Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
To me, it looks right. My opinion (based on photos only and what I can see) is that it is authentic. This ties into our other thread discussing the value of a factory letter. I do find it relevant that there are other known M1876’s that are known to be authentic – but their markings are also not recorded in the ledger. This reminds me of many factory engraved Winchesters (and Marlins) where the engraving is not mentioned in the ledger. Why, perhaps the most important feature of the rifle, would not be recorded in the factory ledger is beyond me. I would truly like to know if there is a non-random explanation.
So, other’s opinions on whether this is an authentic 1 of 1000?
Opinions on how much less it will bring due to the markings not recorded in the ledger?
I also find it interesting that this rifle was used heavily. Aside from the markings, this rifle surely has many interesting stories to tell.
Steve you will have to believe in the Story on this one. This gun looks real to me but like the description says there are a number of curious things about this gun. The Factory ledgers note 1 of 1000 on at least the first 10 or so guns. I have not seen any other ledgers to account for the other 40 guns and how the ledgers show them. According to the Factory ledgers no 1876 One of One Thousand was noted passed Serial #10096. If you want to know more buy Ed Lewis’ book on the 1 of 100’s and 1 of 1000’s or Herbert Houze’s book on the 76’s. There were some guns made like 1 of 1000 but they didn’t say 1 of 1000 on the guns.
The most interesting thing to me is the estimate of the new auction listing. The gun sold at a 2011 Julia Auction for over $80,000.00.
And the new estimate is $60,000.00 on the high end. Somebody’s losing some dough ray me!
I’d love to see the whole gun disassembled, as that might tell one more needed information. It’d be nice to know if the stocks have numbers on them. Also a closer look at the barrel would be warranted.
But I’d say from all outward appearances that the barrel looks like it is a genuine engraving. So what you likely have, was a original 1876-1877 made rifle that was a 1of1000 and took a hell of a roll from horse back in 1883 (or whenever), breaks the receiver at the top and bottom tangs, and needs a whole new receiver to replace / fix the gun into working order by the local gunsmith.
This scenario is no crazier or far fetched than that of the 1of1000 that had its barrel shortened on the receiver end by a period gunsmith, which is shown in the Lewis book.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
The rear barrel sight was changed as well. It had a longer sight covering part of the engraving and the factory sighting mark does not match to the front of the rear sight, it has a gap. It should be right at the point of the sight.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
1873man said
The rear barrel sight was changed as well. It had a longer sight covering part of the engraving and the factory sighting mark does not match to the front of the rear sight, it has a gap. It should be right at the point of the sight.Bob
See, I’m a larn’n. I never heard of a factory sighting mark but in comparing this gun to the 50-59 in the other thread, I see that little tick mark in front of the point and see what you are talking about. I’ll have to keep an eye out on other models to see if they all have them (or just some?).
73’s will have them if factory sighted. If the rear has it the front will have it. If the front sight is a rocky mountain and is sighted the tick mark will be at the very front of it and when someone replaces it with a 21 sight you wonder why there is a tick mark way out in front.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
Maverick said
The most interesting thing to me is the estimate of the new auction listing. The gun sold at a 2011 Julia Auction for over $80,000.00.And the new estimate is $60,000.00 on the high end. Somebody’s losing some dough ray me!
I’d love to see the whole gun disassembled, as that might tell one more needed information. It’d be nice to know if the stocks have numbers on them. Also a closer look at the barrel would be warranted.
But I’d say from all outward appearances that the barrel looks like it is a genuine engraving. So what you likely have, was a original 1876-1877 made rifle that was a 1of1000 and took a hell of a roll from horse back in 1883 (or whenever), breaks the receiver at the top and bottom tangs, and needs a whole new receiver to replace / fix the gun into working order by the local gunsmith.
This scenario is no crazier or far fetched than that of the 1of1000 that had its barrel shortened on the receiver end by a period gunsmith, which is shown in the Lewis book.
Sincerely,
Maverick
I see it sold for $27,675. That is well below the auction estimate of $40,000 to $60,000. Even more interestingly, that sure is way below the $80,000 it sold for at the Julia auction in 2011. The influence of what’s in (or in this case, not in) the factory letter was likely a huge factor. The, “story” outlined in the auction description didn’t sell for much. Anyway, someone out there lost a lot of money on this rifle.
November 7, 2015
Online
So….did someone get a bargain or did someone unload a pig in a poke?
Mike
steve004 said
I see it sold for $27,675. That is well below the auction estimate of $40,000 to $60,000. Even more interestingly, that sure is way below the $80,000 it sold for at the Julia auction in 2011. The influence of what’s in (or in this case, not in) the factory letter was likely a huge factor. The, “story” outlined in the auction description didn’t sell for much. Anyway, someone out there lost a lot of money on this rifle.
Yeah as for as 1of1000s go, somebody got themselves a very good deal in my opinion. I also think they could have marketed it better.
Also accompanying the rifle is a series of letters written in 1954 between Mr. H.C. Hinckley (owner) and Thomas E. Hall, then curator of the Winchester factory gun collection. Mr. Hinckley apparently sent an inquiry on July 13, 1954 to Winchester requesting information on a One-of One-Thousand rifle as Mr. Hall responded on July 19,1954 saying he would need the serial number and model of the gun in order to research the factory archives. Mr. Hinckley responds back on July 24, 1954 with the needed information. Interestingly Mr. Hall responds to Mr. Hinckley on July 27,1954 saying the factory records showed no indication that Model 1876 serial number 32642 was marked “One of One Thousand” and stated he personally knew of two other rifles that were authentically marked One of One Thousand and where not recorded as such in the records. Mr. Hall recommended Mr. Hinckley contact well known collector and author James E. Serven to properly evaluate the gun. Mr. Hinckley writes Mr. Hall on October 12, 1954 saying he contacted Mr. Serven and Mr. Serven “said without a doubt my gun is a genuine “One of One Thousand” and attempted to purchase the rifle from him.
With all this explanation on the provenance of the gun, Why wouldn’t they just go ahead and post these letters to give further credit for the gun, instead of only explaining them? You have to buy the gun to get the letters? I’ve seen RIA auctions do as much with such examples like this one. Which generally helps their cause / business.
The loading lever is believed to be original, but it does not follow the contour of the pistol grip correctly. The rifle features a set trigger, however the adjustment screw is broken. Locking pin is missing from the magazine front retainer band.
These items being wrong with the gun also didn’t help it much either.
I guess you missed your chance, as you could of gotten it for $28,000.00!
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
TR said
Did it sell? T/R
It appears so! If you look at the listing link at the bottom.
|
Auction closed on Friday, May 29, 2020.
|
It had only 3 bids.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
Maverick, When this happens at RIA it rarely has sold. The only way I know for sure, is when they mail the price realized and the lot number is not listed. That usually happens if it falls short of the low estimate by more than 15%. You do not know if the seller has a reserve. T/R
TR, yeah I would agree with you on that. So right now it is hard to say. I’ve seen this before and they just merely relisted the gun at the next auction and it bid and sold for more.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
Over the past 40 years, I’ve lettered a ton of 1876 models. There was a time when you could ask for a copy of the ledger page and they would send it to you. I have a number of ledger pages, one of which is for a carbine 32622 with half nickel finish. On this same page is the 1 of 1000 in question. I think someone should send for a letter on this serial number. Although it is rather hard to read, it clearly shows this gun as Receiver Only, set trigger, pistol grip. It also lists what appears to be a tang sight, but I can’t make it out. There is one other Receiver Only gun on the same page, but it was not shipped to the same order number.
That is very interesting. I note that the rifle, as it currently sits, has a set trigger. According to the Winchester staff researching the ledger decades ago, the receiver was shipped with a Vernier tang sight (which it still seems to have). So, apparently it was shipped as a pistol grip style receiver with a set trigger and a tang sight – that’s all. But to who? Somehow, this piece was certainly special. I’d love to know its entire history.
Steve, I think you’re right about the Vernier tang sight as that appears to be what the ledger page says. However, the tang sight that now on that receiver is the early thick base Lyman tang sight dated 1879. I call it the candy cane, because it has the very fine knurling that resembles a twisted candy cane. These are my personal observations on this rifle. I’m certain that the wood, barrel and tube are 100% correct. Ed Lewis states in his book that there were 22 1876 1 of 1000 rifles shipped in .45-60 caliber. My guess is that the receiver on the original 1 of 1000 had been in some way damaged and a new receiver ordered to repair the rifle. Unfortunately, without giving any of the gory details, I know from experience how easy it is to break the lower tang on a ’76 with a set trigger. From the overall condition and accumulation of dried crud, it appears to me that this gun has been as it is now, for a long, long time.
win4575 said
Steve, I think you’re right about the Vernier tang sight as that appears to be what the ledger page says. However, the tang sight that now on that receiver is the early thick base Lyman tang sight dated 1879. I call it the candy cane, because it has the very fine knurling that resembles a twisted candy cane. These are my personal observations on this rifle. I’m certain that the wood, barrel and tube are 100% correct. Ed Lewis states in his book that there were 22 1876 1 of 1000 rifles shipped in .45-60 caliber. My guess is that the receiver on the original 1 of 1000 had been in some way damaged and a new receiver ordered to repair the rifle. Unfortunately, without giving any of the gory details, I know from experience how easy it is to break the lower tang on a ’76 with a set trigger. From the overall condition and accumulation of dried crud, it appears to me that this gun has been as it is now, for a long, long time.
I think what you suggest is a very logical formulation. I like it. If this is what happened, I am not surprised there wasn’t more detail recorded in the ledger. The customer ordered what he wanted, knew what it was, and they shipped it to him. Given how well-used the rifle has been used, I’m not surprised the original one might have seen some adventure gone wrong. It would seem just the receiver was broken as his original wood and front end was usable. Probably the original tang sight was damaged as well. It sure would be fun to know the whole story 
1 Guest(s)
