Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
Steve: I agree with you to some extent. For example, I believe that the appraiser and Bert have a fairly good handle on what the value of the rifle is, based on their knowledge and the situation as it exists now as they see it, which is to say that Bert has likely taken into consideration the appraised-price range to arrive at his estimated percentage value. I also have a great deal of respect for BobR’s opinion who believes that if the combo is aftermarket that it will detract “slightly” from the value. Let me add that “slightly” is a far cry from a 50% deduction. Let me also reiterate what Bob said about Winchester, “…but Winchester would do almost anything for the customer back then – and this fact is the most important “fact of the matter” that everyone here can take to the bank with absolute certainty, (and I am not claiming that the work is not after market”), as regards the situation as it stands at this point in time. But, I do think that it was probably added before the new owner took delivery, quite possibly via John Sidle’s company, which did not charge a fee for mounting its scopes, except for the Ten Dollar scope. Additionally, I also value Clarence’s opinion, since my experience coincides with what he had to say about it. Which brings me to your response, which I value as well; I used the word “final” in a broad sense, and agree with you that if the hammer price is low, or for that matter high, it will give us some sort of impression of its market value, because we will not likely ever be privy to what happens after the hammer falls.
James
mrcvs said
But, when you get up to that range, you CANNOT be making “excuses” unless a poor return is inconsequential.
A “poor return”? That’s the attitude of an investor, not a collector; at least, not a genuine collector, who loves whatever he collects for what they are, & not what they can be expected to bring on the auction block.
clarence said
A “poor return”? That’s the attitude of an investor, not a collector; at least, not a genuine collector, who loves whatever he collects for what they are, & not what they can be expected to bring on the auction block.
At the pre auction estimate, this gun is presented as nothing but an investment. Most true collectors cannot afford firearms in this price range unless their pockets are very deep. Also, a true collector will realize that if this gun approaches anywhere near the low end estimate, he or she can collect something else for that kind of money that is a more impressive collectible.
mrcvs said
At the pre auction estimate, this gun is presented as nothing but an investment. Most true collectors cannot afford firearms in this price range unless their pockets are very deep. Also, a true collector will realize that if this gun approaches anywhere near the low end estimate, he or she can collect something else for that kind of money that is a more impressive collectible.
We have our answer on this one as well. Despite some high end pieces doing very well, with many exceeding auction estimates, this one, with an auction estimate of $85,000 to $110,000, sold for $75,000. I thought it was a beautiful rifle with a great deal going for it.
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
Great call, Bob.
steve004 said
I thought it was a beautiful rifle with a great deal going for it.
Absolutely! The scope made it not a “One of One Thousand,” but a “One of TEN Thousand”…or more. But 75 Gs ain’t exactly pocket change where I come from.
clarence said
steve004 said
I thought it was a beautiful rifle with a great deal going for it.
Absolutely! The scope made it not a “One of One Thousand,” but a “One of TEN Thousand”…or more. But 75 Gs ain’t exactly pocket change where I come from.
Agreement here. There are guys for whom 75 G’s is pocket change. If that were me (and it isn’t) then I would say it is easily worth 75 G’s.
Cutting that extra dovetail just cost some rich guy about 40 G’s. A gun this rare should have never been molested.
Chuck said
Cutting that extra dovetail just cost some rich guy about 40 G’s. A gun this rare should have never been molested.
I think most would agree in the case of a present day scenario. That is, installing that mount on that piece now. But shortly after manufacture, who would have called the installation of that extra dovetail, “molestation”? I will speculate that given the engraving, some might have mourned the blocking of the engraving by the receiver mount.
Here’s a poll type question – how many years after this was manufactured, would that extra dovetail be considered molestation? 1950’s? 1960?
steve004 said
I think most would agree in the case of a present day scenario. That is, installing that mount on that piece now. But shortly after manufacture, who would have called the installation of that extra dovetail, “molestation”? I will speculate that given the engraving, some might have mourned the blocking of the engraving by the receiver mount.
Here’s a poll type question – how many years after this was manufactured, would that extra dovetail be considered molestation? 1950’s? 1960?
Steve you are right about the receiver mount too. Whatever year it was molested the dollar loss in those days was a lot.
steve004 said
But shortly after manufacture, who would have called the installation of that extra dovetail, “molestation”?
That’s easy–NOBODY! What they would have said would be along the lines of “smart idea, for those who can afford that very expensive scope!”
Not before the ’50s, at the earliest, would anyone have worried about the extra dovetail. Hell, in the ’50s, the Rifleman was still running articles on how to butcher your original 1903 Springfield into a (now) worthless sporter.
In terms of sale price, I have seen pieces not sell at all and a while later, perhaps, a year or more go for double the price it failed to sell at to begin with…maybe, due to a low starting price at the first attempt. Still, it’s good to play it safe, especially, if one doesn’t have money to burn.
James
We are not talking about a regular gun. I have modified a few too. But consider this, the gun we are talking about was so expensive that most people could not afford it and if I could have I just couldn’t bring myself to damage it. The rich guy that bought this probably never even shot it.
Chuck said
The rich guy that bought this probably never even shot it.
Considering the condition, I was thinking the same thing. And when I was collecting Griffin & Howe customized rifles, I saw many super-deluxe guns (bolt-action sporters) built in the ’20 & ’30s that were still in “new” condition, which led me to the conclusion that they were bought chiefly to show off to other rich guys in the owner’s gunroom.
But the original owner obviously didn’t consider cutting the extra dovetail to be a defacement of his beautiful rifle.
clarence said
Considering the condition, I was thinking the same thing. And when I was collecting Griffin & Howe customized rifles, I saw many super-deluxe guns (bolt-action sporters) built in the ’20 & ’30s that were still in “new” condition, which led me to the conclusion that they were bought chiefly to show off to other rich guys in the owner’s gunroom.
But the original owner obviously didn’t consider cutting the extra dovetail to be a defacement of his beautiful rifle.
This all makes sense to me. This rifle was ordered as a showpiece to show off to others. I suspect the original purchaser saw the addition of the mount and scope resulting in a piece where he had even more to show off. Scopes were more of a novelty back then and fairly unusual to find on a repeating rifle. I’m sure he viewed what he did as enhancing what he had vs. defacing. It certainly added expense. And, I suspect the comments he received from others reinforced the choice he made. The scope is pretty cool now, I can only imagine its impact back then.
1 Guest(s)
