Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
As always, caveat emptor, but this Winchester 1892, being presented as “near new” may not be the condition represented: https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/_C__NEAR_NEW_WINCHESTER_MODEL_1892__44_40_LEVER_AC-LOT475820.aspx
1) I believe the colouration of the bluing is slightly off, a fairly good job, but not quite right, but this could be my screen resolution.
2) Lack of bluing amongst various screw heads in the receiver is of concern, especially when the receiver is nearly mint, in an era when flaking prevailed, so there is no real explanation as to how the receiver remained so pristine when the screw heads did not.
3) I realize the saddle ring is wrapped in leather, but after 91 years, I would expect to see more wear where the saddle ring comes in contact with the receiver.
4) The proof mark in the receiver lacks bluing. Why?
5) Many markings appear slightly weak, but there are breaks on lettering in the dies I am unaware of. Are the following known breaks in the dies from this era: The “R” in REPEATING; The “A” in TRADE MARK on the tang. The patented WINCHESTER logo from that era on the barrel appears weaker than I expect, which could suggest a reblue.
I could totally be wrong here, so feel free to support my findings, modify and add to them, or refute them.
MRCVS…Actually not sure that a 1928 version would still have the flaking receiver problem. Here is one on GB that is the same vintage and the receiver does not show flaking. Your example looks pretty original to me, although several pictures are a bit suspect. Just my opinion. Peter
MRCVS,
Morphy’s was at the OGCA/WACA show over the weekend, and had this carbine there. I had it in hand and it sure looked all original to me, although I did not give it a detailed inspection.
Al
Okay that’s good to know. Still, a few discrepancies are puzzling, such as screw heads in receiver lacking bluing in a nearly perfect carbine.
What would explain screw heads with lack of bluing in an otherwise fairly pristine carbine? And, even if this pristine, wouldn’t one expect at least a bit more wear on receiver at contact point of saddle ring after 91 years?
That SRC has been totally re-finished. The bluing just does not look right, it has not got that deep blue look to it that factory blue has.
The serial number and is a dead give away to the re-finish job. The proof stamps also look dodgy to me. I’d say the original receiver proof was probably buffed off or buffed too far when they stripped it for re-blue – and then they re-stamped it. The front proof appears to have blue inside the stamp which is another flag. The rear sight looks to have been touched up with blue. That front blade sight looks wrong to me too. The screws are also not in the same condition as the rest of it.
I would not go near it myself.
Caveat emptor!
Chris
A man can never have too many WINCHESTERS...
Aussie Chris said
That SRC has been totally re-finished. The bluing just does not look right, it has not got that deep blue look to it that factory blue has.The serial number and is a dead give away to the re-finish job. The proof stamps also look dodgy to me. I’d say the original receiver proof was probably buffed off or buffed too far when they stripped it for re-blue – and then they re-stamped it. The front proof appears to have blue inside the stamp which is another flag. The rear sight looks to have been touched up with blue. That front blade sight looks wrong to me too. The screws are also not in the same condition as the rest of it.
I would not go near it myself.
Caveat emptor!
Chris
You extrapolated upon what I already thought. Others did not seem to agree with us.
I cant get past the darkness and dullness of the blue to look further, maybe its a product of the lighting used to take the photos. Ive got a a rifle and a carbine that are a tad bit earlier, the rifle is totally flaked (927K) and the carbine (962K) retains all its blue but you can see in the blue there are patches of brown, within the blue, where at some time in the future it will likely flake as well. Can see no blemishes like that on the receiver, or barrel for that matter, on this one. The photos of mine look worse than the gun looks in person, hard to say without holding it in hand and a sharp eye.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
Serial number is the dead giveaway. Its been restamped but you can see remnants of the old numbers and the color is not right.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
1873man said
Serial number is the dead giveaway. Its been restamped but you can see remnants of the old numbers and the color is not right.Bob
Totally agree with that.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
1873man said
Serial number is the dead giveaway. Its been restamped but you can see remnants of the old numbers and the color is not right.Bob
How is it possible for the “experts” at Morphy’s to miss something as obvious as that–when they have the gun in their hands, rather than having to judge from a photo? Furthermore, any gun of this one’s age that appears to be in such pristine condition should automatically raise their suspicions; that is, if they possessed a shred of professional integrity.
1873man said
Serial number is the dead giveaway. Its been restamped but you can see remnants of the old numbers and the color is not right.
The resolution on my computer does not enable me to see remnants of old numbers, but that wouldn’t surprise me. Compared to known examples, the serial numbers on this one look suspicious.
I gotta say this is a prime example of one of the reasons why I do not buy or sell at auction . I don’t know if this piece has been refinished or not, as I could never tell by looking at pictures, and accordingly would not offer an opinion, but now that gun is branded with a lot of doubt and suspicion by “knowledgable” collectors making it difficult to sell or trade to another collector. Unless the descrepancies in the gun are blaringly apparent I just could not offer My opinion on the originality of the piece.Just sayin .
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
I think Henry has a very good point, and we should all read and understand what he really said. We have a lot of “experts” who seem to be able to distinguish/see defects in examples presented that my computer does not show. We also need to remember that the auction house in question does a lot of advertising in our magazine which helps with the cost of things. If we the members continue with this critical critiquing via pictures enough, we will develop a reputation and also might have some blank pages in our magazine. Peter
Henry Mero said
…now that gun is branded with a lot of doubt and suspicion by “knowledgable” collectors making it difficult to sell or trade to another collector.
Oh, come on Henry–the couple dozen (if that many!) viewers of this thread are going to “make it difficult to sell or trade to another collector”? You think Morphy’s really has cause for alarm? What’s unfortunate is that many bidders will accept Morphy’s description as indisputable Holy Writ and not examine the gun themselves with appropriate care.
The truth needs to be spoken, regardless of the source of advertising. Besides, our critiques will have virtually no bearing on the final hammer price.
Anyone recall Winchester 1886 Serial No 1? Our evaluations did not hamper that one at all. Hammered at $1.265 million. More recently, a critique of a Cavalry Model with problems, on the Colt forum. Still hammered earlier this month for $402,500.
I think the gun is not as built by Winchester. I also believe that there are no totally honest Auction Houses. Sometimes it just comes down to who actually wrote the description.
Do Not Buy Guns You Haven’t Actually Picked Up. Although I just did it for the first time and lucked out. Anyone who has been collecting for over 30 years has many horror stories they can tell you. The internet caused an exponential expansion of crooks.
Dealing with a reputable “collector or dealer ” I make sure I have the ability to send the gun back after inspection, without any recourse or ill will, just as I would take one back if not as described . I don’t know what the norm is for the auction houses but I do know a good friend purchased at auction” and I won’t name names ” a bad, very expensive Colt Navy, and He was stuck with it. I’ve also heard other horror stories of returning auctioned guns. I just choose to not go there. And Clarence, there may be only a couple dozen viewers on this thread but these are the folks who are going to step up to purchase those expensive Winchesters, or at least be asked to comment on the gun,s quality and value. We see those inquiries here all the time. We do carry a lot of clout when it comes to verifying a Winchester and should be expected to give a knowledgable opinion. I don’t know how many times I’ve been asked at a gun show ” how much is My gun worth” as I’m sure We all have,I just won’t give an opinion on an unseen gun. I gotta’ wonder if there is anyone who is reading this tread on this particular gun would step up and pay the price for it as an original as described, I sure as hell wouldn’t now, not without seeing it or some kind of return agreement. I’m not trying to be uppity or anything, and a picture is a good guide, but I just couldn’t say, with certainty, from a picture that a gun is, or is not original, unless of course as said it’s blaringly apparent. Just flappin’ My gums here, I must be bored.
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
I think the way that the discussion has transpired to this point has been educational and not one sided. I see that as a big plus for this forum regardless of who might be right, wrong, or indifferent where the truth of the matter rests.
What interests me the most about Winchester bluing is that there are so many different shades of it, for so few processes used. And, when one considers the severe flaking problems that Winchester last had with this problem up to and during 1927-28 and, again, one decade later, with both times probably causing Winchester to experiment with their manufacturing process to one extent or the other, it does cause me to wonder whether or not some guns left the factory with a shade of blue that was less than their better standards.
James
1 Guest(s)
