Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
A fantastic rifle in nearly all respects. However, the scope and mounts are an after market alteration. Thoughts on the impact upon value?
If it is aftermarket it will likely detract slightly. It is definitely not a factory mounting style but Winchester would do almost anything for the customer back then. A letter describing the exact options would be imperative — if it’s on the letter — BINGO.
B
BOBR94 said
If it is aftermarket it will likely detract slightly. It is definitely not a factory mounting style but Winchester would do almost anything for the customer back then. A letter describing the exact options would be imperative — if it’s on the letter — BINGO.B
There is a lengthy and detailed museum letter with the rifle. Unfortunately, no mention of the scope. I think everyone accepts the scope and mounts were added later.
The bidder who fails to appreciate the very great rarity of such a scope & mounting–which have obviously been in place on this rifle since it was new, even if fitted outside the factory–would be profoundly ignorant; of course, the world is full of profoundly ignorant people. At the time this rifle was built, a Sidel scope was the best that could be had–probably cost as much as a standard ’94. Don’t quite follow what is meant in the description by “shorter mount” & extra dovetail.
clarence said
The bidder who fails to appreciate the very great rarity of such a scope & mounting–which have obviously been in place on this rifle since it was new, even if fitted outside the factory–would be profoundly ignorant; of course, the world is full of profoundly ignorant people. At the time this rifle was built, a Sidel scope was the best that could be had–probably cost as much as a standard ’94. Don’t quite follow what is meant in the description by “shorter mount” & extra dovetail.
Clarence –
I read through the language on the shorter mount and extra dovetail – couldn’t make sense of it either. I appreciate your thoughts about the historical significance of the scope. I would feel better about the scope were it mounted on a plain receiver. For me, to see extra holes drilled through a highly engraved receiver, made me wince a bit. Plus, the mount blocks the view of some of the beautiful engraving – which makes me wince a bit.
The barrel has an extra dovetail cut in it (for the front scope mount). Winchester did not install the telescope or cut the extra dovetail in the barrel.
In regards to the value, it is worth maybe 50% of the listed estimated value. Yes, it is a very special (and beautiful) Model 1894 Fancy Sporting Rifle, and the Telescope is definitely a period addition, but it hurts the overall value of that rifle in my opinion. It also prevents use of the Take Down feature.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I agree with what Clarence stated, and the “shorter mount” caught my attention, too.
I think the confusion here might be that the appraiser believes the scope as pictured is one of Sidle’s Snap Shot hunting models, since he states that Sidle marketed his scopes as such. However, according to the company’s Catalog No. 4, none of the Snap Shot’s were 18 & 1/2 inches in length. A length that does fit within the specifications of his target scopes. With this in mind, the scope and mounts as pictured and defined as Cataract mounts, (obviously target type), is possibly a target scope model with special order target front and rear mounts…perhaps, in a power that might be used with both hunting and target shooting.
Added: Forgot to make note about the “shorter mount”: I’m thinking it is likely a No. 22 Snap Shot Mount used for hunting.
James
Bert might well be right about Winchester not doing the dovetail work, and he might well be right about the rifle being worth about half the estimated price. We will not know one way or the other until the sale becomes final.
Also, Sidle did take orders for Winchesters and he did not charge a fee to mount any of his scopes other than the $10 Mount.
James
jwm94 said
With this in mind, the scope and mounts as pictured and defined as Cataract mounts, (obviously target type), is possibly a target scope model with special order target front and rear mounts…perhaps, in a power that might be used with both hunting and target shooting.
The Cataract front mount is the wild card in this extravagant package, and evidence that the scope as now mounted wouldn’t have left Sidel’s shop that way; but maybe it did with the other mount not shown. Cataract was only in business a couple of yrs around 1900, went bankrupt & was purchased by Stevens.
It’s fascinating that the original buyer, who clearly wanted the best, went to the trouble of having one scope, or possibly two, mounted, then, judging by the pristine appearance of both scope & rifle, used it very little. Possibly, like many of the super fancy guns made by Griffin & Howe & other carriage-trade gunmakers, its primary purpose was to impress visitors to the owner’s gun room; I wish I could have been one of them!.
The extra dovetail didn’t have to be cut. Here is a picture where the original dovetail is used.
Beautiful gun but for My money(and a lot of it), I’d be very hesitant in investing as I think it would be difficult to move, at least it sure cuts out a number of buyers(the purists) at that kind of money. Just sayin’
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
Chuck said
The extra dovetail didn’t have to be cut.
No, but if the idea was to have the iron sights immediately available if the scope became fogged, or otherwise disabled, cutting the extra slot was unavoidable.
clarence said
The Cataract front mount is the wild card in this extravagant package, and evidence that the scope as now mounted wouldn’t have left Sidel’s shop that way; but maybe it did with the other mount not shown. Cataract was only in business a couple of yrs around 1900, went bankrupt & was purchased by Stevens.
It’s fascinating that the original buyer, who clearly wanted the best, went to the trouble of having one scope, or possibly two, mounted, then, judging by the pristine appearance of both scope & rifle, used it very little. Possibly, like many of the super fancy guns made by Griffin & Howe & other carriage-trade gunmakers, its primary purpose was to impress visitors to the owner’s gun room; I wish I could have been one of them!.
Clarence, both front and rear mount look like the Cataract mounts (circa 1899-1901) as pictured on pg. 57 of Strobel’s first book. This is why they appear to have been special order mounts, to me. And, the rear mount base is marked “20” on the inside. Sidle also designated a No. 20 rear base for sliding scopes.
It certainly is a very strange rifle with a like sighting possibilities.
James
jwm94 said
Clarence, both front and rear mount look like the Cataract mounts (circa 1899-1901) as pictured on pg. 57 of Strobel’s first book. This is why they appear to have been special order mounts, to me. And, the rear mount base is marked “20” on the inside. Sidle also designated a No. 20 rear base for sliding scopes.
What’s odd about the combination of a Sidel scope with Cataract mounts is that Sidel had been making side-mounts long before Cataract, & continued doing so long after Cataract was defunct. It’s possible that the Cataract mounts possessed some superiority over Sidel’s that isn’t obvious from photos, but it would probably require a side-by-side comparison between the two in order to ascertain such a difference, if it exists. Since both mounts are very damned rare, such a comparison would not be easy to arrange!
clarence said
jwm94 said
Clarence, both front and rear mount look like the Cataract mounts (circa 1899-1901) as pictured on pg. 57 of Strobel’s first book. This is why they appear to have been special order mounts, to me. And, the rear mount base is marked “20” on the inside. Sidle also designated a No. 20 rear base for sliding scopes.
What’s odd about the combination of a Sidel scope with Cataract mounts is that Sidel had been making side-mounts long before Cataract, & continued doing so long after Cataract was defunct. It’s possible that the Cataract mounts possessed some superiority over Sidel’s that isn’t obvious from photos, but it would probably require a side-by-side comparison between the two in order to ascertain such a difference, if it exists. Since both mounts are very damned rare, such a comparison would not be easy to arrange!
Good information, and the comment about superiority makes good sense, too. My thinking is that the Cataract mounts are strictly target scope mounts, whereas the Sidle Snap Shot scopes are strictly hunting scopes, and none of them fit an 18 & 1/2 inch scope length. With this in mind, the 18 & 1/2 inch scope as pictured in the Cataract mounts in the auction, is most likely a Sidle target scope, and not a Snap Shot hunting scope (made for hunting purposes) as the auction appraiser seems to think it is.
jwm94 said
Bert might well be right about Winchester not doing the dovetail work, and he might well be right about the rifle being worth about half the estimated price. We will not know one way or the other until the sale becomes final.Also, Sidle did take orders for Winchesters and he did not charge a fee to mount any of his scopes other than the $10 Mount.
James
James – I think even when the hammer falls we will not necessarily know the impact on the value. I say that because if it sells high, we still won’t know how much higher it might have gone without the mounts. I suppose if it sells very low, we will have a clue 😉
Not the expert any of the replies here represent, nor pretending to be. But for me, every time I looked at such a rifle in my possession, I’d be conjuring the post factory alteration and what the rifle might have been without it! I’m generally not happy with a rifle which requires something of a ‘concessional qualification’ as part of displaying it.
Yet too, the admission, all academic for me! Such piece far beyond my budget in any case. At least no ‘envy’ here!
Just my amateur take!
John
iskra said
Not the expert any of the replies here represent, nor pretending to be. But for me, every time I looked at such a rifle in my possession, I’d be conjuring the post factory alteration and what the rifle might have been without it! I’m generally not happy with a rifle which requires something of a ‘concessional qualification’ as part of displaying it.
Yet too, the admission, all academic for me! Such piece far beyond my budget in any case. At least no ‘envy’ here!
Just my amateur take!
John
Same here.
iskra said
I’m generally not happy with a rifle which requires something of a ‘concessional qualification’ as part of displaying it.
I’d be VERY happy pointing out that this superb rifle was commissioned by someone who not only took outstanding care of his property, but was intelligent enough to take advantage of the latest improvement to accurate shooting–a high-quality scope.
clarence said
iskra said
I’m generally not happy with a rifle which requires something of a ‘concessional qualification’ as part of displaying it.
I’d be VERY happy pointing out that this superb rifle was commissioned by someone who not only took outstanding care of his property, but was intelligent enough to take advantage of the latest improvement to accurate shooting–a high-quality scope.
I get that, and if the total cost were significantly, with emphasis on significantly, less than the low end estimate of $85,000, then I wouldn’t mind explaining as such.
But, when you get up to that range, you CANNOT be making “excuses” unless a poor return is inconsequential.
1 Guest(s)
