Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
The polishing room records are the dates the serial number was applied to the receiver. Every day at the end of the day they recorded the last serial number applied in a note book as far as I understand it. Here is a picture of one page.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
I believe that this subject has become an emotional bugaboo, rather than cause for an intellectual discourse. Would anyone really care about the subject if the Polishing Room records indicated that all the guns in the ambivalent range were older rather than newer? I expect not.
It seems that to some the Polishing Room records are dogma. To others, these records appear as an attack on Madis. All great pioneers are subject to errors because they have entered uncharted regions. Was Columbus’ discovery any lesser because he thought he had found a new route to the East Indies and named the natives Indians?
Until, and IF, the BATF publishes some specific rule on what serial numbers to use on old Winchesters, human nature will prevail and people will use the numbers that suit THEM. With regard to the auction that started this thread, I sent an inquiry to the seller about the conflicting dates of manufacture for his listing and got the following reply:
“Hello, I have added an attachment from the Blue Book of Gun Values, where its shows this serial number falling into the antique range. “The Winchester Book” written by George Madis and a web site “oldguns.net” gives the same information. I have used this as reference for years and have never had any trouble shipping. I have owned hundreds of 94’s and have never had this questioned, I have seen many 1894 serial numbers in this range listed as antique on other sites and by dealers at shows. Hope this helps and thank you for your interest.”
The seller’s attachment shows the Madis numbers and that his listing was made in 1897, but at the very end one sees the Polishing Room records are available. He chooses to use the Madis serial numbers. The link he provides to oldguns.net links directly to THIS site and the inquiry for WHEN WAS YOUR WINCHESTER MADE?, which clearly uses the Polishing Room numbers.
Obviously, the seller is using the numbers that are most convenient for him. To his credit, though, he did reply to me that he would ship the Winchester to my FFL dealer, if I preferred that, and stated “yes I will definitely ship to your FFL, not a problem. Better safe than sorry. Thanks”
Why “Better safe than sorry.”
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Jampard said
Isn’t the definition of the term “manufactured” one of the key things here in this discussion?
I have read that in the past, a firearm was defined as being manufactured when the serial number was stamped on the receiver even though the firearm may not have been assembled at that time. Of course, if this were true, then that date would have had to been recorded.
If this is the case, then a serial number stamped receiver could have been laying around for some time period before it was used to assemble a firearm.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the polishing room records indicate when a firearm was actually assembled and sold or put in a warehouse.
Of course, we’re talking about Winchesters here, but there is another whole issue about firearms that did not have serial numbers stamped on them since this was not a requirement until later years.
Just my two cents worth.
The Polishing Room records indicate the exact date that the serial numer was applied to the receiver, and nothing else. The PRR date usually precedes the received in warehouse date by 2-3 weeks.
In regards to the Winchester firearms (models) that did not have a serial number marked on them, all of them were manufactured post-1899 (starting with the Model 1900). All Models that began production prior to Janaury 1st, 1899 were serialized.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
In response to this statement;
Until, and IF, the BATF publishes some specific rule on what serial numbers to use on old Winchesters, human nature will prevail and people will use the numbers that suit THEM.
The BATF is very unlikely to ever publish a specific set of rules for Winchester serial numbers. Again, they as an organization do not make the rules… the Federal Codes does that. The BATF is responsible for ensuring that the Code (laws) are adhered to and not violated. If you (or anyone else) violates the Code, the BATF has the authority to arrest you, and have your rights permanently revoked. For the people who intentionally disregard the law because it “suits them”… I will harbor no sympathy.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I’ve always looked at the polishing room records v. Madis issue as an idiotic solution in search of a problem; from this collector’s standpoint–pretty dumb. For years Madis’s numbers were considered the standard, by the Government (BATF) and the collector. Insistence on using the PR numbers, instead of using the long established DOM numbers that Madis published 40+ years ago, now put hundreds, if not thousands of old collectable guns under the government’s purview.
Is this seriously what any collector really wants? More old collectable Winchesters under the Governments control? Why?
The 1898 date was strictly arbitrary; can anyone here tell me the difference between an 1873, 1886, 1892 or 1894 made in 1897 vs. 1905? Besides a silly little number that wasn’t even mandated until 1968, there is no difference. But, now there is, which only negatively impacts the individual collector and the collecting community as a whole.
The general consensus among the collecting community is that by insisting on using the PR numbers vs. the long established Madis numbers only adds confusion among the collecting community, negatively impacts collectors by placing thousands of what were once antique firearms into the modern gun category, and only benefits a very few, for mostly very selfish reasons.
Respectfully
Mike
Very well though-out post, Mike. It mirrors my views rather closely. I’ve always wondered what makes an 1892 Winchester carbine more lethal when manufactured in 1899 as opposed to one made in 1898? That, of course, isn’t the point. Why voluntarily give government pencil pushers additional control over a marginal, at best, issue (Madis vs PRR)?
As to the 1898 cut-off date for what is or isn’t a firearm, I have heard that it had to to with the introduction of self-loading pistols, which started appearing in the late 1890’s, rather than simply being an arbitrary date of 1898.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Bert H. said
In response to this statement;
Until, and IF, the BATF publishes some specific rule on what serial numbers to use on old Winchesters, human nature will prevail and people will use the numbers that suit THEM.
The BATF is very unlikely to ever publish a specific set of rules for Winchester serial numbers. Again, they as an organization do not make the rules… the Federal Codes does that. The BATF is responsible for ensuring that the Code (laws) are adhered to and not violated. If you (or anyone else) violates the Code, the BATF has the authority to arrest you, and have your rights permanently revoked. For the people who intentionally disregard the law because it “suits them”… I will harbor no sympathy.
Bert
Keep in mind, the Code of Federal Regulations are written by the enforcement agencies, not an elected Congress. As example Congress does not write the tax code, but empowers the Treasury Department (Title 26 of the CFR) to write it, the same goes for airline regulations (Title 14 of the CFR) and of course our current topic (Title 27 of the CFR), Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. So when stating that the BATF only enforces the rules, you are only half right, The BATF is in charge of enforcing the rules that they were responsible for writing.
Now, the Gun Control Act of 1968, primarily focused on who was prohibited from owning a firearm, and how firearms were to be sold/transfer interstate (thru a federally licensed dealer (FFL Holder)).
The exception to the FFL requirement was that if the firearm was a curio or relic. But, Congress left the determination of what was/is a curio and or relic up to the enforcement agency (BATF), and the Treasury Department (BATF parent agency) was the responsible agency to write it and add it into the Code of Federal Regulations.
Remember the CFR is not written or voted on by Congress, it’s the unelected enforcement agency’s interpretation of Congress’s intent.
So, the bottom line is that the BATF makes the rules.
Pre-1898 Winchesters bring a premium only because of an arbitrary rule of a Federal enforcement agency, there is no other reason.
Currently we have a few individuals within the Winchester collecting fraternity who have decided on their own to make it their personal crusade to change the rules (40+ years of established and understood DOMs provided by G. Madis). This seemingly self-serving crusade will not only have a significantly negative impact on collectable Winchesters, but also potentially costing some members a good chunk of money.
As a member of the Winchester collecting fraternity, I see no upside by having the BATF to recognize the new DOMs. Does anyone else?
In my view, all this does is place more restrictions on an already overly restricted business/hobby.
It would have been nice if they had discussed this with the collecting community to get a collective opinion, before taking it upon themselves to right a perceived wrong.
Just some of my personal thoughts, I’m only one little cog in the wheel.
Respectfully
Mike Hunter
podufa said
It’s just one person saying Madis was wrong but I’m not.
I quite obviously very strongly disagree with you, and I can positively state that it is not “just one person” who knows that George Madis did not get it right. If you truly believe that I am the only person, you have your head buried really deep in a sand hole. Furthermore, it is not accurate to state “saying Madis was wrong”. The existing historical records have positively proved that his published information was not the “fact” or accurate. Fortunately for those of us that want to see the correct (accurate) information, the research office at Cody Museum provides it to us on all of the factory letters and research sheets that they produce.
In regards to this statement;
Mike Hunter said
Insistence on using the PR numbers, instead of using the long established DOM numbers that Madis published 40+ years ago, now put hundreds, if not thousands of old collectable guns under the government’s purview.
In response to the first statement above, Yes, it definitely does reduce the total number of “Antique” Winchesters by a substantial number… 123,109 to be precise. In answer to your questions;
Is this seriously what any collector really wants?
More than likely not, I am sure that all of us would prefer to have all collectable Winchesters listed as “antique”, but unfortunately that is not the case.
More old collectable Winchesters under the Governments control?
Yes, it does place a lot more old Winchesters under more stringent government control, but again, that is current law.
Why?
In answer to Why?… because it is quite simply the written law. I have a question for several of you… Why is it so hard to understand that? Do some of you actually advocate illegal behavior… seriously?
In regards to what is and is not “antique”, for five different Winchester Models, there is a positive gain in the total number of serial numbers that are actually “antique”. My bet is that everyone single one of you would fight like mad to have a gun that George Madis listed as modern, but is actually antique, recognized as such. In that regard, I just put together this chart to help quantify this discussion. Take note of the fact that for the Model 1897, there are 29,664 more guns that are actually antique than what George had published. Is this information also bad?
| Model | PRR | Madis | Delta |
| 1873 | 525750 | 525922 | (172) |
| 1876 | 63911 | 63871 | 40 |
| Hotchkiss | 84551 | 84584 | (33) |
| 1885 | 82381 | 84700 | (2,319) |
| 1886 | 118646 | 119192 | (546) |
| 1887 | 64842 | 63953 | 889 |
| 1890 | 64748 | 64520 | 228 |
| 1892 | 103328 | 165431 | (62,103) |
| 1894 | 53941 | 147684 | (93,743) |
| 1895 | 19567 | 19871 | (304) |
| 1897 | 63867 | 34203 | 29,664 |
| Lee Navy | 13679 & 15000 – 20000 | 13389 | 5,290 |
| Total | (123,109) |
My final comment to those of you who disagree with using the correct serial numbers is this… blatantly disregarding established federal law (whether you agree with it or not), and intentionally choosing to use an outdated and proven inaccurate list of serial numbers, is both foolhardy and dishonest. If that is what you choose to do, you are not portraying Winchester collectors in a positive manner.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Mike Hunter said
Currently we have a few individuals within the Winchester collecting fraternity who have decided on their own to make it their personal crusade to change the rules (40+ years of established and understood DOMs provided by G. Madis). This seemingly self-serving crusade will not only have a significantly negative impact on collectable Winchesters, but also potentially costing some members a good chunk of money.
If that is what you really believe, then you are sadly mistaken. I (and others) are not trying to change any “rules”. Instead, we choose to adhere to the written rules (law) based on what is verifiable factual information.
In regards to the comment “self-serving crusade”… really?? What do think that I (or anyone else) has to gain by choosing to stay on the right side of the law? I will answer that question for you… I (and others) are not putting ourselves in the untenable position of facing arrest, fines, imprisonment, and permanent loss of our rights to own and bear arms. Those of you who choose to violate the law are playing a form of Russian Roulette. Think about it real hard… do any of you want a criminal record for the sake of improperly classifying and selling an old Winchester?
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Burt, a while back, you stated that you had the PR records for some models, which ones?
Mike Hunter said
Burt, a while back, you stated that you had the PR records for some models, which ones?
The Model 1885, and Model 1894. For most of the other models, I have the month and year ending serial numbers. I sat in the records office, looked at the records, and recorded the information.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Hi
I agree complety with Mike Hunter. As the saying goes, let a sleeping dog lie.
Walter
wallyb said
Hi
I agree complety with Mike Hunter. As the saying goes, let a sleeping dog lie.
Walter
So, if I read you correctly, you are one of the collectors that advocate the illegal sales and transfers of firearms?
Here is a pearl of wisdom for you to consider… Just because the dog is sleeping now, that does not mean that we won’t wake up and bite you right is the posterior !
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
wallyb said
Bert
Why open a can of worms?
Walter
I personally do not believe that it is a “can of worms”. The entire situation is very simple to grasp and understand. George Madis published information that has been proven to not be accurate, and the federal code (law) makes it illegal to transfer the 123,109 old Winchesters that were mistakenly believed to be antique.
Why is it so very difficult for some of you to accept that fact? Quite frankly, there is no valid excuse for purposely, willfully, or intentionally violating this.
Now, what I do appreciate from everyone who has been involved in this topic discussion thus far, is that fact that it has remained a spirited but friendly debate. We are all entitled to our own opinions, and to speak our minds, and you have been gentlemen in doing that.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Mike Hunter said
Burt, a while back, you stated that you had the PR records for some models, which ones?
The Model 1885, and Model 1894. For most of the other models, I have the month and year ending serial numbers. I sat in the records office, looked at the records, and recorded the information.
Bert
So you have all the PR records for the 85 & 94s?
How the heck did you manage that?
Mike Hunter said
Bert H. said
Mike Hunter said
Burt, a while back, you stated that you had the PR records for some models, which ones?
The Model 1885, and Model 1894. For most of the other models, I have the month and year ending serial numbers. I sat in the records office, looked at the records, and recorded the information.
Bert
So you have all the PR records for the 85 & 94s?
How the heck did you manage that?
No, I do not have all of the PR records for the Model 1885 or the Model 1894/94. Pauline Muerrle has some of them. I have what the CFM has. Again, for the Model 1894, I sat in the records office and recorded the information. Dave K. allowed me to view and record the Model 1885 records. Why are you asking about this in regards to this topic?
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Call me an outlaw but I agree with you Mike. Ive expressed some of the same sentiments in prior posts.
And to put this in a more accurate light, the graphic above shows a loss of 159,220 (according to the graphic) firearms from the antique side of the ledger. As for any gains on the antique side of things may I offer my congratulations to the collectors out there for which it is beneficial.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
1 Guest(s)
