Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
Thanks for your input Larry. She was up front with me and said she didn’t have an FFL or know a lot about guns. I think she is one of many internet seller with a computer filling a need in her area. I bought my 67 from her knowing there were issues. I believe I have a rifle that some gun smith ( years ago most every area had one) cut down for some one. It’s not something that Winchester made.
In monetary terms, when guns are restored is there any general rule as to devaluation?
Some guns are re-blued, while others are restored to original or near original condition.
Restoration can be quite expensive and I see true restorations selling for high amounts.
So doesn’t it, in part, just depend on how a gun is represented?
I am still getting fooled at times and am very embarrassed to show what I believe to be correct only to be told I have been duped!
Any thoughts?
RDB
Roger,
“Refinished” collectable Winchesters have lost a minimum of 50% of their value, and in some cases, as much as 90% of the value. Properly “Restored” collectable Winchesters lose a lot smaller percentage of their value, but when you factor in the cost for the restoration, in most cases, it is a break-even event, with the only benefit being that the gun is now in much better looking condition. I am a proponent of “restoring” the Winchesters out there that would benefit from it, but only if there is no intent to deceive future owners of said Winchester. When it comes to common Winchesters being “restored” (e.g. a Model 1894 SRC or similar), it is a wasted effort, money, and time in my personal opinion. The only reason I can support for restoring common Winchesters, is to preserve them for future generations within a family that intends to keep them.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Rodhartogg said
Gunbroker: 588753490
“Estate Gun”
AKA: I am decent at rebluing, roll dies, reproofing, and sanding edges to simulate wear.
Lots of this stuff lately…
This seller has auctioned several reworked Model 61’s in the past few years. Rifles that have been upgraded to single chamber instead of their previous configuration of standard rifles. I would be VERY leary!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
If the seller doesn’t know much about guns she is trying to buy more of them.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Item/586576519
http://www.gunbroker.com/Item/586576519/BidHistory
She was second high bidder on a similar gun that she just sold,but in rough shape.
This was the gun she sold.
Great detective work there, Steve. Sheds some more light on what goes on at GunBroker.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Here’s another one from the same seller. The ordinance markings don’t look right to me–at least compared to the ordinance markings on the legit 1894 Spruce guns. It also seems odd that these markings would be on a model 1903. I’ve never heard of the U.S. military ever using the model 1903, especially with it’s unique clambering. My gut points to fake, but I’m no expert on U.S. ordinance markings either. Seems there are more fakes than authentic pieces when it comes to U.S. ordinance marked anything. What do others think?
twobit said
This seller has auctioned several reworked Model 61’s in the past few years. Rifles that have been upgraded to single chamber instead of their previous configuration of standard rifles. I would be VERY leary!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Michael
Here’s another single chamber model 61 from the same seller. Do you happen to have this one in your survey before it became a single chamber? Serial number 122064.
deerhunter said
Here’s another single chamber model 61 from the same seller. Do you happen to have this one in your survey before it became a single chamber? Serial number 122064.
That rifle was previously sold on GB out of Millerstown, PA. I have a note in my spreadsheet that the butt stock was cut down a bit when I saw it in that auction. I also have SN 122059 in exactly the same configuration as 122064 so I believe the configuration is most likely original but the gun’s condition has definitely been “improved” in this auction.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
twobit said
That rifle was previously sold on GB out of Millerstown, PA. I have a note in my spreadsheet that the butt stock was cut down a bit when I saw it in that auction. I also have SN 122059 in exactly the same configuration as 122064 so I believe the configuration is most likely original but the gun’s condition has definitely been “improved” in this auction.
Michael
Interesting…the seller obviously knows what she’s doing. Buying guns with condition issues, restoring them, then passing them on as “original.” Playing dumb is just a ploy in my opinion. Her claim of “liquidating an estate from a 50+ year collection is a line of B.S. Surprised she’s not tacking on “original” boxes and crates too. This seller has been adding to my black list of Gunbroker sellers that I’ll never do business with–right along with “Selling Dad’s Old Guns.”
deerhunter said
Here’s another one from the same seller. The ordinance markings don’t look right to me–at least compared to the ordinance markings on the legit 1894 Spruce guns. It also seems odd that these markings would be on a model 1903. I’ve never heard of the U.S. military ever using the model 1903, especially with it’s unique clambering. My gut points to fake, but I’m no expert on U.S. ordinance markings either. Seems there are more fakes than authentic pieces when it comes to U.S. ordinance marked anything. What do others think?
Don,
The serial number on that Model 1903 is way too early for it to be ordnance marked, and the flaming bomb stamp is very suspect. Per the PR records, serial number 8441 was the last Model 1903 made in December of 1903, and that rifle is 8315.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
deerhunter said
Here’s another one from the same seller. The ordinance markings don’t look right to me–at least compared to the ordinance markings on the legit 1894 Spruce guns. It also seems odd that these markings would be on a model 1903. I’ve never heard of the U.S. military ever using the model 1903, especially with it’s unique clambering. My gut points to fake, but I’m no expert on U.S. ordinance markings either. Seems there are more fakes than authentic pieces when it comes to U.S. ordinance marked anything. What do others think?
They did in fact stamp some WW1 vintage M03’s with US markings. I had one many years ago. I cannot seem to remember where the ord. marks were. They all had tang sights too. If I remember correctly, they were used in observation balloons. Very scarce if original. I sold mine for $2,500 many years ago. Big Larry
Big Larry said
They did in fact stamp some WW1 vintage M03’s with US markings. I had one many years ago. I cannot seem to remember where the ord. marks were. They all had tang sights too. If I remember correctly, they were used in observation balloons. Very scarce if original. I sold mine for $2,500 many years ago. Big Larry
That’s interesting. Seems I learn something new every day on this forum. Do you know of any references/books that tell about these?
Bert H. said
Don,
The serial number on that Model 1903 is way too early for it to be ordnance marked, and the flaming bomb stamp is very suspect. Per the PR records, serial number 8441 was the last Model 1903 made in December of 1903, and that rifle is 8315.
Bert
Thanks Bert. My dad has a real 1894 Spruce gun (he showed it to you at the OAC show a few years ago) so I know what to look for regarding the flaming bomb stamp. If this were to be a WWI era stamping, shouldn’t it be the same as the ones on the Spruce guns, or did the U.S. military change their ordinance markings within this time-frame? I do understand your point regarding the serial number being too early though.
Don
Don,
It has been my observation that the ordnance bomb marking is identical on the Model 1894 Spruce Guns, the Model 1885 Winder Muskets, and the WW I issue Trench Guns. For that reason, I would expect the WW I Model 1903 Rifles to have the exact same flaming ordnance bomb on them.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 7, 2015
Online
deerhunter said
Interesting…the seller obviously knows what she’s doing. Buying guns with condition issues, restoring them, then passing them on as “original.” Playing dumb is just a ploy in my opinion. Her claim of “liquidating an estate from a 50+ year collection is a line of B.S. Surprised she’s not tacking on “original” boxes and crates too. This seller has been adding to my black list of Gunbroker sellers that I’ll never do business with–right along with “Selling Dad’s Old Guns.”
I haven’t noticed the issues with the guns that more experienced eyes have caught; my issue is with her “story”. She’s obviously in the business of buying and selling firearms but has no FFL.
TXGunNut said
I haven’t noticed the issues with the guns that more experienced eyes have caught; my issue is with her “story”. She’s obviously in the business of buying and selling firearms but has no FFL.
TX,
Yes her stories are sensationalized for certain. You do not need an FFL to either buy or sell guns she only needs to have them delivered to an FFL holder for the buyer. Though one would think that if that is your business it might make it simpler for her t oreceive firearms but it is still up to the buyer to pick them via an FFL holder.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
You need an ffl if you are in the business to make money buying & selling.
I think sb is correct. This gal is way beyond just casually selling firearms once in awhile. I believe she would come under item # 3 below. I also believe it’s probably BS that she is selling these on consignment, or that the guns are from an estate. Just my opinion. Peter
Licensing Requirements (Dealer/Manufacturer/Importer/Exporter):
10. At what point should I obtain a Federal firearms license (FFL)? How do I obtain a FFL?
Federal law requires a Federal firearms license if you are engaged in the business as a firearms dealer, manufacturer or importer. A person is engaged in those businesses, as it applies to each license type, as follows:
1. Manufacturer of firearms — a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms manufactured (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(A));
2. Manufacturer of ammunition — a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing ammunition as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the ammunition manufactured (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(B));
3. Dealer in firearms — a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C));
1 Guest(s)
