Log In
May 24, 2012
Offline
I would not mind bidding on the rifle…but my hatred for activists and their kind has kept me from doing so thus far.
James
January 26, 2011
Offline
Just realized there are three items missing in the letter. The matting, the shotgun butt, and the engraved note does not specify “1897” with the name.
~Gary~
May 24, 2012
Offline
pdog72 said
Just realized there are three items missing in the letter. The matting, the shotgun butt, and the engraved note does not specify “1897” with the name.
Good notes, and the 1897 is right after she graduated from college (1896?) and likely about the time she married…I’d have to check to make sure. So, could have been a gift for one or the other or both. Still, it does seem possible that she did not appreciate it at all…given her activism, thus the disappearance of her name.
James
November 1, 2013
Offline
jwm94 said
Good notes, and the 1897 is right after she graduated from college (1896?) and likely about the time she married…I’d have to check to make sure. So, could have been a gift for one or the other or both. Still, it does seem possible that she did not appreciate it at all…given her activism, thus the disappearance of her name.
James
James, I think it would be a mistake to mix-up left-wing activists of today with those of her time. Jack London was a lifelong Socialist activist, but also owned & used guns. Hemingway, so famous for his passion for hunting (but today, infamous for it among liberals!), was openly left-wing & supported Communist causes in places like Spain during their civil war. Today’s connection of liberalism with gun-hatred didn’t exist at that time.
This woman traveled into remote places of the world for her anthropology research, so there’s no reason I see to assume she had no use for such a rifle. And if someone gave it to her as an expensive gift, surely they’d have known her well enough to believe she’d appreciate it.
May 24, 2012
Offline
clarence said
jwm94 said
Good notes, and the 1897 is right after she graduated from college (1896?) and likely about the time she married…I’d have to check to make sure. So, could have been a gift for one or the other or both. Still, it does seem possible that she did not appreciate it at all…given her activism, thus the disappearance of her name.
James
James, I think it would be a mistake to mix-up left-wing activists of today with those of her time. Jack London was a lifelong Socialist activist, but also owned & used guns. Hemingway, so famous for his passion for hunting (but today, infamous for it among liberals!), was openly left-wing & supported Communist causes in places like Spain during their civil war. Today’s connection of liberalism with gun-hatred didn’t exist at that time.
This woman traveled into remote places of the world for her anthropology research, so there’s no reason I see to assume she had no use for such a rifle. And if someone gave it to her as an expensive gift, surely they’d have known her well enough to believe she’d appreciate it.
You make some excellent points, especially where guns are concerned. That said, the removal of the name for the reason mentioned would still have a bit of merit…assuming the rifle actually did belong to the liberal activist Elsie (W.) Clews, b. 1874/5, who married Herbert T. Parsons abt. 1900 is correct…something that I do not see discussed to this point in time.
James
November 19, 2006
Offline
I saw the label, “pacifist” applied to her. Given how her time was a very different time, there’s not reason to automatically assume she was against hunting or taking of animals with a rifle. The world was certainly not saturated with vegetarians and vegans as we seem to be now.
October 29, 2019
Offline
The ‘1897’ date sticks out way too much to me to be something Winchester did. It isn’t fitting to the rest of the rifle. I’d still take it out hunting if it was cheap enough. I’d also make the bp fit a whole lot better.
Shoot low boys. They're riding Shetland Ponies.
May 24, 2012
Offline
steve004 said
I saw the label, “pacifist” applied to her. Given how her time was a very different time, there’s not reason to automatically assume she was against hunting or taking of animals with a rifle. The world was certainly not saturated with vegetarians and vegans as we seem to be now.
Very true, but liberal activism has been with us in a very big way ever since the Salem Witch Hunts.
James
October 29, 2019
Offline
I wonder if her and the husband split up and he kept the rifle and removed her name.
Shoot low boys. They're riding Shetland Ponies.
November 1, 2013
Offline
steve004 said
I saw the label, “pacifist” applied to her. Given how her time was a very different time, there’s not reason to automatically assume she was against hunting or taking of animals with a rifle. The world was certainly not saturated with vegetarians and vegans as we seem to be now.
I’d have been a pacifist in 1917. In fact, most of the country was pacifist at least in wanting this country to keep the hell out of a European war that had nothing to do with US interests. Wilson (after winning re-election with the lying slogan “he kept us out of war”) went to war to protect the billions in US war loans made to Britain & France, which would have been money lost if Germany won.
May 24, 2012
Offline
Indeed. Consider the people of Elsie’s generation being the children of Lincoln’s War…and their grandparents having been the children of those who fought the Revolutionary War. With many from all three of these generations still sitting at the supper table together everyday. Just imagine for a minute, what their conversations must have been like where war or activism either one was concerned.
James
April 1, 2005
Offline
pdog72 said
Just realized there are three items missing in the letter. The matting, the shotgun butt, and the engraved note does not specify “1897” with the name.
There are several things I do not like about this gun including those noted by Gary. Paramount is the barrel matting – matted barrels were a big deal and rarely done by Winchester on any model. Of the first 353,999 model 1894’s, only 200 rifles had matted barrels (this is from information previously provided by Bert Hartman). I do not buy “they forgot to put it in the ledger notes” or “there was not room in the ledger to note the barrel matting”. Look at the attached letter for one my matted barrel guns. This gun has many more noted features than most and there was still room in the ledger for all of them, including the barrel matting.If this 94 barrel was matted by Winchester I really believe it would have been noted in the records. Now, someone noted the RR – is there a possibility the gun could have been returned to Winchester to have the matting done – sure, this is possible and until you have it in your lap with good light, a good magnifying glass and examples you know are correct, you cannot absolutely make a determination. However, with what we know right now, I would never buy this gun thinking I was getting a matted barrel Winchester. About 40 years an old time collector told me to never buy a gun you would constantly have to make excuses for – I think that is good advice.
November 19, 2006
Offline
Burt Humphrey said
There are several things I do not like about this gun including those noted by Gary. Paramount is the barrel matting – matted barrels were a big deal and rarely done by Winchester on any model. Of the first 353,999 model 1894’s, only 200 rifles had matted barrels (this is from information previously provided by Bert Hartman). I do not buy “they forgot to put it in the ledger notes” or “there was not room in the ledger to note the barrel matting”. Look at the attached letter for one my matted barrel guns. This gun has many more noted features than most and there was still room in the ledger for all of them, including the barrel matting.If this 94 barrel was matted by Winchester I really believe it would have been noted in the records. Now, someone noted the RR – is there a possibility the gun could have been returned to Winchester to have the matting done – sure, this is possible and until you have it in your lap with good light, a good magnifying glass and examples you know are correct, you cannot absolutely make a determination. However, with what we know right now, I would never buy this gun thinking I was getting a matted barrel Winchester. About 40 years an old time collector told me to never buy a gun you would constantly have to make excuses for – I think that is good advice.
Burt – I think that is the most impressive museum letter I have ever seen. And that M1886 – what a spectacular rifle. That rifle is a collection in itself.
April 1, 2005
Offline
Steve – here is a little better photo of the 86 – and a copy of the ledger entry so you can see how much information they could cram in – yes, it would have been very easy to have left something out.
November 19, 2006
Offline
Burt Humphrey said
Steve – here is a little better photo of the 86 – and a copy of the ledger entry so you can see how much information they could cram in – yes, it would have been very easy to have left something out.
Wow – that is one beautiful rifle. It leaves me drooling. Just magnificent. And the ledger entry is of great interest. It makes me think how much I would have enjoyed working at the Winchester plant at the time this rifle was manufactured. In fact, given I’ve always had a keen eye for detail, I think I would have enjoyed recording the rifles in the ledgers. True, many entries would just be notations of standard rifles, but every time a special order rifle came along, that would surely break the monotony of the day! Burt – thanks again for posting – wonderful photos to wake up to and start the day.
November 7, 2015
Offline
Looks like 109588 was part of that order, Burt. You don’t have it lying about somewhere do you?
Mike
May 24, 2012
Offline
TXGunNut said
Looks like 109588 was part of that order, Burt. You don’t have it lying about somewhere do you?
Mike
April 1, 2005
Offline
jwm94 said
Mike – if you look at the ledger entries very carefully, you will see serial numbers 109588, 109591 (my gun) and 109592 were configured exactly the same and all shipped from the warehouse on July 13, 1896 with 2 others arms (3 total) to order number 13752. In the ledger entry there is not even anything written for serial number 109592, just a bunch of ditto marks across the entry columns indicating everything was exactly the same as for 109591 (my gun). So, these 3 guns were all the same and shipped to the same order number on the same day. I know John Madl is surveying the Model 1886 so some day I need to contact him and see if he has any information on these other 2 guns.
May 24, 2012
Offline
I’ve enjoyed your posts and the pictures of your magnificent Winchester, Burt. Thanks for both!
James
November 19, 2006
Offline
Burt Humphrey said
Mike – if you look at the ledger entries very carefully, you will see serial numbers 109588, 109591 (my gun) and 109592 were configured exactly the same and all shipped from the warehouse on July 13, 1896 with 2 others arms (3 total) to order number 13752. In the ledger entry there is not even anything written for serial number 109592, just a bunch of ditto marks across the entry columns indicating everything was exactly the same as for 109591 (my gun). So, these 3 guns were all the same and shipped to the same order number on the same day. I know John Madl is surveying the Model 1886 so some day I need to contact him and see if he has any information on these other 2 guns.
When I first looked at the ledger entry you posted, I noticed the ditto marks. My impression was there were three rifles all the same and then I dismissed the idea. “That just can’t be” I said to myself – that there would be three of those very special rifles – all ordered the same. But, now I find out it’s true. Just amazing.
