Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
At the risk of guffaws and embarrassment I have a question for you experts. I have been looking at a particular gun that falls with in the letterble range, but yet the ledger is blank except for the serial number application date and shipped from warehouse date. Which by the way are 2 years different. Looking for thoughts and input on this.
oldcrankyyankee said
At the risk of guffaws and embarrassment I have a question for you experts. I have been looking at a particular gun that falls with in the letterble range, but yet the ledger is blank except for the serial number application date and shipped from warehouse date. Which by the way are 2 years different. Looking for thoughts and input on this.
The 2-yr lapse isn’t remarkable at all, sometimes it was much longer. If the gun is strictly catalog standard, there’d be no reason to write anything more in the ledger.
Online
While it is not real common, blank ledger records did occur (but not because the gun in question was “standard”). In my study of the Single Shot records, I have documented 1,600+ blank ledger record entries (out of 109999 records). For the Model 1894, the survey (documented in the ARMAX) states that 2,067 blank entries were found in the 353999 ledger entries.
The truth is that there were more than likely several different reasons why some guns did not get recorded in the ledger records, but plain old “human error” was probably the most common reason. Another truth, is that just because the ledger is blank, that does not mean that the gun does not exist. In the Single Shot ledger records, there is a good sized batch of sequential serial numbers that did not get recorded (101 of them from 74459 – 74559) and over the many years of my research I have found (7) of them. For the Model 1894, the first (19) serial numbers in the records are blank… but I have documented serial numbers 3, 5, & 8 actually exist.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
To all, I hate doing this as it only encourages him–but Bert is once again correct. I have a very good condition 1886 SRC and its ledger entry is blank. Obviously it exists. I mentally toyed with the idea that some worker sneaked it out of the factory in his lunch box! Big lunches back then! Hah!
But I’ve no doubt human error plays a significant part. Tim
I have a very good condition 1886 SRC and its ledger entry is blank. Obviously it exists.tim tomlinson said
Don’t understand–if the serial has been recorded, how can there be any doubt that it exists, even if it was “borrowed” by a worker?
clarence said
I have a very good condition 1886 SRC and its ledger entry is blank. Obviously it exists.tim tomlinson said
Don’t understand–if the serial has been recorded, how can there be any doubt that it exists, even if it was “borrowed” by a worker?
Clarence,
You apparently are not fully understanding what a “Blank” record entry really is… it is a complete absence of any information in the ledger record for a given serial number. The actual serial number itself was not “written” into the ledger record… it was in a sense preprinted. I have attached a scanned copy of the Single Shot ledger page record for serial numbers beginning with 72700. Note that it is completely blank for the line that was reserved for serial number 72708. If you requested a CFM factory letter for that serial number, you would get a reply stating “Blank record”.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
You apparently are not fully understanding what a “Blank” record entry really is… it is a complete absence of any information in the ledger record for a given serial number. The actual serial number itself was not “written” into the ledger record… it was in a sense preprinted.Bert H. said
No I did not, I though it was a ser. no. in the ledger for which no further info had been recorded But then how does the gun referred to by Crankyyankee have a recorded ship date, though the ledger line was blank?
clarence said
You apparently are not fully understanding what a “Blank” record entry really is… it is a complete absence of any information in the ledger record for a given serial number. The actual serial number itself was not “written” into the ledger record… it was in a sense preprinted.Bert H. said
No I did not, I though it was a ser. no. in the ledger for which no further info had been recorded But then how does the gun referred to by Crankyyankee have a recorded ship date, though the ledger line was blank?
You need to get a copy of the Cody Letter or a new Cody Letter and/or a copy of the Ledger Page and see what it actually states.
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
clarence said
You apparently are not fully understanding what a “Blank” record entry really is… it is a complete absence of any information in the ledger record for a given serial number. The actual serial number itself was not “written” into the ledger record… it was in a sense preprinted.Bert H. said
No I did not, I though it was a ser. no. in the ledger for which no further info had been recorded But then how does the gun referred to by Crankyyankee have a recorded ship date, though the ledger line was blank?
I would think because that’s the date when the gun was shipped.
If you can’t convince them, confuse them
clarence said
You apparently are not fully understanding what a “Blank” record entry really is… it is a complete absence of any information in the ledger record for a given serial number. The actual serial number itself was not “written” into the ledger record… it was in a sense preprinted.Bert H. said
No I did not, I though it was a ser. no. in the ledger for which no further info had been recorded But then how does the gun referred to by Crankyyankee have a recorded ship date, though the ledger line was blank?
Not all “blank” entries were completely blank. In some cases, the date the gun was shipped (sold) was entered with no other information recorded.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Here is an example (Single Shot ledger record for s/n 74450 – 74475). Note that the entries for s/n 74455, 74463 and 74474 are completely blank except for the Sold date and order number.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
clarence said
I have a very good condition 1886 SRC and its ledger entry is blank. Obviously it exists.tim tomlinson said
Don’t understand–if the serial has been recorded, how can there be any doubt that it exists, even if it was “borrowed” by a worker?
Clarence,
You apparently are not fully understanding what a “Blank” record entry really is… it is a complete absence of any information in the ledger record for a given serial number. The actual serial number itself was not “written” into the ledger record… it was in a sense preprinted. I have attached a scanned copy of the Single Shot ledger page record for serial numbers beginning with 72700. Note that it is completely blank for the line that was reserved for serial number 72708. If you requested a CFM factory letter for that serial number, you would get a reply stating “Blank record”.
Bert
wow – I had never heard of an entry in the ledger which had “nothing”. I have seen the ditto marks indicating the entry was exactly like the previous gun. I have searched for Model 1886, serial number 109592 for a long time as I own the previous serial number which was configured exactually the same, shipped the same day to the same order number and returned/repaired two different times on the same date. Actually, serial number 109587, 4 serial numbers prior, was also exactly the same. So, 3 identical deluxe 86’s with lots of special order features, all 3 exactly the same, shipped the same day to the same order number and then all 3 returned and repaired on two separate ocassions and on the exact same dates. I really believe some collector(s) have those other two guns tucked away – sure would be nice to find one or both. They ony made 206 86’s (all calibers) with a matted barrel so it is not like I need to look at thousands of guns. So, if you see a matted barrel 86, please look at the serial number and if it is 109587 or 109591, please let me know.
So, 3 identical deluxe 86’s with lots of special order features, all 3 exactly the same, shipped the same day to the same order number and then all 3 returned and repaired on two separate ocassions and on the exact same dates.Burt Humphrey said
This is the most amazing part of the story–that the original buyer was so displeased with “something” that he sent all three back, not once but twice–at no small cost or trouble. I’ve heard of being “particular,” but doing this takes it to an extreme!
Burt Humphrey said
Bert H. said
clarence said
I have a very good condition 1886 SRC and its ledger entry is blank. Obviously it exists.tim tomlinson said
Don’t understand–if the serial has been recorded, how can there be any doubt that it exists, even if it was “borrowed” by a worker?
Clarence,
You apparently are not fully understanding what a “Blank” record entry really is… it is a complete absence of any information in the ledger record for a given serial number. The actual serial number itself was not “written” into the ledger record… it was in a sense preprinted. I have attached a scanned copy of the Single Shot ledger page record for serial numbers beginning with 72700. Note that it is completely blank for the line that was reserved for serial number 72708. If you requested a CFM factory letter for that serial number, you would get a reply stating “Blank record”.
Bert
wow – I had never heard of an entry in the ledger which had “nothing”. I have seen the ditto marks indicating the entry was exactly like the previous gun. I have searched for Model 1886, serial number 109592 for a long time as I own the previous serial number which was configured exactually the same, shipped the same day to the same order number and returned/repaired two different times on the same date. Actually, serial number 109587, 4 serial numbers prior, was also exactly the same. So, 3 identical deluxe 86’s with lots of special order features, all 3 exactly the same, shipped the same day to the same order number and then all 3 returned and repaired on two separate ocassions and on the exact same dates. I really believe some collector(s) have those other two guns tucked away – sure would be nice to find one or both. They ony made 206 86’s (all calibers) with a matted barrel so it is not like I need to look at thousands of guns. So, if you see a matted barrel 86, please look at the serial number and if it is 109587 or 109591, please let me know.
Burt,
For some models, there are hundreds of similar entries in the records. As I mentioned before, there are more than 1,600 such entries in the Single Shot records, and more than 2,000 blank entries in the Model 1894 ledger records. I have found at least a dozen or more blank record entries in all of the various model ledger records for which the records are available.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
clarence said
So, 3 identical deluxe 86’s with lots of special order features, all 3 exactly the same, shipped the same day to the same order number and then all 3 returned and repaired on two separate ocassions and on the exact same dates.Burt Humphrey said
This is the most amazing part of the story–that the original buyer was so displeased with “something” that he sent all three back, not once but twice–at no small cost or trouble. I’ve heard of being “particular,” but doing this takes it to an extreme!
Clarence – I have oftened wondered if the guns were ordered by a family – maybe a father and two sons. But, we will never know. I would just like to find one or both of them so a couple times a year I just put it out there. The are a lot of non-members which read these posts and maybe someday something will turn up. I do not go to gun shows anymore so I do not have the opportunity to look for them.
clarence said
This is the most amazing part of the story–that the original buyer was so displeased with “something” that he sent all three back, not once but twice–at no small cost or trouble. I’ve heard of being “particular,” but doing this takes it to an extreme!
A lot of times, at least I would imagine or speculate, orders with multiple guns were damaged while shipping are sent back for repair.
Another reason for a lot of return & repair was for people damage the firearm while improperly performing the take down procedure on a take down firearm.
Which is still a common problem even today.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
November 7, 2015
Offline
Bert H. said
Here is an example (Single Shot ledger record for s/n 74450 – 74475). Note that the entries for s/n 74455, 74463 and 74474 are completely blank except for the Sold date and order number.
Bert
Bert-
Is it possible they shipped a bare receiver? I suppose an entry reflecting that would have been more appropriate but I can’t recall reading about any of those.
Mike
TXGunNut said
Bert H. said
Here is an example (Single Shot ledger record for s/n 74450 – 74475). Note that the entries for s/n 74455, 74463 and 74474 are completely blank except for the Sold date and order number.
Bert
Bert-
Is it possible they shipped a bare receiver? I suppose an entry reflecting that would have been more appropriate but I can’t recall reading about any of those.
Mike
No, not likely. In several cases, I have found the complete (factory original) rifle. Further, when just a bare receiver was shipped, it was noted as such in the ledger record.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Here’s an unusual situation where this rifle has a blank ledger entry, but was documented in the Winchester reference collection inventory records. It was apparently a prototype, a second model 1895 with a pistol grip stock.
My guess is that it may have gone to “Russ” over in the specialty shop for fitting the pistol grip stock and then to the reference collection when Winchester decided against offering pistol grips as an option in the second models. Thus, it likely bypassed a stop where the entries were made in the ledgers. Mark
1 Guest(s)
