Log In
May 2, 2009
Offline
Do you have pictures of the shortened forearm area detailing the extra slot. The workmanship of that would tell you if its factory.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
No just these pics was it Bob. I never heard of a Winchester rarity letter & wondered if the factory return and repair alteration hurts the value?, versus if originally ordered that way.
3” off the forestock is certainly different.
RickC
November 19, 2006
Offline
RickC said
No just these pics was it Bob. I never heard of a Winchester rarity letter & wondered if the factory return and repair alteration hurts the value?, versus if originally ordered that way.
3” off the forestock is certainly different.RickC
My answer to your question is it certainly does hurt the value. Had it originally been ordered with the short forearm (and that was specified in the factory ledger) that would be much better than a return and repair notation (that does not specify what happened). Not that there aren’t strong clues as to what happened, but clues are not the same as factory documentation that is specific. And, even if the return and repair specified exactly what was done, it would help a lot, but it would be the same as if it was originally ordered in that configuration. I believe my comments reflect the mainstream. There are always collectors who would not be influenced as I suggested. As they say, when selling a rifle, it only takes one buyer.
An interesting and intriguing rifle 
steve004 said
My answer to your question is it certainly does hurt the value. Had it originally been ordered with the short forearm (and that was specified in the factory ledger) that would be much better than a return and repair notation (that does not specify what happened). Not that there aren’t strong clues as to what happened, but clues are not the same as factory documentation that is specific. And, even if the return and repair specified exactly what was done, it would help a lot, but it would be the same as if it was originally ordered in that configuration. I believe my comments reflect the mainstream. There are always collectors who would not be influenced as I suggested. As they say, when selling a rifle, it only takes one buyer.
An interesting and intriguing rifle
Did you read the letter Steve? It’s not perfectly legible but John M describes the work.
November 19, 2006
Offline
RickC said
Did you read the letter Steve? It’s not perfectly legible but John M describes the work.
Rick – I did read the letter. And it helps a lot. I’m just saying that I believe it would be a another step up if the rifle were shipped in its present configuration and documented in the ledger as such. But, with the JPP markings, and the R&R order number stamped on the rifle, it is much more credible vs. if there was only a, “R & R” in the ledger to interpret. I’m not questioning the legitimacy of the rifle at all. I believe it is what Mr. Madl says it is. And it does, “all add up.” I’m just saying that many collectors are obsessively fussy and will often hold out for that ideal scenario where all features are original at time of shipment and recorded in the ledger. A somewhat parallel example: an ’86 in .50 express that was originally shipped in a different chambering, but returned to the factory for the barrel swap. Even if that swap were specifically documented in the ledger, for many collectors, that rifle would not be as desirable as one that had originally been shipped as a .50 express. Taking another step out, a rifle that was refinished by Winchester is less desirable than the presence of original finish from the time of original shipment.
I have to agree Steve. It’s cool but R&R is not the same as originally ordered & shipped.
RickC
Here’s a neat one Steve that I own. Originally ordered as a 38-55, but changed before leaving the factory. Owner must of had a soft spot for the 32WS like you and me.
RickC
November 19, 2006
Offline
RickC said
Here’s a neat one Steve that I own. Originally ordered as a 38-55, but changed before leaving the factory. Owner must of had a soft spot for the 32WS like you and me.RickC
Very cool! And it has a shotgun butt too. I love it! The rifle does, “letter” of course in the sense that the factory ledger documents the rifle as it currently sits. I would say the same for your 45-90 given the R&R work order is stamped on the rifle. Very desirable pieces.
March 31, 2009
Offline
Where is the proof that these modifications were made by the factory? I really don’t think Winchester would have let this rifle leave the factory in this condition. And yes, I read the letter more than once. I would need to see the order request or something in the Ledger.
November 8, 2011
Offline
I think the repair and return was done before Winchester started marking proofs on guns.
But, I’ve seen several JPP marks and, while I’m not an expert on this, the JPP marks in the photos are not like the ones that I’ve seen. I’ll have to go look for more of them to refresh my memory and get more familiar. As I recall, the JPP marks I’ve seen were generally pretty neat and aligned and had periods after each letter.
November 19, 2006
Offline
I recall we’ve discussed the JPP marks before – I think photos had been provided as well. Can anyone locate the thread?
steve004 said
I recall we’ve discussed the JPP marks before – I think photos had been provided as well. Can anyone locate the thread?
This thread here Steve.
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-rifles/1894-deluxe-on-gi/
The repair order number in the factory letter matches the numbers on the rifle, but I agree his initials don’t appear as straight as other examples.
RickC
November 19, 2006
Offline
RickC said
This thread here Steve.
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-rifles/1894-deluxe-on-gi/
Rick –
Thanks – that’s just what I wanted to see to refresh my memory. Lots of information and some good photos in that thread. I see that sb’s memory is correct and the JPP initials are stamped in a neater and more orderly fashion than how they appear on the rifle under discussion. I will confess that I don’t know exactly what to make of that point. One thing I know for sure is that I have a lot less knowledge and Winchester experience than John Madl has. The fact that he thinks the rifle is right is an important factor for me.
