Avatar
Please consider registering
Guest
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Register Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
NIce looking '92 SRC .44-40 coming up for auction - but is it an antique?
sp_NewTopic Add Topic
Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 3098
Member Since:
November 19, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
March 26, 2022 - 2:35 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

This is a nice looking piece.  Both the title and description are confusing.  Sounds like the serial number puts it at 1901 manufacture but they vaguely imply there is perhaps a letter stating 1898.  If so, you sure would think they would post the letter.

Michael – do you have this one in your records?

https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/85/10/antique-winchester-model-1892-rifle-in-44-wcf

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1283
Member Since:
July 8, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
March 26, 2022 - 3:02 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

That’s a nice carbine. I think they are trying to imply that it is an antique per the bogus Winchester serial numbers posted on the internet. I’m sure the letter will state 1901. 

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 3098
Member Since:
November 19, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
March 26, 2022 - 3:12 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

tionesta1 said
That’s a nice carbine. I think they are trying to imply that it is an antique per the bogus Winchester serial numbers posted on the internet. I’m sure the letter will state 1901.   

I thought that might be the case as well.  But they do state, “(1898 per the manufacturer)”  We know that doesn’t mean they contacted the current version of Winchester for that information.  Based on the title and description, will they be shipping it as an antique?  The antique status is an important factor.

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4310
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
March 26, 2022 - 3:27 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

steve004 said

  Based on the title and description, will they be shipping it as an antique?  The antique status is an important factor.  

Yes, that’s the critical factor, unless you enjoy submitting to federal restrictions & paying an FFL charge. Unfortunately, if other bidders believe it’s antique, the price will be jacked up, whatever its actual status.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1283
Member Since:
July 8, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
March 26, 2022 - 6:24 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

I believe what they mean by “(1898 per the manufacturer)” is that they used this https://www.winchesterguns.com/support/faq/date-your-firearm.html

from the current Winchester sight. If you open the .pdf and scroll down to the model 1892, you will see.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2843
Member Since:
March 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
March 26, 2022 - 6:46 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

steve004 said
This is a nice looking piece.  Both the title and description are confusing.  Sounds like the serial number puts it at 1901 manufacture but they vaguely imply there is perhaps a letter stating 1898.  If so, you sure would think they would post the letter.

Michael – do you have this one in your records?

https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/85/10/antique-winchester-model-1892-rifle-in-44-wcf  

Hello Steve,

I did capture the Model 1892’s presented in this auction and have not seen that rifle previously for sale.  It certainly does look nice.  The SN does correspond to 1901 production based on the Polishing Room records and the production ledgers.  I would tend to bid accordingly, happily pay the $100 FFL fee and not pay a supposed 20% “bonus” for an “antique” gun that is 100% identical.  Why pay 20% of $10,000 which equals $2000 to not pay $100?  Thanks but I will happily keep my incremental $1900!

Michael

Signature-Pic.jpg

 

Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 430
Member Since:
April 1, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
7
March 26, 2022 - 6:47 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

Serial number 16073:

  • Federal law makes it an antique if manufactured before January 1899.
  • Dates in the Madis Books have the gun manufactured in 1898.
  • Polishing Room serialization records have it manufactured in 1901.
  • Antiques are easier to sell, require less paperwork and bring more money.
Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 3098
Member Since:
November 19, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
8
March 26, 2022 - 7:01 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

tionesta1 said
I believe what they mean by “(1898 per the manufacturer)” is that they used this https://www.winchesterguns.com/support/faq/date-your-firearm.html

from the current Winchester sight. If you open the .pdf and scroll down to the model 1892, you will see.  

I’ll bet your right.  I never go to that site and forgot it was there.  Thanks.  

It’s interesting that they classify it as an antique yet the first sentence in description is:  “Manufactured in 1901”.  I wonder if they do have a factory letter on it.  If they do, and if they ship it across state lines as an, “antique” I would think it would be difficult to prove they didn’t absolutely know it was as antique.  Wait, maybe that’s why they didn’t post the letter…

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 3509
Member Since:
March 31, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
9
March 27, 2022 - 5:15 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

Wherever they got their info it is the same as the Madis info.  There is no way they have a letter because it would blow out their “theory” that it is antique.

This tactic has been going on for years ever since David Kennedy made the polishing room records “public knowledge”.

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4310
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
10
March 27, 2022 - 9:58 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

Chuck said
Wherever they got their info it is the same as the Madis info.  There is no way they have a letter because it would blow out their “theory” that it is antique.

This tactic has been going on for years ever since David Kennedy made the polishing room records “public knowledge”.  

No way to have a letter, but if ATF still considers Madis’ numbers valid for determining eligibility for the pre-1899 exemption, (as I believe they do), that would suffice for a dealer to transfer it legally AS an antique, whatever the actual DOM.  Releasing the polishing room records has thrown a monkey-wrench into a long-established, smoothly-functioning, system of determining legal status & illustrates why it’s sometimes wiser to let sleeping dogs lie. 

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 3509
Member Since:
March 31, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
11
March 28, 2022 - 7:05 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

So you are saying you’d rather operate with bad information than the actual real information?  I don’t want to be the one who becomes the test case in a lawsuit.  Whether the ATF knows or not they don’t seem to care.  I believe the ATF has had conversations with at least 1 WACA member about this.

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4310
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
12
March 28, 2022 - 7:39 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

Chuck said
So you are saying you’d rather operate with bad information than the actual real information?  I don’t want to be the one who becomes the test case in a lawsuit.  Whether the ATF knows or not they don’t seem to care.  I believe the ATF has had conversations with at least 1 WACA member about this.  

I’m saying the final arbiter of antique status is ATF, not the Cody Museum, even if ATF’s dating info is in error.  No chance of becoming a test case if you have abided by ATF’s own criteria for determining legal status.  I say again:  this dating discrepancy would not be an issue if it, the discrepancy, had been handled discreetly & with some common sense appreciation of the potential legal ramifications publicizing it outside the collector community could cause, & now, has caused.  I’d bet a million bucks (if I had it) that ATF officials feel EXACTLY the same–this is a can of worms they didn’t want opened! 

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 3098
Member Since:
November 19, 2006
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
13
March 28, 2022 - 7:43 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

Interesting points.  It is a goodly number of rifles impacted.  

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4310
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
14
March 28, 2022 - 8:03 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

steve004 said
Interesting points.  It is a goodly number of rifles impacted.    

So is the Museum going to “recall” all the letters written using the old data? 

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 12722
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
15
March 29, 2022 - 2:03 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

clarence said

So is the Museum going to “recall” all the letters written using the old data?   

Clarence,

Sometimes you really should think before you speak (type)!

The CFM has never written a single letter using “old data”.  Instead, they have always used the original Winchester records that have been in their possession since the late 1970s.  In 2007/2008, the CFM added the Serial Number application date (from the Polishing Room records).

In regards to the ATF and the actual factory records, they will use them if there is any doubt about the factual date.  To intentionally ignore the facts for potential financial gain, or simple ease of completing a transaction is utterly foolish.

Bert

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4310
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
16
March 29, 2022 - 2:28 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

Bert H. said

Clarence,

Sometimes you really should think before you speak (type)!

The CFM has never written a single letter using “old data”.  Instead, they have always used the original Winchester records that have been in their possession since the late 1970s.  In 2007/2008, the CFM added the Serial Number application date (from the Polishing Room records).

In regards to the ATF and the actual factory records, they will use them if there is any doubt about the factual date.  To intentionally ignore the facts for potential financial gain, or simple ease of completing a transaction is utterly foolish.

Bert  

But weren’t the “original records” prior to 2007 the same ones referenced by Madis & sanctioned by ATF?  Is there a distinction between Madis’ chronology & the records used prior to 2007?  If so, where did Madis come up with his numbers?

Avatar
Northern edge of the D/FW Metromess
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 3893
Member Since:
November 7, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
17
March 29, 2022 - 3:28 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

To be perfectly honest there’s not a law enforcement agency in the country that can charge everyone who commits a crime, but it only takes one federal firearms charge to ruin your whole day. Even if you win you’re out some serious money in legal fees, maybe a night in jail while you’re trying to raise bail. Nobody knows where Madis got his data, we know where CFM gets theirs. Federal LE officers don’t much care about how we used to do things. If you don’t think you’ll be charged you’re probably right but I can guarantee it will suck if you’re wrong. As collectors the ATF cuts us a little slack on record keeping. If a significant number of us violate the law and flaunt it I can guarantee we will all face increased scrutiny and restrictions. Please don’t do something that will reflect badly on all collectors. 

 

Mike

Life Member TSRA, Endowment Member NRA
BBHC Member, TGCA Member
Smokeless powder is a passing fad! -Steve Garbe
I hate rude behavior in a man. I won't tolerate it. -Woodrow F. Call, Lonesome Dove
Some of my favorite recipes start out with a handful of depleted counterbalance devices.-TXGunNut
Presbyopia be damned, I'm going to shoot this thing! -TXGunNut
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 12722
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
18
March 29, 2022 - 3:48 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

clarence said

But weren’t the “original records” prior to 2007 the same ones referenced by Madis & sanctioned by ATF?  Is there a distinction between Madis’ chronology & the records used prior to 2007?  If so, where did Madis come up with his numbers?  

In answer to your first question, No, they were not the same records referenced by George Madis.  It is not known what records, or where Georgs Madis obtained his information.  What is known today, is that he apparently did not reference the actual factory records.  In regards to the ATF “sanctioning” them, that too is not an accurate assumption.

In answer to your second question, again the answer is No, there is not a distinction.  It is not known where or what Madis used to come up with his numbers.  What is known today, is that he quite obviously did not use either the Polishing Room records or the Factory Warehouse ledger records.

Bert

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4310
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
19
March 29, 2022 - 3:57 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

Bert H. said

 In regards to the ATF “sanctioning” them, that too is not an accurate assumption.

Bert  

Then on the basis of which records does, or did, ATF define “antique” status?  It is commonly believed that ATF recognized Madis as THE  authority on this subject.  Is that incorrect?

Avatar
SO. Oregon
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 683
Member Since:
June 5, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
20
March 29, 2022 - 4:08 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

Let me first say that I know not of which I report here.

Madis numbers where extrapolated from a collection of information which did not include the polishing room records. The later being the date the serial number was stamped, thus the actual date of manufacture.  The Feds can’t use the new information, it would create a nightmare of reclassification of hundreds of “antique” Winchesters. They want to let sleeping dogs lay.  Besides they are more concerned with guns that are being used in crimes. Nobody uses a 18th century gun in a drive-by.

Vince
Southern Oregon
NRA member
Fraternal Order of Eagles

 “There is but one answer to be made to the dynamite bomb and that can best be made by the Winchester rifle.”

Teddy Roosevelt 

4029-1.jpg

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 628
Currently Online: 88 man, tsbccut
Guest(s) 59
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
1873man: 5178
clarence: 4310
TXGunNut: 3893
Chuck: 3509
steve004: 3098
twobit: 2843
Maverick: 2016
JWA: 1827
Big Larry: 1765
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 16
Topics: 10412
Posts: 89723

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1431
Members: 11501
Moderators: 3
Admins: 3
Navigation