TR said
 I think I understand the upgraded 1 of 1000 idea and it may appeal to someone that wants a clone. But I don’t understand the 1 of 1000 RIA has for sale lot 3017. It was in Gun Report in November 1980 and Wilson’s book in 1983. The serial number is for a 1 of 100 and was applied after the Universal search because they thought it was that serial number. Maybe not, since then a 1 of 100 with the same serial number sold at auction for 373k. Do you think RIA gets the estimate of 75-120k for the same serial number as is on the other gun? 

Who knows where they get that estimate? Doesn’t make sense to me on value either.

So with that gun in the 1950s they took a stab at it from the dark when guessing what the original serial number was supposed to be and guessed wrongly. The lower tang is a replacement, along with the buttstock which has later style checkering. Which that makes sense likely the original buttstock and lower tang were broken when it was dropped, rolled over onto to by a horse or other plausible explanation. What doesn’t make sense is the front half of the barrel. Looks to me like its been turned on a lathe and then possibly had the barrel reamed out to a smoothbore. Notice that there is no bluing on the front half of the barrel. Never seen any other 1of1000 that didn’t have decorative scrolls at the muzzle end, which likely were cut off when turned on the lathe. Why originally would anyone want a smoothbore, especially in what is supposed to be a highly accurate 1of1000 barrel? I suppose it is plausible but it seems like a stretch. That said I’d take the word of Madis over that of Wilson, but it would be nice for them to include the Madis letter in listing.

Seems like a lot of money for a troubled gun, that they don’t know for certain what the actual serial number was. 

Sincerely,

Maverick