Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
If factory records are not available after about 1903, how did Madis come up with year DOM numbers?
The factory warehouse ledger records for most models end in the 1907 – 1910 timeframe. It is not known what source of information George Madis used for the later production years, but one thing I am relatively certain of, is that he did not use the factory Polishing Room (PR) serialization records. The PR records were/are available up to and through the WW II time period.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I recall reading that he interviewed old Winchester employees and used any notes or records they had.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
Folks,
1873 Man is dead on as usual. I might add that in the dark recesses of my memory, he also then used the available information to interpret and estimate to produce an admittedly approximation of the numbers produced in each year. I suspect he would have loved to have had the polishing room records and would have used them had he had access to them. Rob dealt with George on a frequent basis back in the day, and likely could fill in with a direct observation about this, but I am somewhat sure of my comment.
Tim
To say he interviewed old employees and used notes many years later to interpret, read guess, to determine years of manufacture for all the different models of Winchesters over a long period really seems like a stretch. You would think that at some point in all his writings he would have described how he determined DOMs. He was wrong with numbers from back before 1900. Did he ever state that the DOM records were not available and only unverifiable, rough estimates could be made? All these years people have accepted his numbers as fact, without question. Apparently no one asked him.
I have no idea where he got his numbers from but as a Cody researcher I can say that there is a lot of conflicting information in the records.
There are records of “orders” by year, records of “production” by year and warehouse records. Each set of records varies by actual number. I wholeheartedly agree with Bert and others that the most accurate record of a “born-on” date are the polishing room records which indicate when the serial number is applied. This (by BATF definition) is when a firearm is created.
I have also seen Madis mention that some of his estimates were “averaged” where there was no additional supporting information. This is especially prevalent in the .22 rimfire models. While I am a staunch supporter of the more definitive records we use today I have to give a tip of the hat to George who did the best with what he had available at the time. More records have been discovered since his time and, hopefully, more will continue to come to light.
As WACA continually states, this website is the BEST place to get the most up-to-date information of date by serial number information. It is our PASSION and we continually stay on top of that. No other website does.
Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
wolfbait said
Perhaps you can resolve the matter for us.
It’s been resolved for everyone else. You just like to keep on agitating.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
The man was clearly an American pioneer where Winchester firearms is concerned.
James
Wolfbait,
Which part of my statement do you think was incorrect?
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
The correct DOM are the Polishing Room numbers. (I have and 1892 and an 1894 that I bought because they were 1st year production in the early 1980’s before PR numbers and now I have to live with the fact that both were made in January of the following year.) BATF uses the Madis numbers because that’s what they they were set up to do and aren’t going to change now – just being practical. Those are 2 separate issues: when was the gun really made vs. what can I legally claim.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Wolfbait,
Sorry, I thought the question was “how did Madis come up with the DOM numbers”. The BATF has nothing to do with the original question or the answer to that question.
But, to clarify it again,
The BATF states that the firearm is established when the serial number is applied.
The Winchester polishing room records give the dates the serial numbers were applied.
The BATF does not currently use that information, but instead uses less accurate information published by Madis.
Since it is our Federal government involved that is about as clear as I can make it. You can use whatever dates suit your purpose but the fact is, the polishing room records are the most accurate AND fit the law as written. The PR records (where available) are what is used on the dating tab on the WACA site.
It is really not all that hard to understand.
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
wolfbait said
I did not say your statement was incorrect. But WACAs published statement on it’s site says that ATF uses the Madis numbers, and WACA also lists the polishing room numbers, that is confusing for collectors and dealers. You said the WACA website is best place to get up to date information, that would mean ATF is using the Madis numbers. We are talking about 100s of thousands of antique/not antique guns, and the matter is very important when buying and selling.
First, it is an exaggeration to say “100s of thousands”. The total is barely more than just one single 100,000, and the vast number of them are Model 1892s and Model 1894s.
I (and I suspect several other members) fail to understand why you are so doggedly fixated on this topic. The last time you did brought it up in a topic, I warned you not to bring it up again, but here you are whining about it again. You are free to use whatever numbers you want to believe, but you are no longer going to be afforded the opportunity to repeatedly keep bringing this argument up over and over again. Check you Private Mail.
Finally, I very much suspect that you truly know what the correct answer is to this topic is.
Bert – Admin
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
You are in the business of selling guns, AKA a “used gun salesman” and therefore have a vested interest in having it seen in a way that favors you. To me it makes no difference whatsoever, so I’ll accept the DOM’s that are supported by documentation. You should probably get legal advice from someone in the legal profession.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
wolfbait said
To say he interviewed old employees and used notes many years later to interpret, read guess, to determine years of manufacture for all the different models of Winchesters over a long period really seems like a stretch. You would think that at some point in all his writings he would have described how he determined DOMs. He was wrong with numbers from back before 1900. Did he ever state that the DOM records were not available and only unverifiable, rough estimates could be made? All these years people have accepted his numbers as fact, without question. Apparently no one asked him.
wolfbait said
If factory records are not available after about 1903, how did Madis come up with year DOM numbers?
I don’t know if your aware of this but we have discussed this very topic quite a lot. In fact I know we’ve talked about it for over 10+years. I wrote an entire page response showing “Where Madis got his Numbers?”. If you go back and actually read his book, he even tells you the name of the people he got his information from. This discussion was so long ago, that it was done under the old forum format and no longer exists.
Other members make a good and valid point that, yes under the letter of the current laws on the books, when a serial number was stamped onto the firearm part begins its life as a legal firearm (that is for those that got serial numbers, as there were plenty made before the 1930s & 60s that never had a serial #, but thats a different topic).
WACA’s website statement as far as I know, is written in a manner to state what the current status quo is, and not meant to deceive, mislead, or confuse anyone.
I truly believe if George had better data when he wrote about the DOMs, he would have amended his writings to reflect that data. Madis went to great lengths with dealing with the BATF to help bring many Winchesters and other Manufacturers firearms that had shorter than 16″ barrels from being deemed an illegal firearm to a Collectable legal firearm. So its not like he’d never dealt with them on the affairs of firearms.
You act like his book was written yesterday. As far as I know the last edition of the Winchester Book was done in 1985, which in the grand scheme of things wasn’t that long ago, but when you stop and think that yeah that was actually 35 years ago. I don’t know when Cody Letters started being produced with the SNA on them, as far as I can tell they started doing so around 2015. You also have to stop and think that George has been deceased since 2003.
I think the association does pride itself in having the most accurate data (as it should) but that it is the best currently known available data. I also don’t know anyone that wouldn’t advice someone to go directly to Cody for such data, because that is as close to the horse’s mouth as one can get.
I mean what else are you wanting or trying to achieve. Feel free to call and/or write any agency or the senate, congress, the supreme court and the President for that matter. But I believe there are plenty of other crosses to bare before they get to this one.
Ultimately, I think you should do whatever you feel is right of course, but having sound paid legal advice on such a matter is assuredly warranted.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
Cody began adding the “SNA” dates to the factory letters in 2006.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
All letters from the CFM have serial numbers on them. Whenever the BATF made the law about antique/modern they used the only and best source at that time and it was what Madis had stated in his books.
At some point, I believe that it was David Kennedy, found and interpreted the polishing room records. So the current law is behind the actual known data. We now know the exact date the serial number was placed on the gun at the factory (SNA). If you buy and sell per the BATF info you are legally OK. But WACA knows these numbers are incorrect. You will never see the grey area guns being bought or sold with a Factory Letter because it will show that they were made after 1898.
1 Guest(s)
