested.
There is a market out there for non-factory engraved rifles – if the engraving has some quality to it. I’m referring to rifles where there is no attempt made to pass the engraving off as factory. Some guys want their gun engraved and they have it done. This does not appeal to me at all, but as I mentioned, it does to some.
Such a rifle would be described as “Custom”. When I see that word in a title or description, I don’t even waste my time looking further.
And on the topic alleged factory engraving – in this case, an inscription – I have my doubts:
steve004 said
And on the topic alleged factory engraving – in this case, an inscription – I have my doubts:
Yes, the engraving is not professional, atypical of engraving from the era, and it appears the pitting is not incorporated into the engraving in that area.
steve004 said
And on the topic alleged factory engraving – in this case, an inscription – I have my doubts:
What is there to doubt? It positively is not a “factory presentation” gun, and it definitely was not manufactured in the year 1902. A quick check of the factory ledger records (which the seller should have done) will show that it was serialized in mid October 1904, and that it was not factory inscribed.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
steve004 said
And on the topic alleged factory engraving – in this case, an inscription – I have my doubts:
What is there to doubt? It positively is not a “factory presentation” gun, and it definitely was not manufactured in the year 1902. A quick check of the factory ledger records (which the seller should have done) will show that it was serialized in mid October 1904, and that it was not factory inscribed.
Bert – my doubts were very strong 
1 Guest(s)
