Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
August 11, 2015
Offline
All,
I am an admitted novice regarding Winchester knowledge, but have been working to gain more knowledge. I have been collecting for a couple of years and am now trying to evaluate my inventory. A question that keeps coming up is originality.
Fundamentally, it would seem easy to answer but am curious as to how and what minor alterations, replacements, changes, refinishes would constitute a loss of originality. Is originality either there or not, or does it have some gradation or degree of inconsistency that can be easily justified or consider not relevant to the value of the gun?
I believe the CFM letter is a great starting point, but even the letter has limitations; some guns don’t have lettering options.
If the correct answer is that nothing short of 100% original is original, than was also wondering at what percentage of guns still out there do most people think the percentage is original. I would guess that it has to be very small considering the age of most guns and the fact that most were probably working guns that saw a lot of use and abuse.
Would appreciate any feedback on what other people are using as a guide to determine originality.
Thanks and regards.
Mark,
Your questions are very good, but there is no simple quick answer. Each collector has his/her own thoughts on what constitutes “original”, and what they would accept as “original”. For myself, if any part of the gun has been refinished, it cannot be termed “original”. If major parts (barrels, butt plates, magazine tubes, stocks, etc.) have been replaced, again, it is no longer “original”. If the gun has been altered (e.g. shortened barrel or magazine tube, aftermarket engraving, plating, or stock checkering, etc.) … again, not “original”. If the sights have been changed to something that was not installed or offered by Winchester…. again, not “original”. If the sights were replaced/upgraded with period correct optional sights, I personally do not consider that to be an originality issue, but others might. Replacing small parts (e.g. springs, screws, firing pins, etc.) is a minor hit to the originality (unless it is grossly obvious), and something that I personally would accept. Again, this is just my opinion, and others will undoubtedly have differing thoughts on this subject.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
August 11, 2015
Offline
Bert.
Thanks. Exactly the kind of feedback I am looking for. Am very interested to see what others think.
Regards,
Everyone has their own definition but Bert just described my personal philosophy for “original” exactly.
Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
Bert H. said
Mark,
Your questions are very good, but there is no simple quick answer. Each collector has his/her own thoughts on what constitutes “original”, and what they would accept as “original”. For myself, if any part of the gun has been refinished, it cannot be termed “original”. If major parts (barrels, butt plates, magazine tubes, stocks, etc.) have been replaced, again, it is no longer “original”. If the gun has been altered (e.g. shortened barrel or magazine tube, aftermarket engraving, plating, or stock checkering, etc.) … again, not “original”. If the sights have been changed to something that was not installed or offered by Winchester…. again, not “original”. If the sights were replaced/upgraded with period correct optional sights, I personally do not consider that to be an originality issue, but others might. Replacing small parts (e.g. springs, screws, firing pins, etc.) is a minor hit to the originality (unless it is grossly obvious), and something that I personally would accept. Again, this is just my opinion, and others will undoubtedly have differing thoughts on this subject.
Bert
I’m a new Winchester collector as well, however agree with Bert’s opinion 100%, and it’s basically the same philosophy that served me well in collecting classic Corvettes. I’m very thankful for the guidance I have received in regard to Winchester originally from members here.
Winchester Model 1873 44-40 circa 1886
August 11, 2015
Offline
I understand the approach of original is original. It keeps the fuzziness out of things and lets one focus on the hunt more than the acquisition. Perhaps that is the transition that we go through as we accumulate and search for understanding of value.
Maybe I am making too much of this but it seems to me that “original” guns are in very short supply.
Regards,
November 5, 2014
Offline
Mark-
I would also agree with Bert’s guidelines pretty much down-the-line…
In later guns, like the Model 70 Winchesters that interest me, there is frankly no way to establish whether a given s/n receiver even left the factory in the same configuration as it’s present one. The best one can do is determine that all of the parts are correct to the period/configuration, the wood/metal finishes are correct, and the parts fit together as well as one would expect from factory work (making allowances for wood swelling/shrinking over time). How much ‘allowance’ is a personal decision… But it is VITAL to develop the level of knowledge/experience to know what you are looking at. (Honestly, I consider myself pretty good, but there are WACA members in my area of interest, like Vicvanb and Seewin, who are WAY better!!!)
With M70s, especially 1950s guns, factory metallic sights were often removed by the purchaser, for example if the factory Win22G/K rear sight was ‘in the way’ of a scope with an objective bell. I, for one, do not consider it an unpardonable flaw, nor do I consider it a ‘sin’ to replace the non-original sight with a period correct one. For example, I have a 1950 M70 22 Hornet Super Grade (s/n 145711 – if anyone cares) that we purchased years ago from the original owner that has <30 rounds fired through it in its lifetime (and looks that way). It originally had a Win 22G sight, but the owner wanted a Lyman 48WJS receiver sight so he swapped them out. I know this b/c: 1) the gun came with the Lyman 48WJS box (as well as the box of factory ammo missing only the number of rounds fired); and, 2) rather than buy a slot blank, the purchaser cut off the original Win 22G with a hack saw and installed the reshaped remnant as a dovetail filler. Since the Lyman 48WJS was a factory option (and the 48WJS installation left a mark on the stock), I replaced the ‘home made’ slot blank with a correct Lyman 12S slot blank (that I removed from its original Lyman packaging). While I would feel that it was only ethical to tell this whole story to a potential purchaser if I were to sell the gun, I don’t consider the rifle to be ‘non-original’ in its current form.
IMHO, anyone who tells you that they will only accept an antique/C&R Winchester as ‘original’ if it consists exclusively of 100% of the parts with which it left the factory is for the most part self-delusional. While Winchester collectors may be a dying breed, few are old enough to have first hand knowledge of every gun they own. 
Best of luck…
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
August 11, 2015
Offline
Louis,
Thanks for your great feedback. I was starting to get paranoid about the guns i have collected and their original status. I am a bit torn about some of the cutoff for original, specifically the magazine tube and the stock being refinished.
I struggle with the apparent fragility of the magazine tube and can only guess at how many must have been replaced at some point in time. I have a first model 1873 carbine that i believe is original in all respects, but struggle with the condition of the stock. i desparately want to clean it up and reoil it not necessarily sand it, but am using my will power to avoid it at this time.
When it comes to the barrel i agree that there is no deviation from original status. However, I believe there are a lot of guns that have non original barrels on them.
Regards,
I like the way Bert answered the subject question, including the other posts, and I would go so far as to say that sights to me are as important as buttplates, generally speaking, and period correct replacements here would not bother me either, but that’s just me. However, any knowledge of replaced parts whatsoever should be passed on to a potential buyer…as Louis noted regarding telling the whole story.
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Mark-
The thing about Winchester rifles that can be ‘lettered’ is that it’s a ‘two-edged sword’ (and not much better than my problem with M70s). In my case I cannot know the original configuration of a given s/n (was it really a ‘Super Grade’ when it left the factory???). I can only judge the gun in front of me, not what it ‘might have been’ in years past!!! With the ‘letterable’ models, on the other hand, there are clear ‘instructions’ (the factory letter), for how to fake a gun that is ‘unquestionably’ original.
My approach is that I assume that every gun I look at may (or may not) have been ‘helped’. And if the ‘helper’ knows their stuff, you/I will not/cannot know the difference. And if you/I cannot tell (assuming we know our business) does it really matter?
I agree with JWM94 that if I do something to ‘restore’ a rifle to original condition, I should disclose that fact if I every sell the gun. I am very pleased with s/n 145711 (and I publicly posted the s/n). Many collectors would not be bothered, some would choose not to by a gun they ‘knew’ to have replacement parts. Given the simple fact of ‘fungible’ parts (a word I think mrcvs taught me), I don’t think that ‘not knowing’ increases the chances their guns are 100% ‘real’. It’s only a statement that they would rather not know. Not a problem, since it’s their money!!!
Keep up your interest!!! Just be realistic.
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
JWM94 said
However, any knowledge of replaced parts whatsoever should be passed on to a potential buyer…
Now, how often do you think THAT happens?
mrcvs said
JWM94 said
However, any knowledge of replaced parts whatsoever should be passed on to a potential buyer…
Now, how often do you think THAT happens?
I have no idea, but for the few I have sold, or intend to sell, I have in the past and will in the future make note in the description of any parts I know that have been replaced. However, from your response it is apparent to me that you don’t think it happens very often…indicating that some folks assume it’s okay not to pass on such knowledge to a potential buyer or, perhaps, simply intend to remain silent about the matter. What would you do?
I have been around the block a few times. I just know from experience that the firearms community contains at least a subset of collectors or dealers who are wheelers and dealers. Lie, cheat, deceive, and alter…to their advantage. I think those of us on this forum tend to be an honest lot, as a whole, but we tend to be interested in building our collection and knowledge base. But perhaps this is not the real world. In “the real world” there are those who are into Winchesters with pure profit in mind.
mrcvs said
I have been around the block a few times. I just know from experience that the firearms community contains at least a subset of collectors or dealers who are wheelers and dealers. Lie, cheat, deceive, and alter…to their advantage. I think those of us on this forum tend to be an honest lot, as a whole, but we tend to be interested in building our collection and knowledge base. But perhaps this is not the real world. In “the real world” there are those who are into Winchesters with pure profit in mind.
Roger that!
August 11, 2015
Offline
I appreciate all the great feedback. Am much better aligned with what is and what isn’t original.
Am starting to take a look at the sights that are on my guns, and am struggling with better understanding what might be vintage and what is not. Have purchased the Madis Book on sights and don’t find it very useful.
Was wondering if anyone had a recommendation on additional literature that might be out there that is a bit more definitive.
Thanks and regards.
With regard to honest disclosure of non-original features:
For many years, there was a big difference in the price of original Pre-64 Model 70s vs. refinished/re-blued rifles, and most serious collectors avoided redone rifles altogether. Despite this, a lot of M70s were redone and sold as factory original–and those rifles continue to circulate. Plus, many outright fakes have been put together where, e.g., fake barrels were installed on original actions and put into original stocks. Most serious M70 collectors know these facts.
In many years of buying, selling and collecting, not once have I experienced or witnessed a seller admitting that his M70 was redone or a fake and worth only a fraction of what he paid. Of course, the temptation to avoid losing a bunch of money (possibly thousands of dollars for rare caliber rifles) by passing the rifle on to the next sucker is strong and many sellers disclose the bare minimum.
After a few years of gaining the necessary expertise to know what is original and what is not, it’s best to ignore whatever the seller claims and rely only on your opinion or that of someone you trust. This applies to certain well established dealers who can and do misrepresent the originality of a lot of rifles.
November 5, 2014
Offline
Mark-
OMG!!!! I feel your pain… Sights are one of my current obsessions… Did you see my (thus far) non-informative ramble on Winchester 22G/K sights in the “Model 70 FWT Rear Sight 1953” thread.
Simple question asked was how one distinguishes a Win 22G from a Win 22K on a 1952 M70 Featherweight… Consulted four ‘defiinitive’ sources (one being the Madis’ ‘Sight Book’), and got four different answers. On that one I think Seewin (and the contemporary factory drawings he has access to) is correct…
To get a reliable answer, I think you will need to ask model-specific questions. That way collectors on this site who are expert in that field can answer. I’ve found that not even the contemporary Winchester parts catalogs are all that helpful (and I have the 12 volume bound set of Winchester catalog reprints 1866-1918!!!)
Keep up the good work!!!
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
1 Guest(s)
