Log In
June 26, 2013
Offline
See photo 30–the “86” doesn’t look right, but I can’t think of a reason why someone would mess with it. It looks like a completely different font (and depth). Any thoughts? The checkering also looks way to coarse to be factory original.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=550342925
You are correct, in my opinion. The checkering was done with a chisel. They left out the 18 in 1886 when “refinished”. They rest of the upper tang markings were also butchered as well. The pictures are bad. That was probably a decent gun before “restoration”. Built to sell to the “newbee”. Gunbroker is showing us who not to buy from.
Walter
December 1, 2012
Offline
This seller is the biggest “parter-outer” of Winchesters on ePay under a different moniker. He occasionally has some good stuff there but you have to know what you are looking at. Item write-ups can often be embellished, and starting bids are pricey.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
June 26, 2013
Offline
Thanks guys. It seems these internet auction sites have become a dumping ground lately. Time to get back to basics and hit the gun shows instead.
Don
April 15, 2005
Offline
Let me point out one thing that you fellows apparently were not aware of… the upper tang marking is correct with just the 2-digit “86”. That is a very late production (after 1920) rifle, and Winchester had shortened the model designation to just 2-digits on all models beginning in the Spring of 1919. Now, it is quite obvious the “86” was poorly restamped, and way too deeply. As noted, the checkering has also been crudely redone.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
1 Guest(s)
