I’m beginning to think Mr. Bentley may have purchased a few “fantasy” items. For the most part looks like pretty awesome stuff but caveat emptor indeed.

Mike

Indeed, this is not the only problematic firearm in Mr. Bentley’s collection. The following Winchester 1895 has a couple of serious originality issues not addressed in the description and one issue that is erroneously addressed:

https://jamesdjulia.com/item/53091-211-402/

The first issue is probably rather obvious to most Winchester aficionados.  The sling eyes aren’t factory Winchester pieces and don’t even appear to be of the same vintage as the rifle.  They also don’t appear in the letter.

Secondly, the Lyman 38 receiver sight is misidentified as a Lyman 21 sight.  This may not seem like a big issue, except the model 38 sight wasn’t patented until 1899, so it couldn’t be original to a rifle manufactured in 1896.  It also doesn’t letter with a receiver sight.  Although many Winchesters don’t have the sights noted on the letter, it should be of the correct vintage to be considered original to the rifle.  To say the least, it would likely be a difficult and costly task to find a correct Lyman 21 with finish to match this rifle.

In my humble opinion, the description for this rifle as it relates to the checkering borders on fraudulent.  The checkering is described as “H-style checkering”, but acknowledges that the factory letter specifically notes, “not checkered.”  They go on to explain this inconsistency by saying, “This appears to be a misinterpretation of the records or oversight in record keeping.”

It is common knowledge that there were mistakes and oversights in the factory records.  Add to that, the fact that it would be unusual for a beautiful deluxe rifle like this to be produced without checkering and, at first glance, this explanation seems plausible.  The problem is that the checkering on this rifle is not “H-style” as the description claims.  It appears to be a custom style not offered by Winchester.  I have a couple of checkered 1st model 95’s and discussed this with a couple of other collectors who have checkered 1st model 95’s.  All agree that the checkering on this rifle is substantially different than on ours.  A web search for other checkered 1st models and referring to Started47‘s picture of a beautiful rack of deluxe 1st models on this forum confirm that this is a custom pattern.

To believe that this rifle was factory checkered and that the letter erroneously states it is “not checkered”, the checkering would at least have to be of a known factory pattern.  It’s a shame that is was not left as it letters, because it would likely be a unique combination of deluxe, pistol grip, uncheckered, crescent butt.

It is certainly a beautiful rifle and Mr. Bentley may have known its flaws and added it to his collection anyway.  After all, not all collectors are hyper vigilant about originality.  But it is definitely not appropriate to offer this rifle as correct at auction.  Especially going so far as to claim that the factory records “appear” to be in error.

I don’t mean to disparage Mr. Bentley’s extraordinary collection.  The vast majority of the guns look right to me.  However, there are at least a couple of suspect guns being offered.  My advice would be to carefully research any of the guns being offered and don’t take the descriptions at face value.  

As I’m sure we’ve touched on before, buyers of these items have different motivations and different intentions.  These intentions range from those who are purely after financial gain (speculators) to those that assert they will be buried with their pieces alongside them in their coffin. There are those who have enough disposable cash that any sort of mistake or error in judgment will not have any consequence they might fret over.  There are those for whom enjoyment of their collection is for their personal satisfaction only vs. those that desire to show off what they have and hopefully receive rave reviews and appraisals from others.  There are those who buy items as dual use items where the collector aspect as well as the hunting/using aspect is important.  There are those for whom the historical aspect (e.g. vs. condition) is prominent.  There are those for whom condition is the pinnacle and those for whom rarity is the pinnacle.  I’m sure there’s many more perspectives than I listed, and of course, many collectors are a combination of what I suggested.  It makes for quite the interesting mix.

Exactly, Steve. Buy what you like; like what you buy.

Mike

Great discussion guys, I too agree that 1895 deluxe is suspicious with reference to the not checkered note in the letter. And the fact that the checkering is completely different then any 1895 deluxe I’ve seen. A gun in this sale (Lot 2055)the Cody letter states it’s a 45-70 and the gun is a 45-90. After looking at the photos I’m convinced this is a lagitimate arror made in the original recording at Winchester. As a collector I can except this kind of discrepancy but not some of the other stuff we are seeing.

steve004 said
As I’m sure we’ve touched on before, buyers of these items have different motivations and different intentions.  These intentions range from those who are purely after financial gain (speculators) to those that assert they will be buried with their pieces alongside them in their coffin. There are those who have enough disposable cash that any sort of mistake or error in judgment will not have any consequence they might fret over.  There are those for whom enjoyment of their collection is for their personal satisfaction only vs. those that desire to show off what they have and hopefully receive rave reviews and appraisals from others.  There are those who buy items as dual use items where the collector aspect as well as the hunting/using aspect is important.  There are those for whom the historical aspect (e.g. vs. condition) is prominent.  There are those for whom condition is the pinnacle and those for whom rarity is the pinnacle.  I’m sure there’s many more perspectives than I listed, and of course, many collectors are a combination of what I suggested.  It makes for quite the interesting mix.  

 Steve, Well said! Over my life I’ve probably been in all the categories at one time or another. T/R

mrcvs said
Lot 2269, with reference to a previous sale of this very same revolver in the Fall of 2008:

https://jamesdjulia.com/?s=113986&post_type=page_catalog&sort=catalog_aucID&submit=Search

PROVENANCE: The spectacular collections of Ray Bentley featuring the finest and rarest deluxe antique Winchesters in the world.

This is a Colt Artillery revolver, serial number 113986.  This revolver sold in the Fall of 2008 for $23,000 (pre-auction estimate at this time was $18,500 to $22,500).  I think the auction house has its own suspicions about this one, as the pre-auction estimate this time around, for the very same revolver, is $6,000 to $7500. 

This is indeed suspicious.  The reasons I can think of for a decline in the value of an “investment grade” firearm, which this clearly is, or is marketed as such (or at least this was the case nearly a decade ago) are, as follows:

1.  Disinterest in the make/model of firearm.  Clearly not the case, yet.  Artillery model Colt revolvers remain in high demand, especially when of high condition and especially if supported by a John Kopec letter (more on that later).

2.  A recession, where collectible items decrease in value due to less expendable cash available.  Clearly not the case.  If anything, this revolver was purchased just after the recession and should have experienced some appreciation in value, even if modest.

3.  A reworking/refinishing/alteration of a firearm where its configuration/originality differs from the time of last sale.  Photographs from 2008 and now suggests that no alteration of this revolver has occurred in the last ten years.  If one spends $23,000 on an Artillery model revolver, it should be in original condition, with a high level of condition, to bring that kind of money.  It also really should be supported with a letter of authentication by noted authority and Colt author John A Kopec.  Especially when this revolver is in the supposed upper echelon of condition.  http://www.johnakopec.com

Note:  When I use the term “original condition” with reference to an Artillery Model, I mean the condition since being altered to Artillery configuration, as all of these started out, originally, as Cavalry Models with 7 1/2″ barrels (Artillery Models have 5 1/2″ barrels, except for a few documented variations.

So, what explains the decrease in value from $23,000 to an estimate of $6,000 to $7500?  I will let you use your judgment, but further support to follow.  I will say that investing $23,000 and finding that my investment is worth about a quarter of what it was over a decade is not my idea of a good use of money.  About as bad as investing in General Electric stock!

Obviously, as stated, the auction house has its suspicions and yet the description, other than reference to provenance, is identical to that written a decade ago!  (Except, of course, a greatly diminished pre-auction estimate).

Without seeing the revolver in hand, I have my suspicions about the cartouches.  I think the one attributed to Odis C Horney may have been helped.  But this is merely speculation.

However, the major red flag here is the following:  The revolver is described as a “Rare, All Matching, Martially Marked Colt Artillery Single Action Army Revolver”.  IMPOSSIBLE!  Such a variation did not, CANNOT exist!  One variation does exist, uncommonly, where all serial numbers match, except for the one under the ejector housing on the barrel.  Is it possible this is an oversight on the part of the auction house (which would be inexcusable given that this would be one of the finest Artillery Models extant, marketed by a preeminent firearms auction house)?  Note the following:  “last four digits of serial number underneath ejector rod housing.”  As mentioned in the description.  So, they acknowledge the digits on the barrel exist, but no mention of not matching, and, indeed, the immediate description suggests that the serial numbers are nothing other than all matching.  Usually, Artillery model revolvers contain mixed frame, backstrap, trigger guard, and barrel serial numbers.  Again, there is an uncommon variation where all numbers match EXCEPT the barrel. IF all numbers match, then this revolver can be nothing other than a Cavalry Model in which someone took the liberty of cutting the barrel from 7 1/2″ to 5 1/2″.  This means this revolver becomes a Cavalry Model altered not during the Artillery reconfiguring.  As desirable as a Winchester with a cut barrel.  I’m not saying that, had this revolver been an original Artillery Model in this condition that it was really ever worth $23,000, but a 5 figure price tag, at least 5 figures somewhere, would not be unrealistic.  With a good Kopec letter, approaching a figure starting with a 2 would not be out of the realm of possibility.  Now, like I said, just a very nice Cavalry model with a cut barrel, or something even far worse!  I would “guess” that a minty Cavalry model revolver with a cut barrel has a value in the $4,000 range, maybe a little more, provided no other problems.

So, to advertise this firearm as “spectacular” is a disservice.  Maybe as a “spectacular” Cavalry Model with a cut barrel.  But, once the barrel is cut, it can no longer be “spectacular”.  I should note that if this was truly an Artillery model as refurbished, given the condition of this one, I would expect to see “feathering” on either side of the sight, as applied to the barrel when cut from 7 1/2″ to 5 1/2″.  This appears to be absent. 

Another lot in the very same auction, but not from Ray Bentley’s collection, is an Artillery Model with no serial number on the frame.  That, too, is a documented variation, but, frankly, these scare me a bit.  I had the opportunity to buy one once, and I hesitated and put my wallet back where it belonged, and this was indeed the right thing to do, as my suspicions were verified later.  In any event, the description states the following:  “Lack of frame SN makes this splendid conditioned Artillery a collectors enigma and worthy of further research.”  What research?  This variation has already been documented in several prominent texts.  If you are going to drop anywhere near what the pre-auction estimate of $15,000 to $25,000 on this one, shouldn’t you have documentation from John Kopec that supports this configuration?  At $385, John’s services are a mere pittance based on what one might “invest” or “squander” on this particular firearm.  Of course, walnut grips did shrink over time, but the fit of the grips relative to the backstrap and the finish on the grips (I suspect a possible refinish) suggests that this revolver might not be such a good investment after all.  But I digress…

So, I bring this up with regards to the Winchesters in the collection, especially since every description of provenance of every firearm in this collection references his Winchesters.  I sincerely hope that this is the only problematic firearm in Mr Bentley’s collection, and maybe this is the case here.  But, caveat emptor!  What, at first glance, seems extraordinary just might not be so!

I would very much like to apply the same critical analysis to the Winchesters in this collection, but, frankly, I have grown weary of all the tomfoolery, all the cheats, liars, and frauds out there who monkey with a fine Winchester to create an outright fake, or who even fake to match a letter.  Not that this doesn’t exist with Colts, either, but it seems lately this is prevalent with both makes, but moreso with Winchesters.   

MRCVS –

To me, this has the potential to be a “rare” all numbers matching artillery. There is no reason that configuration cannot exist. It does have the correct “OCH” (Lt. Odus C.Horney) cartouche on the grip dated 1901, indicating the conversion to an “artillery” model. You are correct, I think some information is missing too. I would like to see a factory letter. If it is all matching and checks out, it would be an unprecedented gun. Perhaps this is the reason it commanded a premium 10 years ago. Maybe they are goofing with the estimates – they are known to do this. Maybe I am missing something. 2 photos do not tell us a lot either.