Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Rare Model 70’s
Ok guys…. Let’s hear your thoughts. One way or the other, I suspect we will see some large dollar amounts.
Well that is the 2nd NIB 308 S/G Fwt I have seen in the last 7 months. There was another at the Cody show last year 379854. That’s 2 NIB examples out of only 101 made. What are the chances? I wouldn’t touch either.
Steve
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Ned, Ted, and Steve-
While I share the general skepticism, it might amuse you to know that S/Ns 459992, 461047 (six digits away from the Amoskeag gun), and 471318 were recorded as 308 WIN Super Grade Fwts when seen in the early 1980s. Of course that doesn’t mean they were “real” either, just they weren’t made last week like so many of the sketchy guns we see these days… 
If by chance they are “real”, these guns were assembled the year after the SG Fwt was dropped from the catalogs. So some “parts clean-up” is a possible explanation???
Good Luck!!!
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
There is always that chance that they are both originally S/G Fwts, but redone and put in boxes. It is just hard for me to wrap my mind around 2 NIB guns made over 60 years that just happen to be the rarest of their model and made in such a small quantity. I know the box and pwk for the one I saw in Cody was literally perfect with not a bit of wear or aging. Common sense tells me no, but I have been wrong before. I’m thinking it will probably hit $10K at auction.
Steve
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Steve-
I TOTALLY agree that (for me) the “NIB” aspect is more of an issue than the possibility that the Amoskeag gun left the factory as a 308 WIN SG Fwt… Without taking it down I would not want to comment, and even then my comments would probably be unhelpful… I have enough “problems” with my own SG Fwts without thinking about adding more…
Would you be willing to post a pic of your absolutely legit one so the “buying public” can compare??? I know yours is “real” and there were only maybe 100 of them… I have “some” issues with mine or I’d show it… It is PRETTY though!!! 
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Here is my 308 S/G Fwt. It’s not perfect, probably 97%+. Shows a bit of light use and there are some very light marks from a previous scope base on the receiver. Wood is very average, like most of these you see. I have owned it for over 25 years.
Steve
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Steve-
Yup!!! That’s the REAL DEAL “Sportsfans”… Sorry if I’ve watched “The Great Santini” recently, which is where the “Sportsfans” comment came from…
Many/most of these SG Fwts (IMHO) had stocks “as plain as a plank”. Yours is awesome!!! That’s what they SHOULD look like… Maybe I should take a couple pics of mine so that the audience (prospective Amoskeag bidders) can raise some eyebrows!!! I don’t have any or I would post now…
Thanks Steve!!!
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Here is my 308 S/G Fwt. It’s not perfect, probably 97%+.seewin said
Any dealer would call it 99.9%. Only thing missing is the box & papers, but you could correct that by finding the source of the fake ones. Dad’s Old Guns could tell you.
Thanks Steve, Lou and others for taking the time to respond. I know this pessimistic dead horse has been flogged ad nauseam. But as you say, maybe there is some originality floating around in these.
Wouldn’t it be nice for once to see complete high quality sets of detailed photos of these guns? Amoskeag seems very discreetly cautious in their descriptions. On the .308, things like “A light coat of added finish”? Perhaps that’s when they lost the sling swivels. On the .270… No jeweled bolt parts?
I suppose my thoughts on the .284 would be pretty obvious. Too bad! A real one would be a really interesting piece.
I still think all of these will likely realize some high dollar amounts.
By the way, that’s a nice rifle Steve!
Ned
November 5, 2014
Offline
Thanks again Steve for posting those photos!!!
To be fair, I’ll attach a couple photos of my “alleged” 308 WIN SG Fwt. This was a gun my Dad bought back in the mid-1990s (I don’t know from whom), so it too wasn’t fabricated yesterday. It holds up fairly well to my inspection, I believe that it’s composed of genuine Winchester parts, and the finishes look OK to my aging eyes. The stock is unusually attractive for one of these, and IMHO it’s almost “too nice” (like it belongs in a fake box). So I have significant doubts…
That said, for Clarence, I do think that the hang tag on it is genuine!!!
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Louis Luttrell said The stock is unusually attractive for one of these, and IMHO it’s almost “too nice” (like it belongs in a fake box).
Had it been possible to order deluxe wood, this would have been it. Maybe that’s why the tag survived–too nice to shoot. Now to find the fake box. (I’ll take one of those fake S&W “red” boxes; originals bring $500+.)
Lou, nothing really jumps out to me as a problem with the rifle. I agree, the wood looks way better than most, however I have a 243 SG Fwt that is not quite as nice as yours, but definitely a step above my other 3. I know you could get fancy wood for them on a special order basis. That info came from a former Winchester executive who had several fancy guns made for himself. On any of these fancy stocks, I like to check the inletting and compare it to a known original stock. There are aspects that never get duplicated on a custom stock. The devil’s in the details.
Steve
November 5, 2014
Offline
Steve-
That 243 SG Fwt is a beauty!!! In 40 years of M70 collecting I have gathered up a small number with really nice wood, but as you know even the Supers are typically very plain…
Clarence-
Regarding fake boxes… If you look at the Amoskeag gun, which is from 1960 (S/N 461041), the box top says “Winchester Western Division” with the “Olin” symbol that I don’t think was used before 1962-63. The end label is not shown. OTOH… The bolt tag says “Winchester Western Division Olin-Mathieson Chemical Corp”, which I think is the right address for 1960 (so it might belong to the gun). On later guns the bolt tag had the same “Olin” symbol as is on the top of this box. The hang tag is of the “generic” variety used before about 1955-56, so it most assuredly a repro. By 1957 the hang tags were specific to the Cat Symbol… So I suspect that the box (which might be Winchester – or not) and papers were put together, regardless of whether the gun is legit or not…
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Lou, all that is why I don’t collect boxed guns. Way too much for this simple mind to keep track of……
Steve
I’m most intrigued by the 308. Did they offer different rear sight options on the Super Grade Featherweights? I suppose I could pull out my old Rule’s book and see, but the rear sight looks different relative to the legit pictures posted on here. The rear butt plate looks very bright and white relative to the pics posted on the real one.
Curious on the legitimacy of folks having the wherewithal to sit on a new pre-64 near end of production, never shoot it, and keep the box. Not saying it couldn’t happen, but those guns were “shooters” back in the day, not collectibles at that time.
November 5, 2014
Offline
Bob-
My understanding is that all the catalogued SG Featherweights used a Lyman 16A folding sight on the barrel and a Redfield 255 (0.360″ tall) full gold bead front sight. The Standard MC FWTs of the same era (1955 onwards) used the same rear sight paired with a 0.360″ tall silver bead Win 103C (103E in the blue prints) in all chamberings.
The barrel sight on the Amoskeag gun looks a little tall standing up, but it may be the camera. I’d need to see it face on… Just one of several things about that gun that would bear checking out before bidding…
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
1 Guest(s)
