Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
I know that this subject has been discussed several times over the years on the forum and various ideas of why a limited number of pre 1900 Winchesters were marked over the serial number have been put forth. I will admit that I am not sold that a verifiable explanation has been found yet. The most popular story is that Sears was behind it in an effort to get around some price limitations that were imposed by Winchester. They were listing the various guns in their catalogs at pretty serious discounts to the same guns and prices listed in the Winchester catalogs. The 1900 Winchester catalog price for a solid frame octagon barrel sporting rifle was $19.50 vs $12.50 at Sears!! The same gun at Montgomery Wards was $11.86!!! The WRACO is only found on the 1892, 1893, 1894, and 1897 models even though Sears clearly was selling other Winchester models (1873, 1886, 1887, 1890, and 1895) at the same discounts at the same time. In addition, Montgomery Wards was selling the same guns at similar discounts.
There has been reference made to legal action taken by Winchester against Sears in the early 1900’s. Do we have any attorneys in the mix here who could do some on line sleuthing as to what this may have been about? That may or may not support the Sears connection. I think that we all probably do not think that the “rifle sent back to Winchester and damaged serial number” explanation holds much water.
I would also like to receive any photo of the stamp on different guns so that I can build a library of information and try to find some common thread. There is a difference between some of the stippling pattern that was used prior to the WRACO stamp being applied. My email is [email protected]
Montgomery Ward 1895 Catalog
Sears 1902 Catalog
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
I have photos in my research files of at least a dozen Model 1893 & 1897 shotguns, and at least several Model 1894s. Yes, the cross-hatch or stippling pattern was different from gun to gun.
I will assemble the pictures that I have and send them you later today or tomorrow.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I’ve always liked the explanation that Sears was masking their price undercuts by buying through shill buyers and then covering up the serials to mask their trail….no evidence here though than all the stories or books I’ve seen and what makes logical sense. But I’m with you, I don’t buy the story of the factory doing it in any case.
November 7, 2015
Offline
Given the prevailing manufacturer/jobber/retailer relationships at the time the Sears theory makes the most sense but I agree there is probably more to the story. I’m thinking a marketing professor with an interest in this time period could give us some insight. It would make for an interesting case study.
Mike
The only thing that I’m currently aware of that may point to being a factory done procedure is the fact that I’ve seen some drawings that use the abbreviation W.R.A.Co. on them. Then of course also the same abbreviation being used on head stamps of shells and cartridges.
But no true link or explanation to explain said markings on receivers. Just rumors and theories abound.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
Maverick said
The only thing that I’m currently aware of that may point to being a factory done procedure is the fact that I’ve seen some drawings that use the abbreviation W.R.A.Co. on them. Then of course also the same abbreviation being used on head stamps of shells and cartridges.But no true link or explanation to explain said markings on receivers. Just rumors and theories abound.
Sincerely,
Maverick
The quality (or more precisely) the lack thereof of the “USRACO” markings is well below Winchester’s factory standards. Further, there is no plausible reason or rationale that can explain why Winchester would have purposefully defaced any of their own firearms.
The following (14) pictures are all Model 1893 Shotguns with the over-stamped serial number.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Here are three Model 1894 rifles with the serial number over-stamp.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Jeremy P said
I’ve always liked the explanation that Sears was masking their price undercuts by buying through shill buyers and then covering up the serials to mask their trail….no evidence here though than all the stories or books I’ve seen and what makes logical sense. But I’m with you, I don’t buy the story of the factory doing it in any case.
The biggest part of the “Sears Explanation” is that the mark is ONLY found on Some of the guns that Sears was selling. If you believe this theory then you have to be able to explain why they didn’t act in the same manner across all of the Winchester line. In addition, there is a simple economics problem with the scenario. Sears and Montgomery Wards were already undercutting the Winchester retail price by a hefty margin and apparently still making a profit. The 1900 Winchester catalog price for a solid frame octagon barrel sporting rifle was $19.50 vs $12.50 at Sears!! You have to ask just how much it actually cost Winchester to make the gun and what their wholesale prices were. Was Sears only making $1 or so of profit on the sale of each rifle? And Montgomery Wards making even less than that based on their catalog price? At some point the “shill buyer” would have to be buying rifle from Winchester at almost no profit to Winchester.
For me, right now, it’s just a story with little logic support and no proof. It may yet to be proven correct but I want to find that proof or explain the inconsistencies in the logic.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
I don’t know about the cost for the centerfire rifles but, in general, the production cost for the bolt action .22’s is about 1/3 of the retail price for those rifles I have surveyed. You are right, it doesn’t leave much meat on the bone for Winchester if they are selling below wholesale.
My question is why crudely stamp W.R.A.Co at all if you are already obliterating the serial number and it says Winchester on the barrel (and other places)? The W.R.A.Co does not help obfuscate the lineage and/or source of the rifle.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
While I cannot (yet) positively pin the blame on Sears & Roebuck for obliterating the serial numbers, I can postulate “why” they would have done it. Winchester had sales/shipping records that documented (by serial number) who & where the guns were originally shipped to. To aid in obfuscating the “where or to who” the guns originally shipped, it makes at least some sense why the serial numbers were altered/obliterated.
Based on the information contained in the reference book “Winchester: The Gun That Won The West” by Harold F. Williamson (first published in 1952), we know that Winchester took legal action against Sears shortly after the turn of the century, and that Winchester blacklisted them, and stopped selling them any firearms for a period of time. While Harold does not definitely state that Sears was to blame for defacing the serial numbers, he does insinuate it.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
While I cannot (yet) positively pin the blame on Sears & Roebuck for obliterating the serial numbers, I can postulate “why” they would have done it. Winchester had sales/shipping records that documented (by serial number) who & where the guns were originally shipped to. To aid in obfuscating the “where or to who” the guns originally shipped, it makes at least some sense why the serial numbers were altered/obliterated.Based on the information contained in the reference book “Winchester: The Gun That Won The West” by Harold F. Williamson (first published in 1952), we know that Winchester took legal action against Sears shortly after the turn of the century, and that Winchester blacklisted them, and stopped selling them any firearms for a period of time. While Harold does not definitely state that Sears was to blame for defacing the serial numbers, he does insinuate it.
Bert
I just read that material as well and I believe it is the most valid theory, but JWA, your point as to why even re-mark it with anything is also valid. Maybe they still wanted to track them in some way, just without a unique identifier. <<shrugs>>
How often have you guys come across Winchester’s with the serial marked out, but they’re missing the WRACO marking?
Here is a Model 1887 receiver that we picked up that was a parts gun that has a 12GA barrel on it. But is lacking the WRACO marking.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
Good thing Winchester didn’t Just read the Sears catalog. I don’t understand why they’d hide the serial number when their retail pricing was there for the world to see.
Bert and Maverick thanks so much for the images. If anyone has images of a similarly marked rifle or shotgun please forward them to me.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
Good morning,
Bert, in an older forum thread you stated “All of the “WRACo” marked Model 1894 firearms I have seen were very early production with Type 1 upper tang markings.” Can you tell me please when this tang stamp style went out of use on the 1894’s? Is this still a good date? (For the Model 1894, the Type-1 upper tang marking was discontinued in the early 15,100 serial number range (in the year 1896).)
In addition, On the WRACO marked 1894’s can you tell how many digits were in the original serial numbers based on the width of the SN stamp and thus possible fall in the Type stamp time period? I am trying to narrow down the possible DOM of the WRACO marked 1894’s.
I anyone has a WRACO marked 1892 I would LOVE to get some pics of it. Please include the tang stamp and the barrel address stamp on the rifle.
Thanks,
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
twobit said
Good morning,Bert, in an older forum thread you stated “All of the “WRACo” marked Model 1894 firearms I have seen were very early production with Type 1 upper tang markings.” Can you tell me please when this tang stamp style went out of use on the 1894’s? Is this still a good date? (For the Model 1894, the Type-1 upper tang marking was discontinued in the early 15,100 serial number range (in the year 1896).)
In addition, On the WRACO marked 1894’s can you tell how many digits were in the original serial numbers based on the width of the SN stamp and thus possible fall in the Type stamp time period? I am trying to narrow down the possible DOM of the WRACO marked 1894’s.
I anyone has a WRACO marked 1892 I would LOVE to get some pics of it. Please include the tang stamp and the barrel address stamp on the rifle.
Thanks,
Michael
Michael,
The transition from the Type 1 to the Type 1A upper tang marking took place at or very near serial number 15170 (February 25th, 1896). It is entirely possible that a WRACO marked Model 1894 could be found with a Type 1A UT marking.
Type 1
Type 1A
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
twobit said
Good morning,
Bert, in an older forum thread you stated “All of the “WRACo” marked Model 1894 firearms I have seen were very early production with Type 1 upper tang markings.” Can you tell me please when this tang stamp style went out of use on the 1894’s? Is this still a good date? (For the Model 1894, the Type-1 upper tang marking was discontinued in the early 15,100 serial number range (in the year 1896).)
In addition, On the WRACO marked 1894’s can you tell how many digits were in the original serial numbers based on the width of the SN stamp and thus possible fall in the Type stamp time period? I am trying to narrow down the possible DOM of the WRACO marked 1894’s.
I anyone has a WRACO marked 1892 I would LOVE to get some pics of it. Please include the tang stamp and the barrel address stamp on the rifle.
Thanks,
Michael
Michael,
The transition from the Type 1 to the Type 1A upper tang marking took place at or very near serial number 15170 (February 25th, 1896). It is entirely possible that a WRACO marked Model 1894 could be found with a Type 1A UT marking.
Type 1
Type 1A
Thanks Bert. As we touched in another post regarding the inconsistency within Winchester the Type 1 was used on the 1892’s until 1900. Then a “Type 1B” with a period only on the upper line was used until during short period within early1904 when the 1A style appears before the Style 2 becomes standard.
Any chance that you have the tang stamp cross referenced to the 3 Model 1894 WRACO examples that you posted?
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
twobit said
Michael,
The transition from the Type 1 to the Type 1A upper tang marking took place at or very near serial number 15170 (February 25th, 1896). It is entirely possible that a WRACO marked Model 1894 could be found with a Type 1A UT marking.
Type 1
Type 1A
Thanks Bert. As we touched in another post regarding the inconsistency within Winchester the Type 1 was used on the 1892’s until 1900. Then a “Type 1B” with a period only on the upper line was used until during short period within early1904 when the 1A style appears before the Style 2 becomes standard.
Any chance that you have the tang stamp cross referenced to the 3 Model 1894 WRACO examples that you posted?
Michael
Unfortunately, No I did not capture that information. That stated, the first Model 1894 picture I posted strongly suggests that the serial number was 5-digits in length and began with a “3”. If that is a valid observation, that rifle would have a Type 1A UT marking, and would have been manufactured sometime in the November 1897 – March 1898 timeframe.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Michael,
The transition from the Type 1 to the Type 1A upper tang marking took place at or very near serial number 15170 (February 25th, 1896). It is entirely possible that a WRACO marked Model 1894 could be found with a Type 1A UT marking.
Type 1
Type 1A
Thanks Bert. As we touched in another post regarding the inconsistency within Winchester the Type 1 was used on the 1892’s until 1900. Then a “Type 1B” with a period only on the upper line was used until during short period within early1904 when the 1A style appears before the Style 2 becomes standard.
Any chance that you have the tang stamp cross referenced to the 3 Model 1894 WRACO examples that you posted?
Michael
Unfortunately, No I did not capture that information. That stated, the first Model 1894 picture I posted strongly suggests that the serial number was 5-digits in length and began with a “3”. If that is a valid observation, that rifle would have a Type 1A UT marking, and would have been manufactured sometime in the November 1897 – March 1898 timeframe.
Bert
Thanks again. The second and third images of yours can only have had a 4 or 5 digit SN based on the length of the WRACO stamp. Since SN 100000 or anything higher corresponds to 1900 or later then all of the examples so far are definitively pre 1900.
I have a lead on the Winchester/Sears lawsuit from a lawyer friend of mine. More info to come. Any chance that someone can send me a scan of the parts in the book written by HaroldF. Williamson – “Winchester: The Gun That Won The West” that may pertain to this subject?
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
If you do not have a copy of Harold’s fine book, I highly recommend buying a copy. At one time I had three copies of it, but I gave two of them away.
Fortunately, the price tag for a copy is still very reasonable – Winchester the Gun That Won the West: Harold F Williamson: 9780498083150: Amazon.com: Books
Bert
p.s. If needed, I can still dig through the tome to find the information you are seeing, but it is a rather large book.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
1 Guest(s)
